ML20097C022
| ML20097C022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1984 |
| From: | Mary Walsh Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097C021 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8409140239 | |
| Download: ML20097C022 (169) | |
Text
l:
- -0D E Tr ~
U2RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM4ISSION
'84 SEP 13 NO:22 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.g ;,.
4-u.
C0CnEllad A M' "
In the Matter of l
SimiCH I
i TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING l
Docket Nos. 50-445-1 COMPANY, et al.
l and 50-446-1 1
- (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l Station, Units 1 and 2)
{
f CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO RICHMOND INSERTS AS TO WHICH THERE ARE NO MATERIAL ISSUES i
in the form of AFFIDAVIT OF CASE WITNESS MARK WALSH 1.
Applicants state:
8
" CASE has raised six allegations concerning Richmond inserts. These allegations relate to (1) the factor of safety used for Richmond inserts,-(2) testing of Richmond inserts, (3) the ability of Richmond inserts to resist axial torsion, (4) methods used to analyze connections, (5) bending moments in the bolts, and (6) sharing of shear loads. Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr., Robert C. Iotti and R.
~
Peter Deubler, Regarding Design of Richmond Inserts and Their Application To Support Design (' Affidavit') at 2-3."
l As has happened before in Applicants' Statement of Material Facts i
As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue, the statement contained in allegedly Material Fact 1 is misleading, because it gives the erroneous impression that CASE has raised only six allegations concerning Richmond inserts. It should be noted that this is not the same L
impression conveyed by the sworn statement of Applicants' witnesses at Affidavit page 2,.which states:. "This Affidavit responds to six CASE CASE's concerns regarding Richmond inserts are allegations.
i I
f 1
0
{
discussed in Sections VII and VIII of CASE's 8/22/83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations). Applicants' representation of CASE's allegations is correct as far as it goes, but it is simplistic and incomplete, as a review of Section VII and VIII of CASE's Proposed Findings plainly indicates.
Such a review plainly demonstrates that Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition does not adequately answer all of CASE's allegations.
Just a few of many specific problem areas and allegations which were also included in CASE's Proposed Findings (in addition to the specific allegations identified by Applicants in their statements) are as follow:
(1) Distribution of shear to total bolt pattern as if all bolts were effective immediately; (2) Distribution of shear to the bolt without regard to the actual contribution of the upper and lower tube flanges; (3) Disregard of the bolt stiffness factor _as contributing to the overall stiffness at the node point; (4)' Improper method for coupling out the torsion in the L
l tube; and checking LOCA seismic due to the structure on the basis of independent analysis uncoupled from other concurrent' loads; (5) Applicable regulatory standards; (6) Thermal expansion effects, tension and shear due to i
[
expansion plus tension and shear from normal operation; i
t 2
i.
(7) The results of Applicants' applying ACI-349-80, " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures' (not adopted by the NRC as a regulatory requirement, and which allows a factor of safety of two for concrete inserts) and all factors required would place Applicants in the position of being non-conservative by a wide margin in the design of Richmond inserts at Comanche Peak; (8) Applicants are required by law (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 1) to utilize the ACI code requirements or an equivalent code, because the procedures adopted by the Applicants do not address the considerations which resulted in the non-adopted code; (9) Failure to adopt the procedures set forth in ACI-349-80 or an equivalent code places Applicants in the position of being in violation of_10 CFR 50.34 (2) Novel Design Features and (8) Identification of Structures, Systems i.
l or Components requiring research and development; etc., etc.
)
2.
' Applicants state:
"In the manufacturer's literature regarding Richmond inserts, based on testing, the manufacturer specified the ultimate loads associated with the various sized inserts. In addition, the manufacturer selected a factor of safety, and back-calculated the corresponding allowable
- loads, i.e.,
the ultimate load divided by the safety factor is equal to the allowable load. This factor of safety and corresponding recommended allowable loads specified by the manufacturer apply only to the Richmond insert itself and not to the threaded rod (sometimes used s
3
m interchangeably with bolt) which may be procured separately.
Allowables for the threaded rod are those set forth in appropriate Codes, e.ge., for A-36 threaded rod the allowed load in shear is 17.7 kips. Id at 4."
I agree with Applicants' statements except where it discusses the allowable load for the A36 threaded rod (with which I disagree), which will be discussed in answer 7.
3.
Applicants state:
"In its (sic) design calculations, Applicants used higher allowable loads for the inserts than specified by the manufacturer. Accordingly, if the ultimate loads recommended by this manufacturer were applicable to Applicants' use of the inserts at CPSES, it could be viewed that Applicants had reduced the factor of safety recommended by the manufacturer.
Id."
I agree with Applicants' statements except where it states "it could be viewed." The Applicants' position in regards to this factor of safety (i.e., that a factor of safety of 3 which is recommended by the manufacturer is not a requirement at Comanche Peak) and they prefer to use a factor of safety of 2, as shown on page 19, (2) first sentence, of the SIT Report (NRC Staff Exhibit 207) (see discussion at page VIII - 4 of CASE's Proposed Findings):
"The allowable Richmond anchor tension loads were established by l
the Applicant based on a factor of safety of two of the ultimate load as determined from tests (Reference 7) and/or a shear cone analysis made by the Applicant."
This statement made by the SIT team was not rebutted by the Applicants. Therefore, the Applicants have reduced the factor of 4
L
safety recommended by the manufacturer, without any warranted analysis at the time they initially reduced it, and without adequate technical basis at that time. Their rationale as to why this is not the case (Applicants' Affidavit at pages 4 and 5) is inadequate and debatable, as will be discussed later.
4.-
Applicants state:
"The current allowable recommended loads for the inserts by the Richmond Screw Anchor Co. are based on tests conducted at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1957. M. at 5."
l I agree with this statement, with the following reservation. Any I
implication that the values listed are utilized at Comanche Peak is unwarranted. The values listed are not utilized at Comanche Peak, and l-no original calculations or documentation has been submitted to allow the Applicants to deviate from the recommended allowables.
In addition, during the 8/6/84 telephone conference call between Applicants /NRC Staff / CASE, I requested documentation that Richmond I
Screw Anchor Co. has a quality assurance program and tihat the inserts which are being produced now and being used at Comanche Peak are still I
[
a reflection of the tests that were performed in 1957 (Tr. 40 and 42; I
l see further discussion at Tr. 40 through 45). Applicants refused to provide this information and argued that it had no bearing on whether or not the statement in Applicants' pleading is true or correct.
Therefore, any implication that Richmond does have a quality assurance l;
program and that the inserts which are being produced now and are being l
l used at Comanche Peak are still a reflection of the tests that were performed in 1957 is unsubstantiated and should not be drawn.
5 1
L
5.
Applicants state:
" Data from the manufacturer's tests reflect that failure in all shear tests and the 1-1/2 inch tension tests occurred due to failure of the anchor stud bolts, not failure of the inserts. Failure in the 1 inch tension test occurred due to failure of the insert by concrete cone pullout." /1/
The concrete used by Richmond had a lower ultimate strength than sometimes is used at Comanche Peak. Therefore, the allowables recommended by Richmond were appropriate for the original design. See discussion later regarding Applicants' testing in answer 8.
I do not know what bolting material was used for the test by Richmond. It is not st'ated in the test report back in 1957 and Applicants have not stated that they know either. It could have been a high strength bolt, which is an important consideration, as will be discussed later.
6.
Applicants state:
" Failure of the insert can generally be equated with failure in the concrete resulting in a cone of concrete being pulled out (' concrete 4
cone pullout'.) Even if failure by internal damage of the insert occurs instead of concrete cone pullout, the load at which it occurs is essentially the same at which concrete cone pullout would occur.
Id,.
at 5-6 and Attachment B."
I cannot tell from Applicants' Table A on page 6 what is from the Richmond Bulletins and what is Applicants' opinion. For instance, I i
don't believe that the statement "xx Ultimate shear load was in excess of 27,000 lbs., hence allowable could be 9.0 kips" was made by Richmond Screw Co., but is only Applicants' opinion.
y/1/ There is no reference back to the sworn Affidavit of Applicants' witnesses. However, a review of Applicants' Affidavit indicates that the proper reference should be page 5.
i 6
t
-.--.____._.-.__,.m_
.m..
Reviewing Table A (page 6 of Applicants' Affidavit), it is apparent that the Richmond Screw Anchor Co. came to believe that it should no longer accept a factor of safety less than 3.0.
Richmond is in business to sell their inserts and it seems reasonable to assume that the higher the allowable, the more inserts they can sell because
.they have a larger capacity; at the same time, Richmond is liable for failures when the applied loads are less than the allowable.
Therefore, it is apparent that Richmond Screw Anchor Co. determined that they needed a higher factor of safety to offset the possibility of failures when a lower factor of safety was used. Using the higher factor of safety may have somewhat decreased a possible selling point for their product, but it also has lessened the chances for a failure a
of their insert under applied loads.
It should also be noted that part of Applicants' Statement of Material Fact is taken from a footnote (bottom of page 6, footnote 3),
while at the same time, another very important statement contained in the main body of the Affidavit is not included (last paragraph, page 6, of Affidavit):
"From the foregoing, it can be seen that the failure modes of concern are either failure of the insert through concrete cone l
pullout or failure of the threaded rod or bolt used with the insert." (Emphasis added.).
This is a vitally important (and misleading) omission, since the vast majority of threaded rods or bolts used with Richmond inserts at Comanche Peak are low strength A307 (or SA36) bolts.
See also discussion later in this pleading regarding Applicants' I
tests and Attachment B (which is Applicants' 4/19/84 Test Report, Shear 4
l l
7 i
and Tension Loading of Richmond Inserts, 1 1/2-inch Type EC-6W and 1-inch Type EC-2W).
7.
Applicants state
" Allowable loads and factors of safety concerning the threaded rods (bolts) used with the inserts are established by Code and adhered to by Applicants.
Id. at 6-7."
I disagree with Applicants' statement. Their statement is correct to the extent that this is apparently the value they now use.
During the 8/6/84 Applicants / Staff / CASE telephone conference call, included in documentation which I requested on discovery was documentation which showed the Applicants checked the capacity of the threaded rod or bolt (Tr. 45 and 46). Of the three calculations provided which were within the containment, where Applicants did calculate the bolt capacity, the bolt allowable used was 17.67 kips.
(See Attachment A hereto, which was marked by Applicants as Item 5; the first page of this Item is for support MS-1-002-003-C72S.) On the second page of this Item, which is for support RC-1-162-004-C81K, a Class 1 support, it states (alddle of t
l page) that for an A307 bolt the allowable used was 17.67 kips.
However, the value of 17.67 kips is the allowable shear at room temperature. The Applicants have neglected to consider the temperature i
effects on the threaded rod due to a LOCA. Such consideration is l
required by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.124 (Attachment B hereto), which j
states, in part:
"In selecting the level of service limits for different loading combinations, the function of the supported system must be taken into account. To ensure that systems whose normal function is to prevent or altigate consequences of events associated with an emergency or faulted plant condit. ion (e.g., the function of ECCS 8
during faulted plant conditions) will operate properly regardless of plant condition, the Code level A or B service limits of Subsection NF'(which are identical) or other justifiable limits provided by the Code should be used."
(B.5. of Regulatory Guide)
Thus, the value of 17.67 kips as used by Applicants is incorrect when applied to LOCA conditions.
Further, the correct allowable load for the 1-1/2" A36 rod is not 17.67 kips within the containment as Applicants havs claimed.
The yield strength of SA36 material at 300 degrees F. (LOCA temperature) is 31.9 kai (ASME, Appendix I, Table I-13.1).
CASE Exhibit 834 (admitted at Tr. 6471) contains a cover TUGC0 Office Memorandum from R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Engineer, to M. R.
McBay,_ Engineering Manager, regarding the attachment to the cover Nknorandum, Applicants' March 30, 1983, Test Report, Shear Tests on Richmond 1-1/2 Inch Type EC-6W Inserts. The Applicants determined the allowable shear capacity of the bolt by the equation:
fy = Fv A where Fv =.3 times the yield strength of the material i
A = cross-sectional area For a 1-1/2" diameter bolt, the allowable shear capacity for an I
A36 rod would =.3 times 31.9 times 1.767 - 16.9 kips, which is less than the 17.67 kips which Applicants currently use. Furthermore, the t
f Applicants compare the allowable value for an A307 bolting material for i
t
(
In their calculation for the A307 bolt designations, the Applicants used a value of Fv = 10.0 ksi, and arrived at 17.67 kips as 9
l L
i l
the allowable value. And this is the value that they have utilized in their calculations.
But the correct value for Fv is 7,kei, as shown in Table I-7.3 of ASME Appendix I.
Utilizing the correct value of 7 kei, the allowable shear capacity of the bolt is 12.4 kips. As admitted by Applicants in their 3/30/84 TUGC0 memorandum, "17.67 Kips is the CPSES allowable shear load for 1 1/2" diameter A307 bolts when used in Richmond Inserts." And Applicants have never used the lower, correct allowable shear capacity salue of 12.4 kips.
As stated at the bottom of page VIII - 8 of CASE's Proposed Findings, A36 rods and A307 bolts are the same and are used by Applicants interchangeably (see Attachment C hereto, CASE Exhibit 834, cover memorandum discussing A307 bolts, and pages 3 and 4 of Test Report discussing SA-36 threaded rods).
In addition, there was a discussion during the August 8, 1984, Bethesda meeting between Applicants and the NRC Staff regarding SA-36.
Although this discussion originated regarding U-bolts, it is applicable also to this matter and (as discussed in more detail later) was included as an open item by Applicants in the August 23, 1984, site meeting. From the 8/8/84 meeting transcript (pages 15 and 16):
"MR. 10TTI:
... ASTM specifications give you certain limits.
Carbon can be a maximum of.26 percent.
But, it could be as low as.04.
Maganese (sic) can go as high as
.8, and silicon, again, can be as high as.15.
Anything in between can be construed to be 36 type material.
In addition, there are other impurities that are permissible.
So, it is truly garbage material. I think that is one reason why very little data is available, when you test.
You test this A36 with the next A36.
4 "MR. FLECK (NRC): I don't know whether I would characterize that as garbage material or not.
I think there is a problem with this particular non-headed bolt that it originally was formed under the 10
. _ ~. - -=-- -.
A307 spec, and then for under the A307 spec which I would characterize more as a garbagt spec and A36 for non headed bolts then he said for anchorages wald have to be requalified for A36, which has auch more requirements say or tensile tests or chemical requirements than A307.
"MR. 10TTI: Well, when I meant garbage. You are right, I shouldn't use that word. To as the asterial has so mich variability.
It is almost impossible to test on e global manner to determine what it is going to test aside (sic). Because you would have to essentially test every chemical composition.
"MR. TERAO: Why do you say this was made for A3077 "MR. FINNERAN: A307 is the base expect (sic) for bolts.
"MR. TERAO: Not bolts, U-bolt material.
1 "MR. FINNERAN:
.. A307 is the base expect (sic) for bolts.
There is also the requirement, A307 for non-headed bolts which need upgraded (sic) to the tensile and cheelcal requirements of i
A36...
"MR. TERA 0:
In either case, whether they were formed (sic), I guess I was think (sic) in terms of the Richmond inserts also.
They have A36.
"MR. FINNERAN:
No.
That is A36 rod that has been threaded also.
"So, r.either the notes in the Richman (sic) inserts or he j
(sic) U-bolts are made to an L307 spec."
(Emphases added.)
In addition (based on the notes taken by Dr. and Ms. Boltz at the 8/23/84 site meeting between Applicants and NRC Staff, since we still do not have a copy of the transcript), it appears that Applicants are going to reanalyse SA36, as well as providing such additional information to the NRC Staff. From Dr. and Ms. Bolts' notes (the quotes here are only to indicate the beginning and end of the notes, not necessarily exact quotations of the individuals involved):
"DR. 10TTI: We're supposed to be providing additional information to the Staff.
l t
11
~.
="(1) Details of 8 Richmond insert patterns. We don't have those yst.
Our schedule is by end of next week (30th).
"(2) Have to have-information on the validity of the finite
. stress bending analysis, why it was necessary for them to do finite analysis and where the stresses are calculat.ed. We believed that it was a shear stress not pure Linding stress. One test was under torsion, one was under shear.
"(3) Simulating as a cantilever and a guided cantilever.
- f They have 2 studies, haven't given to Staff yet.
Load predicted by the test is higher and therefore not all bending, that's why we used finite element analysis.
"MR. FAIR (NRC): Did you rely on test load deflections?
s "IOTTI: Yes, that's why we used finite element analysis.
If the NRC does not accept finite element analysis, then we will have to reanalyze 12 supports.
"(4) Have to give to Staff about steel. Yes, we used SA36, we have to remnalyze this. (See past transcript, re:
garbage steel.)
"(5) Moment release. Some tube steels have Ms unreleased.
Answer is that none of those; Mz is always released.
TLis affects their Affidavit, where we got the Mx moment mixed up with the Mz moment. This affects their Affidsvit, where we got the Mx moment mixed up with the Mz adment. The people working on the Affidavit, they misunderstood. So we have to redo the Affidavit.
"(6) Provide prying action; have results on it but is unreviewed, but haven't shown to NRC yet.
Talking about i
t'ube sizes and prying factors and prying forces. See transcript of previous meeting.
"IOTTI: Back to No. 1: On the info on 8 patterns; I have not done anything'on it yet.
4 4
" FAIR: If we confirm the information (1) that it was never modelled as fixed, then your Affidavit makes unwarranted assumptions; your analyst confused Mx with Mz and it's longer than 20", in reality it's 48".
Was this study done in a generic fashion?
"IOTTI: We did it generically on a supposed worst case.
"IPPOLITO (NRC): When are these all due to the NRC?
- 3 "IOTTI: Everything's due by August 30."
s N'
~
12 s
w._
..L-
_..._,..-,m.
.. ~,
..-_m.__,_,m
.,_,__,._,--mm_,,,,-,----+m.,,,,,. - -..
8.
Applicants state:
"The major factor affecting concrete cone pullout is the strength of the concrete in which the inserts are placed. Significantly, the manufacturer's tests were conducted with concrete which had a strength of between 2850 and 3220 psi (approximately 3000 psi). While the concrete at CPSES is designed for 4000 psi, it actually ranges from 4500 to above 5000 pai.
Id at 7."
With regard to the first sentence, I agree.
With regard to Applicants' second and third sentences, the statements themselves and their implications are extremely misleading (to say the least), as is demonstrated from the following.
Applicants state that "While the concrete at CPSES is designed for 4000 psi, it actually ranges from 4500 to above 5000 psi."
- However, Applicants have forgotten to inform the Board about a few things. One is that during the time concrete pouring was taking place at Comanche Peak, Applicants had many field tested cylinders which failed to meet specifications. f.pplic nt: ci;; : ::: th:t ""'.11:
th: :::::::: et 0"C"O i: 2::i;;;d f : '-000 pai, it :tu 117 :: ;;; f :; ':500 t: ch:::
5000 y;i."
" :;.;;, Applicants also forgot to tell the Bcard that it was not until after concrete rebound hammer retests were performed that the strength of the concrete could be stated to range from 4500 to above 5000 psi in some cases, and that in other cases, the strength as indicated by the retests were NOT shown to be as much as 4500 psi as l
claimed by Applicants. Further, in some cases, there is no indication that some of the concrete pours were even tested by the Swiss hammer test, much less what the concrete strength was.
This can all be verified by documents which are either attached or which are CASE 13 L- :
Exhibits which have already been accepted into the record. A brief summary of pertinent parts of these documents is included as CASE Attachment D hereto, which was prepared at my request by CASE President Juanita Ellis; I have reviewed both the summary and the documents and the summary appears to be an accurate representation of those portions of the documents which I want to bring to the Board's attention.
In re'gards to Applicants' position that the concrete existing in the field is similar to that tested for the Richmond inserts, I have a few comments. A review of NCR's referenced in CASE Attachment D hereto indicates that the Applicants' concrete is not in compliance with the original design,-and the testing procedures used to certify this concrete is not in conformance with established codes /2/.
Based upon a review of documents attached and already in the record, it is apparent that the quality and compressive strength of the concrete at Comanche Peak is indeterminate at best, and in some instances appears to be deficient. This review calls into question the quality of all of Applicants' concrete, as discussed below.
/2/ Note by CASE:
It should be noted that Mr. Walsh is well qualified to speak to this issue. As indicated on his resume, his areas of
' knowledge include: having performed testing and evaluagtion of 0-listed expansion anchors in grouted block walls for IE Bulletin 79-02; having analyzed and designed retention structures, tunnels, pile foundation, and a sewer system; pipe support analysis and design; pipe stress analysis; matrix methods of structural analysis; structural steel design; foundation analysis and design; structural dynamics; pile design; prestressed concrete design; and concepts of tunneling.
See CASE Exhibit 841, Revision to Resume of Mark Walsh, accepted into evidence.at Tr. 7278; see also Board's 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), pages 14-16.
14
~
As stated in the preceding, CASE Attachment D hereto is a brief Summary of Selected Documents Regarditt Concrete Pours at Comanche Peak. All of the information contained in CASE Attachment D can be verified by reviewing the attached documents or the referenced documents already in the record.
One particular case in point has to do with below-design-strength concrete for pour #201-5781-001 for the Reactor #2 cavity wall. To briefly summarize the information contained in the documents:
On 2/16/76, field cure cylinders for concrete pour #201-5781-001 for the Reactor #2 cavity wall of 2/13/76 were found not be in a curing box; they should have been on the pour and being cured in the same manner.
(Also, field cure cylinders for SWI base mat pour #035-2755-001 were not on the mat and being cured in the same manner; they were on the side of a road near the sat and were found misplaced 2/16/76.) This DDR (the DDR was the predecessor to the NCR at Comanche Peak), No. C-219R1, was closed out "Use As Is," and the corrective action was indicated to include use of the l
curing reports rather than the field cure cylinder strengths to l
judge the adequacy of curing; and it is stcted " Attached also are i
copies of impact hammer tests performed on each of the affected concrete placements." However, there were nct copies attached of l.
impact hammer-tests (and no indication that any were ever done) for concrete pour #201-5781-001 for the Reactor #2 cavity wall, l
l and it appears that concrete pour #201-5781-001 for the Reactor l
- 2 Cavity Wall was never retested (although an impact hammer l
retest was done on the SWI base mat pour #035-2755-001).
15 L
On 3/23/76, this same concrete pour for the Containment #2 cavity wall (#201-5781-001) was again the subject of a DDR.
The disposition was that this DDR, No. C-246, was " cancelled since the i.
field cured cylinders... were not, in fact, representative of the cure of the concrete placed"; and this DDR refers back to the previously closed DDR (which was closed out witho,ut the concrete pour for the Reactor #2 cavity wall ever having been retested).
It thus appears that concrete pour 201-5781-001 for the Containment #2 cavity wall was still never ratested and that it was.used-as-is, with the field tested cylinder indicating a strength of 3559 psi-lbs. (which is under Applicants' stated design strength) and the two standard (or laboratory-tested) cylinders indicating a strength of 4257 and 4219 psi-lbs. (which is under Applicants' claimed actual strength of 4500 psi to 5000 psi).
The results of the brief summary of documents is very enlightening, and I urge the Board to read it.in its entirety.
I Specifically, the Board should note: On many of the DDR's (or NCR's),
there are numerous concrete pours which had field cured cylinder compressive strengths less than the 4000 psi which the Applicants claim is their design strength. However, although at one point Brown & Root informed Texas Utilities that they would retest each concrete pour which was listed on the deficiency report, the attached documents indicate that they did not.
In fact, on DDR No. C-449, for example, they only retested 6 pours out of 20; there is no indication that they 16
+
ever retested the others; on DDR No. C-457, they retested 2 out of 16; on DDR No. C-499, they retested 17 (plus one additional second retest of one pour) out of 39; on DDR N. C-529, they retested 14 (plus o
1 additional second retests of three pours) out of 22 (a larger percentage than they tested on any of the other pours involved in documents which are discussed); and on NCR C642, they retested 8 out of 20.
On CASE Attachment D hereto, there is a listing for several DDR's (or NCR's) which shows not only those field-cured cylinders which tested below 4000 psi-lbs., but also (marked by **) those standard (or laboratory-tested) cylinders which tested below 4000 psi-lbs.
It is important to note that in no instance were concrete rebound hammer tests done for the concrete where both the field-tested and the standard (or laboratory tested) concrete showed to be below 4000 psi-lbs.
All of the concrete rebound hammer retests were done for concrete pours where the standard (or laboratory tested) concrete initially showed to be 4000 psi-lbs. or above.
In addition, it is obvious (from the same continuing problems with numerous concrete pours for which the field-tested, and in many instances also the standard or laboratory-tested, concrete cylindere tested at less than the design strength of 4000 psi-lbs.) that Applicants did not promptly and effectively institute action to correct the cause of the problem. Further, despite the number and extent of the problems identified on the DDR's, all of them were marked:
" Reportable Deficiency:
No."
On NCR C642, Kevision 0 was not I
i 17
~.
4 -
available for file (which indicates a breakdown in document control);
C642R1 was issued to delete the requirement for a Corrective Action Report (CAR) to be written up; C642R2 was issued to add back the requirement for a CAR. That CAR, S-8, is also in evidence in these proceedings, and as is obvious from a review of it, was totally inadequate and did not identify the root cause or correct the real problem.
There are many other matters which I could (and probably should) address if I had more time, such as:
(1) Applicants appear to be assuming that a sister pour near one which was deficient is a good pour (based on the initial field and laboratory tests similar to those which indicated that the other pour was deficient) and they use it as a comparison for the deficient pour. Applicants chose to believe the initial test results for the good pour and to disbelieve the initial test results for the deficient pour.
How can they (or the Board) be certain that the tests for the supposedly good pour are correct and those for the deficient l
pour are incorrect? How do they know that it is not the other way around; i.e., that the tests for the deficient pour i
are correct and the tests for the good pour are incorrect?
I If this were in fact the case, it could mean that instead of the retests showing that both pours are good, it actually means that both p urs are deficient.
i 18 i
(2) There is enough variation of results within the same group of comparison tests to call into question the accuracy of the tests.
(3) There are documents in the record L4/ which indicate that 4
there were also extensive problems with the water meters which were used to measure the amount of water which went into the concrete pours; this could have an adverse impact on the quality of the concrete.
Applicants have stated (Affidavit at pages 16 and 17, and alleged Material Fact 14):
" Applicants have conducted a review of a representative sample of test reports of concrete used at CPSES to assure that such concrete is essentially the same as that used in the tests.
In addition, Applicants have reviewed NCRs regarding concrete at CPSES to provide additional assurance that the concrete used in these tests was representative of that used at CPSES. From our review, we conclude that test conditions are representative of conditions at CPSES."
I don't know what test reports and NCR's Applicants reviewed, but the ones which I reviewed certainly did not lead me to the same conclusion as reached by Applicants.
It should be noted that Applicants did not include any documentation to support their statements.
As stated previously, the testing procedures used to certify the concrete at Comanche Peak were not in conformance with established codes. This is especially important since these were retests done of
/4/ See CASE Exhibit 561, NCR G589, and CASE Exhibit 624, Corrective Action Request (CAR) S-6, both admitted into evidence in accordance with the Board's 12/7/82 Order (Proposed Findings of Fact; CASE Exhibits) and accepted into evidence during the May 1983 hearings.
19
concrete pours where field-tested concrete cylinders tested out at less than desired (in CASE Attachment D hereto, only those which tested at less than the alleged design strength of 4000 psi-lbs. compressive strength are discussed).
As indicated in the documents referenced in CASE Attachment D, the ratests which were done apparently used a concrete rebound hammer test to verify that concrete which appeared to be defective or weaker than
-desired was, in fact, adequate. This test is a rebound test and would fall under ASTM designation C805-79 (see Attachment E hereto). This ASTN specification states at paragraph 3.2:
"This method is not intended as an alternative for strength determination of concrete." (Emphasis added.)
This is the only applicable specification for a rebound test which I have been able to find in the limited amount of time I have had. As stated in paragraph 3.1 of ASTM C805-79:
"The rebound number determined by this method may be used to assess the uniformity of concrete in situ, to delineate zones or regions (areas) of poor quality or deteriorated concrete in structures, and to indicate changes with time in characteristics of concrete such as those caused by the hydration of cement so that it provides useful information in determining when forms and shoring may be removed."
It appears 'that Applicants have used a concrete rebound test to qualify substandard concrete to justify poor concrete in the field f5/.
Even if one were to accept the concrete rebound test as an acceptable method for ratesting the strength of the concrete (which f5/ It should be noted that (although the Swiss hammer test is referenced i
in some of Applicants' letters included in documents referenced in CASE Attachment D hereto) the specific type of concrete hammer test used is not indicated on the test reports themselves.
20
~..
would be contrary to ASTM C805-79), ASTM also sets forth certain specific criteria for testing and reporting, several of which Applicants have not met.
(I do not have time to go into detail regarding these, but some information in this regard is contained in
~ the attached documents f6/.)
There are also some additional cautions and drawbacks regarding the use of concrete rebound tffs which are discussed in Attachments E, F, and G hereto. For example:
The tests must not be regarded as a substitute for standard compression tests.
1 The method should be used for comparative purposes.
The method tests only the surface and does not give a good i
indication of the actual strength of the concrete.
The results of the tests are affected by a wide variety of g
conditions, such as the age of the test specimen, the surface and ifrnalmoistureconditionoftheconcrete,thetypeofcoarse aggregate, the type of cement, the type of mold, the cabonation of
/6/ See: Attachment E, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) l C805-79; l
Attachment F, pages 27-30 through 27-33, Handbook of Structural Concrete, Edited by: F. K. Kong, Professor of Structural l-Engineering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne; R. H. Evans, l
CBE, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds; Edward Cohen, Managing Partner, Ammann and Whitney, New York; and Frederic Roll, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Pencsylvania; Attachment G, pages iv through ix, x111 through xv, 3 through 51, and 166 through 169, TESTING HARDENED CONCRETE:
i NONDESTRUCTIVE METHODS, V. M. Malhotra, Head, Construction Materials Section, Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy
(
Technology, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada; published jointly by the Iowa State Uciversity Press and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
l l
l 21
\\
,m.
__.,___,....--.,m,_,.-__.__,,,,_,,,
,, -,,,~..
the concrete surface, the smoothness of the surface under test, the size, shape, and rigidity of test specimens, whether or not the same test hammer is used for the tests, hammer type, etc.
Much of this information is not indicated on the concrete rebound hammer test reports referenced in CASE Attachment D hereto.
Once Applicants discovered that there was the possibility of 4
deficient or defective concrete, what they should have done to test it was to drill a core sample for each pour and test that.
My brief review of the documents referenced in CASE Attachment D hereto, coupled with the statements made in ASTM C805-79 and other documents which I have attached, have raised doubts in my mind, not only regarding the Richmond inserts, but also regarding the quality of all of the concrete at Comanche Peak.
k 9.
Applicants state:
"From conservative ' calculations, the additional strength of the concrete of CPSES results in a much higher ultimate f ailure load of the insert than established by the manufacturer's tests. Accordingly, use of allowable loads higher-than recommended by the manufacturer was justified based on the higher ultimate loads for the particular circumstances at CPSES, and the safety factor specified by the manufacturer would be essentially met.
Id. at 7-11."
I disagree with the whole premise of first sentence. See answer 8 above regarding Applicants' erroneous statements about the actual strength of concrete at CPSES, which in turn means that Applicants' whole premise and justification has an erroneous basis. Therefore, 22
Applicants' admittedly "much higher ultimate failure load of the insert than established by the manufacturer's tests" is unacceptable, and, contrary to Applicants' assertions, the safety factor specified by the manufacturer would not be essentially met.
In addition, the Applicants are neglecting a very important factor when they use the equation shown on page 8 of their Affidavit. The equation shown is based on the strength design method (see Attachment H hereto, CASE Exhibit 778, ACI 349-80, " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-80) and Commentary -- ACI 349R-80," page 349-77, B.4.1.; see also page 9 of NRC SIT Report, Staff Exhibit 207). If Applicants' position is based on this design method, the Applicants do not apply it correctly. For the strength design method (also known as the ultimate strength design method), two factors come into play: They are the undercapacity factor and the load factor.
The undercapcity factor takes into account the mode of failure.
On page 8 of Applicants' Affidavit, they refer to the following equation:
T=4f(~fc)b This equation is the shear strength of the concrete per square in., for concrete pullout, as also referenced in CASE Attachment H hereto. The phifactor(f)isequalto.85forreinforcedconcreteand.65for unreinforced concrete (see CASE Attachnert I hereto, Applicants' 7/11/84 letter to Staff Counsel Geary Mizuno, which was sent without enclosures to the service list except for the Staff and CASE, 6th page of Attachment I).
23
As stated in B.4.1 of ACI 349, page 77 (CASE Attachment H hereto),
the use of these design provisions is based on the strength design method. The strength design method requires all loads to be increased by a load factor, which the Applicants have not done. What the Applicants must dct to utilize this equation is to increase all their loads by aload factor. For example, a load factor for dead load is 1.4.
A load factor for seismic is 1.9 (see Applicants' FSAR, Applicants' Exhibit 3, Section 3.8.4.3.2, equation 1).
The Applicants have not in the past or in their present Motion mentioned the additional requirement of a load factor when using this equation.
What the Applicants are relying on is the use of one equation for undercapacity (the phi factor) without recognizing a requirement for the load factor. The load factor and the phi factor are not used when using the working stress design method and applying a factor of safety of 3, which would cover an undercapacity factor (which is phl) and the overload factor. This is another case of apples and oranges, but in this instance Applicants are trying to mix them and tell the Board they've got a better product now.
Consequently, their statement that the allowable loads which the Applicants us2, which are admittedly higher than the manufacturer's allowables, has a large error because the Applicants forgot to increase the load, which is required when using their selected formula.
Therefore, Applicants' conclusion in the second sentence is based on erroneous information. This is further demonstrated in Applicants' Affidavit (bottom of page 10, continued on top of page 11) regarding 24
l the basis for the shear allowable value. In Applicants' answer, they discuss the ultimate shear capacity of a 1" insert's being equal to the tensile capacity and that the anchor stud bolt's shear capacity governed over the insert's capacity. This would indicate that the bolt governs and not the insert, and that the allowable should be based on the bolt and not the capacity of the insert (as the Applicants have
. stated in the first three sentences of their answer at the bottom of page 10). The last sentence in answer to that question (at the top of page 11) states that the manufacturer's working shear load is 18 kips.
-This 18 kips corresponds approximately to the allowable shear load of the A307 bolt (17.67 kips). The Applicants' method of combining an ultimate load and then using a ratio of a working load indicates the Applicants' practice of combining apples and oranges and arriving at a supposedly better product. It is also noteworthy that the Applicants neglected to provide any calculations or documentation to show that they actually did this in the original design.
- 10. Applicants states "The low strength threaded rods / bolts, used in the vast majority of all Richmond inserts of conc.ern, have lower allowable loads than the allowable loads for the Richmond inserts used in the CPSES design.
Accordingly, for the allowable loads for pure tension or shear, the governing limits on design would not be the allowables for the inserts, but rather (in most cases) the allowable loads of the threaded rods.
Id.'at 10."
I agree with Applicants' first sentence that the low strength threaded rods / bolts are used in the vast majority of all Richmond f
inserts of concern. As we have shown in answer 7 above, the allowable loads which the Applicants use for the threaded rods are also in error.
3 l
l i
25 9%-,,-3
,-y,--p,,
,,ww,,,._m_,,.,--,ov---,,,,.,,,wg..----wm.,m-ww,
But for those supports which do use a high strength bolt in which the insert governs, the Applicants' allowable values conflict with the manufacturer's allowables and are based on the misuse of the strength design method, as shown in answer 9 preceding.
11.
Applicants state:
" Shear' tests were conducted at CPSES on 1-1/2 inch Richmond inserts in March 1983. The results of the tests indicated that the performance capabilities in shear of the Richmond inserts used at CPSES exceed the design allowables by a ratio in excess of 3.3 to 1.
Because the tests did not go to failure, the actual ratio is higher and the results are conservative.
- d. at 11-12."
The shear tests to which Applicants refer in the first sentence are contained in CASE Exhibit 834 (Attachment C hereto).
The factor of safety which the Applicants reference is utilizing the lower allowable of the threaded rod, not the actus1 Richmond insert capacity. When utilizing the Richmond insert capacity, the factor of safety is equal to 58.3 divided by 25 = 2.33.
This is considerably 1
4' less than what the Applicants are trying to convey to the Board.
The test perfo'rmed in 1983 did not represent the actual concrete used in the field (see answer 8 preceding). As the Applicants freely admit (Affidavit at 11), the concrete strength utilized in the test block was 4600 psi -- however, this was based on field cured concrete.
The lab cured concrete utilized in the test was 5610 and 5570, and averased 5590 (see first page of Appendix 1 of Attachment A (the 1983 Test Report) to Applicants' Affidavit). Thus, as demonstrated in answer 8 preceding, Applicants are making an illogical and unacceptable 26
f comparison between field-tested concrete (used in their tests) and the concrete rebound hammer tested concrete (at Comanche Peak) -- apples and oranges again. If the Applicants wished to use and refer to the compressive strength of field-cured samples in their test report as being conservative, then all those NCR's could not have been dispositioned "Use As Is" and accepted based on the concrete rebound hammer test. One cannot compare the field-cured concrete used in the tests (which was acceptable for their test report) with the field-cured concrete which exists at Comanche Peak (which was unacceptable).
It must be remembered that the field-cured test results for Comanche Peak (as discussed in answer 8 preceding) for w;1ch the NCR's were written, reflect the actual field conditions, as do the field-cured specimens which the Applicants prefer to reference in their test report and in the Affidavit. But this is a comparison which Applicants obviously do not want to make, for obvious good reasons.
Since Applicants wish to discuss apples and oranges, I shall too, but I will separate them, rather than combining them as the Applicants have.
I shall first discuss what the results would be if one only considered lab-cured samples. In the second case, I shall discuss only field-cured samples.
Applicants have used lab-cured samples with a compressive strength equal to 5600 psi in their tests; however, the allowable values (based on a design strength of 4000 psi concrete) must be reduced to a 4000 psi concrete value. To reduce it to 4000 psi concrete, all one needs to do is to take the square root of 4000 divided by 5600 =.845.
(This 27 L.
't is the same method which the Applicants used to increase the tension allowable for the 1-1/2" diameter insert to 25 kips from 21.7 kips (as disussed at the top of page 11 of Applicants' Affidavit), although not explicitly stated that way.) Since the majority of the connections with the inserts'is made with an A36 rod, the allowable for the insert should be based on the capacity of the insert utilizing the A36 rod.
The Applicants, when testing the A36 rod with the Richmond insert, arrived at an average ultimate strength of 61.8 kips (see Attachment A, page 4, attached to Applicants' Affidavit).
Since we are concerned with 4000 poi concrete, the 61.8 kips must be decreased to 61.8 times
.845 = 52.2 kips ultimate capacity. Since the manufacturer requires a
- factor of safety of 3 and the Applicants claim they have a factor of safety greater than 3, all we need to do is take the tested strength value of 52.2 kips (for the proper design load) and divide it by 3, and we arrive at 17.4 kips, which is far less than the 25 kips which the Applicants are utilizing for the insert, as shown in the PSE manual (see CASE Exhibit 724, page 1 of 2,Section VI, accepted into the record at Tr. 6471). This is based solely on the capacity of the
-insert utilizing an A36 threaded rod, which is commonly used at Comanche Peak. (This should not be confused with the 17.67 kips which is the allowable capacity for an A307 bolt.)
The other case would be comparing field-cured samples. The field-cured namples utilized in Applicants' test have an average compressive strength of 4600 psi. The allowable Richmond insert value utilizing the SA-36 threaded rod would have an ultimate strength equal to the l
28 t.
square root of 4000 divided by 4600 times 61.8 = 57.6 kips. For a factor of safety of 3, the allowable working value should be 19.2 kips, still far less than the 25 kips which the Applicants utilized. But more importantly, is that if one were to accept Applicants' position (as stated in the Affidavit) that the average strength for the test was l
4600 psi for field-cured samples, then the Applicants cannot use the concrete that failed to meet the field-cured test results which are listed in the NCR's discussed in answer 8 preceding.
As demonstrated in the preceding, Applicants' statements that "the performance capabilities in shear of the Richmond inserts used at CPSES exceed tne design allowables by a ratio in excess of 3.3 to 1" and "the actual ratio is higher and the results are conservative" are incorrect and unsubstantiated.
In summary, the Applicants' test results, when I
properly and consistently applied, utilizing the SA-36 threaded rod, i
arrive at allowable loads less than the values utilized by the Applicants, but are approximately equal to the values recommended by the manufacturer. In addition, the manufacturer did not state in its test results what the strength of the threaded rod was for his test, the Applicants have no basis for assuming that it was based on a high-strength threaded rod. The Applicants had no basis for combining the i
ultimate strength design criteria with the working stress criteria (as j
shown in answer 9 above), or for assuming the concrete strength in the field (i.e., concrete actually utilized at CPSES) is of equal strength to that which was tested in Applicants' Test Report. Based on only T
these three items, it can be concluded that the Appataants had no basis 29
for having an allowable strength of the insert greater than the manufacturer's allowable, and in doing so, the Applicants have combined the working stress method with the ultimate strength design method, have utilized field-cured samples with lab-cured samples, and always taken the most optimistic approach, which has resulted in an unconservative and overrated capacity of the insert.
One additional topic which needs to be discussed is in regards to the generic deflection criteria which the Applicants use and these test results. (See discussion at page 4 of CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Susmary Disposition Regarding Use of Generic Stiffnesses Instead of Actual Stiffnesses in Piping Analysis.) The Applicants utilize a generic deflection criteria in the design of their pipe supports. When calculating the deflection due to applied loads, the support points are assumed to be fixed; i.e.,
they do not translate (nove in a plane). The Applicants also claim and have shown that they are currently using 17.7 kips for the SA-36 threaded rod in their 6
calculations. Referring to the load deflection curves provided in Attachment A, Appen'ix 3, third page from the last, the bottom three d
curves are for the SA-36 rod. On the left-hand margin is the applied load (Total Load - Kips) and at the bottom is the deflection due to the applied load (Deflection - Inches). At the design load for the threaded rod (i.e., 17.7 kips), test No. 9, the bolt had deflected.138 inches. In test No. 8, the bolt had deflected.363 inches. And in L
test No. 7, the bolt had deflected.425 inches. The generic deflection criteria limits the movement of the support to.0625 inches. The 30
deflection results from the Applicants' attachment clearly demonstrate that the Applicants are not exercising proper engineering when they utilize the bearing type connection which allows deflections to reach this magnitude (i.e., between 2 times and almost 7 times as much as
-allowed by the deflection criteria, or an average of.4 inches for the design-load).
It should be noted that the preceding is based on the results achieved in Applicants' tests. However, as discussed by Applicants' 4
Witness Dr. Iotti and Mr. Fleck of the NRC during the 8/8/84 meeting between Applicants and NRC Staff fl/ (and as demonstrated in Applicants' test), the material from which the A36 rod is made has a lot of variability, and there is no assurance tha+
ae actual deflections experienced would not be even greater than was shown in these tests.
12.
Applicants state:
" Test results for the specimens with and without the 1 inch washer were comparable, indicating that the presence of the washer has little effect on the perfo'rmance of the threaded connection / bolt or the Richmond insert. If any bending stress is introduced in the bolt as a result of the 1 inch thick washer, the tests (sic) results show that it 3
'is not significant.
Id. at 12."
l Applicants have not proved their statements.
Applicants state that a 1" washer was used in the test. However, in the Test Report itself (Attachment A to Applicants' Affidavit), it is stated (page 2):
i.
I I
l l
/7/ See answer 7, pages 10 and 11, herein.
l i-31
".... a 1-inch thick plate was inserted between the shear plate and the insert, representing the ' washer' used frequently at this location in pipe hanger installation."
There is no indication of how Applicants determined that the 1" thick plate accurately represented the washer which, according to
, Applicants' Affidavit, is frequently used.
It may be that it is representative, but there is nothing in the Test Report or Applicants' Affidavit to assure that this is true; therefore, Applicants' conclusion-is inaccurate.
Also, the Applicants are only relying on the test for high strength bolting material in regards to tests with and without washers, and not the SA-36 rods (which are used in the vast majority of all Richmond inserts of concern, as stated by Applicants in alleged Material Fact 10); the SA-36 rods were tested only with washers.
In addition, the SA-36 rods were secured to the plate with double nuts (Test Report, page 3).
This is not representative of the Richmond insert / tube steel /SA-36 connection used at Comanche Peak. For this reason, the Applicants' statement in regards to bolt bending is unsubstantiated.
A very important statement is contained in the Affidavit which is not included in the alleged Material Facts. At the bottom of page 12, j
- it is stated and underlined:
"These results justify the shear allowables regarding Richmond inserts used by Applicants in the design of CPSES."
(Emphasis in the original.)
As shown above in this answer and in answer 11 preceding, the Applicants' test results cannot be used to justify the shear allowables l'
which they are presently using.
32 I
--.e
., ~ -.
-y
..wo.
,, _,,.,-,~.,-,,.-,-v
,...,-_y-,wmy,_
%.m--._..m.,,m,,,-w,----.,~,~,,-,,,..o
- 13. Applicants state:
'#Applicants performed another series of tests in March and April, 1984.
These tests were performed to determine the load carrying characteristics of 1-1/2 and 1 inch Richmond inserts (the inserts of concern) when subject to tension only, shear only and combined shear and tension loadings. The test results confirm the judgment of Applicants that (1) shear and tensile ultimate capacities are nearly the same and (2) the actual factors of safety are in excess of 3.0 for shear, tension and combined shear-tension loadings.
Id. at 13-16."
I do not agree with Applicants' conclusions.
The Applicants recognize the difference between the ultimate load and the f ailure load (page 1 of Test Report, Attachment B to Applicants' Affidavit). It is the failure load which is of concern.
As discussed in answer 8 preceding, the concrete used in Applicants' tests is not representative of that which is used at Comanche Peak. The concrete used for the tests had a compressive strength of 5,450 psi (Appendix 2, Attachment B to Applicants' Affidavit). The concrete design strength at Comanche Peak is 4000 psi and field tests have shown the concrete strength is less than 6000 psi.
But assuming a 4000 lb. design strength, the factor of safety presented by Applicants should be reduced by a factor of the square root of 4000 divided by 5450 =.86.
Therefore, the test results are not reflective of the design of Comanche Peak.
Also, these tests were conducted using rebar. As discussed in more detail in answer 15 following and in CASE's Proposed Findings (VII
- 16 through -23 and XXVII - 42 through -48, especially pages VII - 21 and -22, and XXVII - 42 through -48), there are places at Comanche Peak where such rebar does not exist. As the Applicants have shown the NRC 33
l l
i Staff, the difference between the phi factor with rebar and without rebar is.85 to.65, respectively (see answer 9 preceding). Since
~
there are areas where reber could be missing or rebar will not be within the shear cone of the Richmond insert, the factor of safety which Applicants arrived at should also be reduced by the ratio.65 divided by.85 =.76.
Therefore, the test results are not representative in all cases to Comanche Peak in this regard. (See also answer 15 following.)
Utilizing just the two items discussed in the previous two paragraphs, the average factor of safety for the 1-1/2" Richmond insert in shear reduces from the 3.49 listed on page 5 of Attachment B to Applicants' Affidavit to 2.28.
On page 6 (of Attachment B to Applicants' Affidavit), the average factor of safety for tension reduces to 2.13 from 3.26.
For the combined shear and tension test (page 7, Attachment B to Applicants' Affidavit), the average factor of safety would be reduced to 2.4 from 3.68.
It should be noted that in all of these cases, this is the average factor of safety, not the j
minimum factor of safety.
Also, these tests do not reflect the Richmond insert /SA-36 rod i
r combination. Only high-strength A-490 bolts or SA-193 Grade 57 threaded rods were used in the tests.
(See page 14 of Applicants' Affidavit, and page 4, ites 3.0 TEST PROCEDURE, Attachment B to Applicants' Affidavit.)
i Further, contrary to Applicants' statements at the bottom of page 14 of their Affidavit, Applicants have used the wrong allowables for inserts which have been used at Comanche Peak, as discussed previously.
i I
l 34 i
l
The Applicants also neglected to test for the yield point; i.e.,
the load at which the insert and threaded rod no longer resume their original position. By using the allowable values for tension and shear and increasing those values by 1.5 (factor of safety for elastic analysis), then testing the connection to that load, when the load is removed the threaded rod and insert should be in their original position. This should be done several times, so that cyclic capabilities can also be determined.
The Applicants, in addition, did not consider the material properties in the event of a LOCA and how the insert would behave. For additional information, see CASE's Proposed Findings at page VIII - 15 through VIII - 17.
For the reasons stated in the preceding, Applicants' test results are not representative of the actual conditions needed at Comanche Peak, and the test results cannot be used to draw the conclusions which Applicants have attempted to reach.
By reviewing the test results performed by the Applicants, and the procedures that the~y utilized, some conclusions about friction-type connections can be drawn.
In test A, it is observed that there was no movement of the bolt in the tension test for the first applied load.
The applicants' procedure was just to tighten the bolt snug tight. As can be demonstrated, the snug tight for the tension test was sufficient to prevent movement, but not sufficient to avoid movement in the shear test.
35
1 1
- 14. Applicants state:
"The concrete used in the tests was representative of concrete in the plant. Applicants have conducted a review of a representative sample of test reports of concrete used at CPSES to assure that such concrete is essentially the same as that used in the tests.
In addition, Applicants have reviewed NCRs regarding concrete at CPSES to provide additional assurance that the concrete used in these tests was representative of that used at CPSES. M. at 16-17."
See answers 8 and 11 preceding.
- 15. Applicants state "To be very conservative, the teste conducted in March 1984 employed two layers of reinforcement rods rather than 4 layers caed in the prior test and at CPSES. The capacities of the Richmonds were not impaired even with this reduced rebar.
Id,. at 17."
As the Applicants stated in their 7/11/84 responses to questions posed by the NRC Staff (CASE Attachment I hereto), on page 6 of Applicants' attachment:
"It is not intended to imply that there is little difference between no reinforcement and reinforcement, but simply that there is little difference between types of reinforcement, le 2 layer vs 4 layer, reber size chosen."
The placement of the insert with respect to the reinforcement is very critical to its capability. For an example, in a square that is 12" x 12" which is bounded by reinforcement on all four sides, if one were to place the insert at any one of the corners, the reinforcement would assist the insert in its strength capability. If one were to take the center of the square and place an insert, and the reinforcing bars were not within the shear cone of the insert, as would be the case with this example, the reinforcement does not assist in the Richmond 36
Insert's strength capability. That is why it is important to test the Richmond insert in unreinforced concrete. During construction, Richmond inserts are attached to the form work for walls, beams, and ceilings, and the location of the Richmond insert with respect to the reinforcement is not determined. Since the Applicants have not demonstrated that all the Richmond inserts are located adjacent to reinforcement, the test should have been done in anreinforced concrete.
Also, testing in unreinforced concrete is necessary to accurately represent what actually exists in some places at Comanche. Peak, as I
discused in answer 13 preceding.
9
- 16. Applicants state:
l "The difference in reinforcement in the concrete (a concern expressed by CASE) is not significant when compared to other factors. If rebar l
was (sic) a dominant factor, it would be evident from a comparison of the results of the March 1983 tests (using 4 layers of reber) acd the March 1984 tests (using 2 1syers of reber). However, a comparison of those results (including bolt deflections) indicates that the amount of rebar is not a significant factor. JJ!."
t j
See answere 8 and 15 above.
{
- 17. Applicants statet i
"To study the validity of Applicants' use of its calculational
{
methodology, Applicants performed detailed finite element analyses utilising the STARDYNE computer program. The results of the analyses indicate that the formulas used by Applicants did not precisely model the resulting forces. The formulas used by Applicants to calculate i
axial torsion resulted in a calculated force that was low for all but six supports by as much as 18 percent (in six specific supports it was low by 332). However, because of conservatise in the methodology and process used, in all cases allowables would not have been exceeded.
Id,. at 21-24."
i r
i 37
Applicants admit above that, according to their own STARDYNE finite element analysis, the "forumlas used by Applicants to calculate axial torsion resulted in a calculated force that was low for all but six supports by as much as 18 percent (in six specific supports it was low by 33%)" (emphasis in the original). When one combines this fact with the fact that Applicants were also using assumptions for the amount of rebar and the strength of concrete which were fatally flawed, Applicants' stateasnt that "because of conservatism in the methodology a
and process used, in all cases allowables would not have been exceeded" t-is unsupported, undocussated, and without technical merit.
Applicants'
" conservatism" is in fact unconservative, and misleading as shown in answer 19 following. (See Footnote 2, page 14, herein.)
The Applicants utilise an unusual design configuration, as has been stated before in the record, and none of the Applicants' witnesses or CASE's witnesses had seen this type of support configuration (see
-CASE's Proposed Findings, pages VII - 1 through -3).
The Applicants have not shown proof why they decided to use this unique design generically throughout the plant. The Applicants have attempted to t
utilise a finite element analysis to demonstrate that their position 1
i was correct. The results of the finite element analysis are summarised on pages 22 and 23 of Applicants' Affidavit. The results of the I
analysis were provided with only a summary and a math model, but no calculstions or assumptions utilised in those calculations were provided.
d 38
. -. -. ~ - -
l l
Referring to items a) through g) in Applicants' Affidavit at pages 22 and 23:
Ites a) of Applicants' summary proves CASE's point. It should be remembered that Applicants' espect witnesses argued that the center of compression would not be at the tangency point of the tube steel member because there would be some deformation of the tube and the centerline I
would not be at the tangency point (see CASE's Proposed Findings at pages VII - 31 through VII - 33). As the Applicants now adelt (page i
22, a), of Applicants' Affidavit), Mr. Doyle, as well as the Board, was correct with regards to the tangency point.
It should be noted that this is contrary to what Applicants represented to the Board (page 41, Applicants' 1/17/84 Notion for Reconsideration of Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), where they discussed their phantos expertet "We have no references to additional evidence to help clarify.
However, we have obtained the independent opinions of outside experts on this point, and each agrees with the positions taken by Applicants and Staff."
(See also Board's 12/28/83 Memorandue and order (Quality Assurance for Design) at pages 62-63, and Board's 2/8/84 Memorandus and Order (Reconsideration Concerning Quality Assurance for Design),
at page 32.)
Due to the fact that I have not seen the calculation results or assumptions used for those calculations, I canrot agree with Applicants' last statement in a).
It would appear that the Applicants assumed that there were no pretensioned forces to hold the bolt down and therefore thev have not considered the consequences when using a high-strength bolt in this type of connection when the bolt is pre tensioned.
19
The Applicants state in item b) that the distribution is 4
reasonably linear. A parabolic curve can also be considered reasonably linear. Referring to Attachment E-2, Figure E-2 (b), it will be noted, and it is underlined "NOT TO SCALE.
Starting at Section (1)-(l), we see there is a difference between 38# and 40#, which is 2#.
If the distribution were in fact linear:
the next value should be:
but it isn't, it is:
36#
37#
34#
36#
32#
- and it is,32#
30#
27#
28#
22f 26#
11#
24#
l#
Of the nine points considered, only two of them were on a straight line. (Sections (5)-(5) and (9)-(9) could be similarly analyzed.) The same thing could be said for a line drawn through a circle, leading to the conclusion that circles are not circular but linear.
The attacbed diagram illustrates what the load distribution would be to scale (see CASE Attachment J hereto).
In item c), the Applicants address the non-linear (termed by Applicants to be " quasi-linear" which is obviously non-linear) force distribution in the concrete, which is contradictory to their item b) above. In the second paragraph, the Applicants make an attempt to qualify their mistake. As shown in item b) above, there is no, 40
triangular distribution of the stresses. But if one were to say there 1
l 1s a triangular distribution going from the centroid of the bolt to the edge of the washer, the centroid of the load may coincide with the tangency of the tube steel member; but that is immaterial and was not discussed prior to this Motion and is just be a coincidence. There is no basis for it.
Therefore, Applicants' statements regarding "the neutral axis adjusting accordingly" is unsubstantiated.
The Applicants claim in item 6) that there is less than a 25 per cent increase in bolt tension when considering the tangency point which CASE has argued is correct. They refer back to note 9.
However, note 9 states that there is a 33 per cent increase, which does not appear to be consistent within the Affidavit. I have not seen any calculations on which Applicants relied regarding this, but it does appear that the Applicants are addressing only four supports out of the whole plant which fall into this category. They do not mention the other supports which would have an increase.
The sensitivity study referenced in item e) was not provided by Applicants with their Motion. The stiffness of the concrete is proportional to the concrete compressive strength; the concrete compressive strength is in strong dispute (see answer 8 preceding).
One cannot tell exactly what Applicants mean when they state:
" Applicants ran a sensitivity study and the stiffness of the concrete was varied." It is not clear if they mean that they ran a sensitivity study in which they varied the stiffness of the concrete, or if they ran a sensitivity study and found from that study that the stiffness of 41
the concrete varied. With regard to Applicants' statements regarding the distribution of compressive stresses being " essentially" linear, see discussion regsrding item b) preceding. Since I do not have l
Applicants' sensitivity study, I have reason to disagree with their l
last sentence.
If the concrete lacks sufficient stiffness compared to the tube steel member, the centroid of the compressive force in the concrete would be less than the tangency point where the tube steel member contacts the washer.
It appears from what Applicants have stated in item f) that when the bolt is at the maximum value permitted by the design criteria, the effect is as if one had drilled a hole through a circular pipe. When one torques the circular pipe, the only restraining effect could be due to the bolt, since there is no tangency point (because it is circular);
i.e.,
there is no coupling action between the bolt and the washet. as Applicants have stated. This is a complete change in the design s
criteria and the results would indicate that the bolt must take the total torsional load by itself without any coupling. See CASE Attachment K hereto, CASE Exhibit 669B, Attachment to Doyle Deposition / Testimony, item 8P.
Regarding iten g), see answer f) preceding.
Further, Applicants' statement (middle of page 23 of Affidavit) that this will result in no adverse effect on the safety of the plant remains unproven. Nowhere in their discussion do the Applicants discuss the deflection of this type of connection. The deflection is related to the generic stiffness Motion for Suceary Disposition. As 42
will be shown later in answer 18, the combined effect of the Richmond insert /A307 bolt / tube steel connection exceeds Applicants' prophesied factor of safety as well as exceeding the assumed deflection criteria of the supported connection by an amount equal to infinity. The consequences of the results due to the tests were not discussed within this portion of Applicants' Affidavit, but I shall discuss them later.
On page 23-of their Affidavit, Applicants allege that "As discussed below, this will result in no adverse effect on the safety of the plant."
(Emphasis in the original.) However, it should be noted, first of all, that Applicants do not state that they included all supports in Table 1.
They use two cavists when they use the terms "may tg, primarily loaded". This would appear to mean that they are not sure that they considered all supports and that they did not discuss those supports which were loaded previously with 49% in shear or torsion. In addition, the Applicants state that-instances where item f) above exists are few, but they admit that 18 out of 102 supports exhibited the extreme case, which is 18%. The Applicants did not state what percentage of the supports were in between the extreme case of item f) above and the cases where the bolt was on the centerline of the tube.
I asked for (on discovery) the calculations and drawings for 20 supports out of the al:taged 182 supports which were the basis of Applicants' analysis regarding A500 Steel; these 20 supports were to meet the following criteria:. large bore; large loads (both in magnitude and % of allowable); with Richmond inserts where there are two or more spans; and members that are in bending.
It should be 43
noted that none of those supports were included in Applicants' Table 1.
Included in those 20 supports were 5 supports which had Richmond inserts where Richmonds were called out on the drawing (some had Richmonds which were attached to other supports, but I did not include those). On those 5 supports there were 23 Richmond inserts. On drawing AF-1-001-035-Y33R (CASE Attachment L hereto) there are 3 Richmonds shown but the location with respect to the centerline of the tube is not indicated. In regards to the remaining 20 Richmonds, 14 of the Richmonds -- or 70% -- were located off the centerline of the tube.
This calls into question Applicants' statement on page 23 of their Affidavit where they state that "the preponderant number of supports (90%) have tube steel connected to Richmond inserts at the centerline of the tube steel (zero offset) or with small eccentricities".
It is not reasonable to believe that the the small random sample which I looked at in regards to a completely dif ferent Motion for Summary Disposition would have 70% of the known Richmond inserts located off the centerline of the tube if Applicants' statement were true. Not
.only are the Richmonds shown to be off the centerline of the tube, on drawing CC-1-028-024-S33R, the Richmond is at an angle (as shown in Sections E-E and B-B) which was not considered by the Applicants in their Motion. Also, on this same drawing, one will note that there is no washer between the tube steel member and the face of the concrete.
This condition was not considered by the Applicants in their Motion.
On page 24 of Applicants' Affidavit, they state that ".
. the maximum possible underestimation of the tension resulting in the bolt 44 j
is about 25 percent." But in Table 1, Part A, attached to Applicants' Affidavit, is a list showing bolt interactions. A bolt interaction less than or equal to 1 is commonly considered acceptable. If the I
Applicants had underestimated by 25% or 33%, the new bolt interaction should not exceed 1.33.
But reviewing Table 1, many of the bolt interactions exceed 1.33.
In addition, the Applicants will only be addressing in the future those bolt interactions which are designated with an FE (see footnote at bottom of Table 1). The 25% increase which the Applicants are discussing at such length in their Motion is just a small part of the problem, as will be discussed following.
- 18. Applicants state:
"In the process of performing the finite element analyses, regarding axial torsion, Applicants noted that when it was assumed that no clearance existed between the tube steel and the bolt, a shear couple is created which places the bolt in bending. The effect becomes pronounced when the bolt holes are' offset to their largest values. To investigate the possible adverse effects on the connections, Applicants developed a screening criterion based on very conservative assumptions.
The factors of safety inherent in the methods of calculation employed to establish the criterion are in excess of 10.
Id. at 24-5."
I disagree with Applicants' statements. The screening criterion which Applicants claim is based on very conservative assumptions is not conservative. The factors of safety in excess of 10 which Applicants claim are " inherent in the methods of calculation employed to establish the criterion" are in fact incorrect and undocumented, as discussed below.
On pages 24-25 of Applicants' Affidavit, they discuss the
" screening criterion" by which they judged which particular supports 45
require closer scrutiny; they claim this this screening criterion was
" based on a very conservative analysis." I disagree with this representation. The Applicants are attempting to justify a criterion which allows bolt bending to exceed the interaction ratio of 1 and go l
as high as 1.75.
The two bases for their decision are as follows:
(1) 'The Applicants claim the FE method predicted the stress to be 33% lower than using standard manual calculations. Although what they stated in this regard is true, it is based on an inadequate numberofelements/8/.
In Attachment E-3 to their Affidavit, the Applicants state that the average stress for node point 311 is based on averaging the results of elements 287, 297, 307, and 317. Figure E-3(1) contains a portion of the math model for this analysis. The averaging of these four particular elements to determine the stress at node 311 is improper. Going for the center of the bolt node 281 to node 311, there is only one node point in between; i.e., node 291. The Applicants' method of modelling a small number of large elements resulted in the lower stresses. To demonstrate that the position the l
Applicants took was in error, consider the following:
l Figure 1 (see CASE Attachment M hereto) is of a plate 1 inch wide and 4 inches long. To determine the moment of inertia, one can use the 3
1/12 bh standard equationgor can use a more basic approach which is to use the definition of the moment of inertia, and that is the summation of each f
element's area times the distance from the center of gravity of each area to the axis under consideration, commonly the neutral axis (NA).
For Figure 1, the f8/ As shown in my resume, I do have knowledge in the finite element method of analysis. (See footnote 2, page 14, of this pleading.)
l 46 l
i moment of inertia is equal to 5 in.4 If one were to use just two areas instead of four, the moment of inertia would be (2)(1) + (2)(1) =
4 in.4.
As the number of areas gets larger and each element's area
[
gets smaller, the value for the moment of inertia approaches 5.33 in.4
)
The use of integral calculations transforms this summation of areae 3
times distances squared for a rectangle to 1/12 bh. The same process l
can be demonstrated for a circle, which is under consideration.
To determine the section modulus, the moment of inertia is divided by the distance to the outermost centroid. For Figure 1, the distance to the outermost centroid is 1.5 inches. The resulting section modulus is 5/1.5 = 3.33 in.3 For just two elements, the section modulus is 4/1 = 4 in.3 For the standard equation, based on integral calculus, the section modulus is 5.33/2 = 2.67.
The difference between the two values (i.e., with four elements versus the value based on integral calculus) is 3.33/2.67 - 1.25; and for two elements, the ratio is 4/2.667 = 1.5.
In other words, when more elements are used, the results will approach the value obtained by integral calculus (or, as the Applicants refer to it, " simple flexural behavior").
For the Applicants to obtain more realistic results, the finite element analysis would require more elements that are smaller.
Although the stresses which the finite element analysis shows will always be on the low side, the values will approach a more precise value.
(2) The Applicants also state that the interaction ratio can be as high as 1.75 due to the allowable bending stress. The Applicants claim that the allowable bending stress is equal to.75 of yield. The 47
Applicants have decided they do not need to comply with this requirement and are using the allowable bending stress equal to the yield point (see page 23 of Applicants' Affidavit. The Applicants' only reason for their position not to follow this requirement are the results in their Attachment F.
The results of the tests do not defend Applicants' position, as will be discussed below.
Due to an improper finite element analysis and inadequate interpretation of tests results (which has led the Applicants to believe they can ignore design requirement allowables), the Applicants have no justification for exceeding a strees ratio of 1.
For these reasons, the Applicants should be required to meet the stress ratio criteria of no greater than 1, and all the supports listed in Table I with bolt interactions greater than 1 should be reanalyzed taking into consideration the comments shown in answer 7 preceding and answer 19 following.
The test results in Attachment F to Applicants' Affidavit have been misinterpretted by the Applicants. Before going any further, it should be stated that the test information provided by the Applicants is not complete.
Information.which is lacking, for example, is the concrete test report, the mill report for the rods, information regarding the loading configuration, calculations to show the design capacities that are listed in Table F-1, to list just a few.
In Table F-1, the deflection at design capacity is listed. The Applicants indicate the deflection of the tube steel for the different loading conditions. For the 6 x 6 x 1/2 zero offset, the deflection 48
[
for methods A, B, and C exceed.09 inches at the design load. The Applicants have a generic deflection criteria which limits the deflection to.0625 inches (or 1/16"). The Applicants assume that the support connections do not move when calculating the deflections. We
.now see that the support connection, which was assumed not to move, actually exceeds the deflection criteria by itself. This support point movement which the Applicants neglected in the design is referenced in the Affidavit included in CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on generic stiffnesses, on page 4.
In addition, this deflection would be added to the 3/16" deflection discussed on pages 12 and 13 of that same Affidavit. For this additional deflection, the Applicants need to go back and recalculate the stiffnesses of all the supports.
Method D in Table F-1 indicates that the design capacity of the connection for a 6 x 6 x 1/2 in. tube steel member is 2.45 k.
The deflection is listed as only.01 inches, which still is not in compliance with the assumption fo zero movement, but is 9 times better than the method A, B, and C.
The Applicants claim that the small design capacity and the small deflections are too conservative.
I do not see where the conservatisms are. The design capacity, I assume, is based on a linear elastic analysis and is in compliance with Appendix 17 of Subsection NA of the ASME Code. The elastic analysis requires that the material not reach the yield point of the material. This will allow the material to retain its original configuration after loading.
(Also, see CASE Attachment B hereto, Regulatory Guide 1.124, page 1.124-2, under "Large 49
Deformation.) Nowhere in Applicants' tests in Attachment F or Attachments A and B do the Applicants demonstrate that the connection behaves in an elastic manner.
f Therefore, Applicants have not properly evaluated the test results and have not proved hv the tests that the connection will behave in an elastic condition when the load exceeds the design capacity.
- 19. Applicants state:
7 "The results of the evaluation of the conservative criterion, coupled with subsequent testing, reflected that with regard to this bending moment in the bolts, there is no safety concern with these connections.
Id at 27-30."
Applicants' statement is misleading, and their reference to a
" conservative criterion" is incorrect, as discussed in answer 18 preceding. On page 30 of Applicants' Affidavit, they state that this condition is not covered by the Code. However, on page 5-206 of the AISC Code (to which Applicants are committed in Specification t$-46A),
the commentary to the specification for high strength bolts states, in part:
"Because bolts in friction-type connections do not depend upon bearing against the sides of their holes, those provisions of the general design specifications intended to guard against high bearing stresses, and bending of the bolt due to bearing, are waived." (First emphasis in the original; second emphasis added.)
On page 27 of Applicants' Affidavit, they use what they call the
" bolt interaction equation." This is a brand new invented formula which the Applicants have dreamed up.
The AISC code, at Section 1.6.3, lists the proper interaction formula for an A307 bolt, and that equation is 50
I 1
l Ft = 28 - 1.6 fv 6 20.0 l
l f
-where Ft is the maximum allowable stress and fv is the applied shear stress produced by the same forces and not to exceed the allowable shear stress given in Section 1.5.2 of the AISC Code.
Consider the following comparison using an external applied tensile load of 10 kips, an external shear load of 5 kips and a bending soment of 4 kip-in. on a 1-1/2" diameter A307 bolt. The area of the bolt for tension of 1.4053 in.; the area of the bolt for shear is 1.7621 in., and the section modulus for bending is.098175 d =.098175 (1.338)3 =.235 in..
Utilizing the AISC equation (and not considering the requirements listed in answer 7 preceding), the shear stress is 5/1.7621 = 2.837 kai
-< Fv of 1.5.2 which leads to Ft = 28 - 1.6 (2.837) = 23 kai > 20 ksi; therefore, the allowable tensile strength is 20 ksi. The tension stress applied to the bolt is due to the tensile load and is 10/1.4053
= 7.116.
The tension stress due to the applied moment is 3/.235 =
17.02 kai. The total tension stress in the bolt is 7.116 + 17.02 =
24.136 ksi. The interaction ratio is 24.136/20 = 1.21.
This interaction ratio exceeds 1; therefore, the bolt is overstressed.
Now we shall look at the Appliants' method (which is not mentioned in any Code): The applied shear over allowable shear is 5/17.67 =
.283.
Applied tensile load over allowable tension load is 10/28 =
.357.
The allowable bending moment, according to the Applicants, is
(.75)(36)(.235) = 6.345.
The applied moment over the allowable moment j
51
is 4/6.345 =.630.
Using the Applicants' invented " bolt interaction 2
2
.SR equation," the interaction ratio is.283 +.357
+.63 =.080 +
.127 +.63 =.84.
This value of.84 would be an acceptable value for the Applicants, because they believe (as discussed before) that the interaction ratio should be less than 1.75 instead of less than 1.
This simple example demonstrates that when the Applicants are utilizing an invented equation, they have concluded that there is no safety concern.
The ratio of the Applicants' equation to the AISC equation can be an approximation (based on the above example) of the values for the bolt interations that are in error. The ratio is.84/1.21 =.69.
This value of.69 corresponds to the Applicants' bolt interaction value of 1.
Of the 155 supports listed in Table 1 attached to Applicants' Affidavit, 51 supports have a bolt interaction value greater than.69.
This represents 33% which have exceeded AISC Code allowables, based on this one simple example. It should be remembered that the values used were only for 70 degrees F. and did not include the recommended values from ASME as discussed in answer 7 preceding.
Although the interaction equation is as unique as Applicants' support configurations under consideration, some additional comments can be made. It would appear that prior to the introduction of the bending moment of the bolt, the Applicants used the following equation:
(T/TA) 2 + (S/SA) 2 = 1 This equation is the equation for a circle, where the radius of the circle is 1, and I squared is 1.
As long as the bolt interaction formula had no additional components, it was similar to the combined 52 b
I-I stress formula for a weld. But this equation which the Applicants use deviates from the equation of a circle and the equation used for welding.
.It is interesting to note the Applicants' and NRC Staff's position in regard to this subject. This bolt bending problem was investigated by the NRC Special Inspection Team (SIT), and their results are shown on pages'21 and 22 of their report (SIT Report, Staff Exhibit 207; see also CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact, pages VII - 8 and -9; see also 12/28/83 Board Order (Quality Assurance for Design), pages 62-66). The Applicants were aware of this problem prior to the SIT investigation.
The Applicants performed a finite element analysis (STARDYNE);
calculations by the SIT indicated that the bending stresses in the bolt were 15 times larger than originally calculated (with shear alone).
But the Applicants showed the SIT some preliminary calculations which indicated that bending moments were insignificant in all but one of 60 cases reviewed. This would represent about 1.7 per cent if the supports had been deficient. But now we have, as shown in the preceding, 33% of the supports deficient. This would show two critical points. The first is the Applicants' choice of a " sample" to demonstrate their position. The second is the Applicants' corrective action program.
If the Applicants are not going to follow AISC Code requirements, the least they could do is to be rational about their deviations. The bending moment produces tensile stresses, as discussed previously.
These tensile stresses should be added to the already calculated 53 l
1
l s
tensile stresses due to a direct tension load. This would result in I
the Applicants' previous equation and still deviate from the AISC code,
.but the interaction values would at least be rational. For example, using the values previously discussed (i.e., a tension force of 10 kips,' a shear force of 5 kips, and a moment of 4 in. kips), the applied tensile stress is 24.136 kai, the allowable tensila stress is 2.0, the applied shear stress is 2.837, the allowable shear stress is 10.
This results in the following interaction equation:
(24.136/20)2 + (2.837/10)2 = 1.542 The square root of this last term should be considered (since this item is overstressed and the equation is based on a circle) and the result is 1.124.
It is apparent that the AISC Code is liberal in its approach to the interaction formula, since the interaction formula for the AISC Code resulted in 1.21, still overstressed.
The Applicants claim that there ars no safety concerns because of their allegedly " conservative criterion." The Applicants, with this statement, demonstrate that they can create a criterion which violates established liberal Code allowables, and believe that there is a problem that is generic to Comanche Peak and unique to Comanche Peak, and when 7% of the supports which - Applicants now admit are deficient by their own evaluations, but in reality 33% have exceeded AISC Code allowables, they say there is no safety concern. The Applicants are app'arently relying on the test results in their Attachment F when they make their statement (page 29 of the Affidavit). But as discussed above in answer 18, the test results did not demonstrate compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.124 and other design assumptions.
54
20.
Applicants state:
" CASE agrees that the moment in the tube (My) about the axis of the bolt cannot develop. However, CASE states that the soment Mz (which would tend to produce prying action, if any), should either be considered whenever the moment which produced torsion (Mx) is considered, or both Mx and Mz should be released. CASE states further at VIII-6 that 'the ability to rotate about the local Z axis is inhibited; therefore, prying (moment coupling) exists.'
Id. at 31-2."
I agree.
21.
Applicants state:
"For attachment assemblies under axial loads, that is, subjected to a pure Mz moment, a finite element analysis performed by Applicants demonstrates that the displacement of the tube due to bolt elongation (along the Y direction) is sufficient to cause loss of contact with the washer. Thus, there is no prying action. For pure axial loads, i.e.
loads applied to the tube steel between Richmond inserts in the Y direction, there is ne prying action and the release of the moment about the Z axis is the correct way to model the joint.
Id. at 33-4."
To begin with, at the top of page 34 of their Affidavit, Applicants neglected to include the first three lines of the statement of material facts, if that is what is supposed to start the paragraph.
Since that information is not shown on page 34 of the Affidavit, I will assume that it does. belong there.
.The results of the finite element analysis are not complete. The Applicants did not provide documentation as to the math model used
-(i.e., size and number of elements), so I cannot agree that the analysis is correct. The Applicants state that a pure Mz moment was applied in their analysis; this is not correct.
I an assuming that the Applicants' model for the discussion of the pure bending moment is as shown below:
i 55 l
l' J L A
a k
m where P is an applied load and parts A and B are the intersection of the center of gravity of the tube steel and threaded rod.
This configuration does not create a pure Mz moment; as one would expect there will be vertical net reaction (or tension in the bolts).
The pure moment configuration was not considered by the Applicants.
Applicants claim that the bolt elongation will cause loss of contact between the tube steel and washer (i.e., they have lift off) and therefore no prying action. What they say may be true; I do not know since I have not seen their calculations. But if it is true, then there exists another problem not discussed by the Applicants. And this problem is the additional moment now introduced into the bolt. Since the Applicants have not stated or provided information pertaining to the size of the bolt, I will assume that the Applicants are referring to a 1-1/2" diameter rod. Loading number 6 shown on page 36 of Applicants' Affidavit indicates that the bolt reaction is 20,000 lbs.
The bolt is now being loaded on only one side since the connection is rotating and is not resisted by prying action. The reaction on the bolt is located at point A shown below:
56
A A
N(:-
This load being off center of the bolt creates a moment equal to the applied load times the moment arm. The moment arm is indeterminate due to the complexity of the problem.
It could be located at the edge of the nut that holds the rod in place, or at the edge of the rod i
itself.
I will assume that the moment are is at the edge of the rod.
The resulting moment is then equal to (20)(1.5/2) = 15 K-in.
The resulting stress due to bending in the bolt (as similarly shown in answer 18 above) is 20/1.4053 + 15/.235 = 124 ksi. The allowable stress is, as shown in answer 18 above, is 20 ksi, per the j
AISC Code. Therefore, the rod is overstressed by 6 times its allowable for this unique design condition.
It should be also noted that the Applicants used a tube steel member 4 x 4 x 3/8 for their analysis in the finite element analysis.
The Applicants claim by inference that the beam is so stiff that up lift can occur at the support point and no prying action occurs. But as I have previously stated, I have not seen the Applicants' analysis but there is a fatal error not recognized by the Applicants. The moment in a 2 foot long member that has no end restraint (no prying action) is (40,000)(2)(12) / 4 = 240 kip inches. The stress in this member is (240)/5.1 = 47 kai. The yield point for the material is 36 57
J l
ksi. Therefore, the simple beam has yielded in the center of the beam and the end rotations have increased due to this yielding, and the Applicants have not considered this.
- 22. ' Applicants state:
"A parametric study of the loading was performed to analyze the effect of bending moment Mz on the prying action which occurs due to the torsional load. The results of the study reflect that no prying action will occur.
Id,. at 34-36, note 13."
See answer 21 preceding.
- 23. Applicants state:
" Applicants have reanalyzed several support configurations selected at random assuming that all moments would be released, as CASE recommended. The results reflect that adequate margins exist, even assuming fully released moments.
Id. at 39."
On pages 37 and 38 of their Affidavit, Applicants discuss the consequences of the Mz moment at the insert, where they state " fixity of the connection results in higher loads on the inserts." And on page 38, they state:
"The use of the pinned assumption is normal structural design practice. In fact, the 8th Ed. AISC Specification, paragraph 1.15.4, states that inelastic action in the connection is permitted to accommodate end rotations." (Emphasis added.)
However, as has already been, stated, this connection configuration l
1s not a normal structural design. Thus, the Applicants are off-base j
with that type of comment.
In addition, the Applicants are relying on j'
inelastic action. But the Applicants forgot to recognize that the l
l inelastic action can only be for the bearing material and not for the bolt. The inelastic action referenced by the code is so that the l
l fastener will not be overstressed.
l 58 L
Y.
On page 38 of their Affidavit, Applicants claim that NPSI designers would check to see whether there were sufficient elongation of the bolt to allow for rotation. Since the Applicants have not provided any documentation to verify this statement, and I never saw any while I was employed at Comanche Peak either in the form of an original design or as-built, vendor certified, final design, the
~ Applicants' statement is unsubstantiated.
In Applicants' alleged Material Facts, they refer to several support configurations. Since I have not seen any reference to these supports or their calculations, I cannot dispute this fact. But I do recall that when I was employed at Comanche Peak one PSE engineer insisted that we retain the Mz moment so that the support would pass the generic deflection criteria.
24.
Applicants state:
" Bending of the bolt is not considered by the ASME Code, because in conventional bolt connections, bending is not significant.
In reality, however, bending can occur. Id at 40."
The Applicants' cannot compare their unique monstrosity to conventional bolted connections. As stated in answer 18 above, the AISC Code does recognize bolt bending.
25.
Applicants state:
" Applicants have conducted detailed analyses regarding the ability to resist axial torsion. The results of these analyses reflect that due to the conservatism of the calculat.onal methodology, bending does not present a safety concern with these connections.
Id. at 40-1."
See answers 18 and 19 above.
59
- 26.
Applicants state:
"The results of tests reinforce Applicants' conclusion that deflection of.the supports at the design loads are very small regardless of whether the lead is applied torsionally or as a shear, and that ample J_d_. at 41-2."
margin exists.
d See answers 18 and 19 above.
O o
F 60
-,.. ~,. _ _.. -
The preceding CASE's Answer to Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue was prepared under the personal direction of the undersigned, CASE Witness Mark Walsh.
I can be contacted through CASE President, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, 1426 S., Polk, Dallas, Texas 75224, 214/946-9446.
My qualifications and background are already a part of the record in these proceedings. (See CASE Exhibit 841, Revision to Resume of Mark Walsh, accepted into evidence at Tr. 7278; see also Board's 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), pages 14-16.)
I have read the statements therein, and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I do not consider that Applicants have, in their Motion for Summary Disposition, adequately responded to the l
issues raised by CASE Witness Jack Doyle and me; however, I have attempted to comply with the Licensing Board's directive to answer only the specific statements made by Applicants.
(Signed) Mark Walsh STATE OF TEXAS i
i~
l On this, the day of
, 1984, personally l
appeared Mark Walsh, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the l
same for the purposes therein expressed.
l L
Subscribed and sworn before me on the day of 1984.
l t
i l
Notary Public in and for the l
State of Texas l
My Commission Expires:
l'
o.
. m. n, i
~
CASE ATTACIMENT A JO B NO. D.'0
' 'J d */. ".
3 SHEET OF _ 2 k_
ENGR.
DATE 7 i',' ' C. )
y CLIENT / PROJECT W
sus;ECT MXe NG- /- 002-co3 - C 72_6_
csg O. s?S DATE 719-9_
nps 1
,io! 73 Lc,4bif4'(JJ I '/2 le95,Er QG'S
? = 79 9 0 "
V - (Y ~ Vl) ' - H ?M
- SW f = l4 940 "
2
'/,
=
Mr - 72 G2 k !b T'S 5 < 6 - }k
- i M. scc s.v rRr c a y
)-
s o v oo,.
ln 14 7 - E c c o a..Ib. 1
~d'un-goo g
am.ms-mi.
_% - ?. -. -.,
~
u a
s: g ~
?.os* ".- ~ t
% if..
..: \\ g p ~~
s-t
< r" i
,l.
-I J.
}U s
,,u'!
-~
~ ~ ~ ~
s ~--g
/
-y \\ ";. c.
... *.,,. /
s u
/
S
,..:- s v j
.;e
..t l
~
l i
s(
l-
....-t a-
<, =.
e e
5*e *.*
y%
.L f
.y y
.', 5 \\ <.
r 's * :
- i _
.s w<
'.' : o:.... *. < 5
.I A
.--o u.
c
/
. -- u
~
y.
.t )
- t. c s
! ]
- . 4<. f/g.!
- a
- \\
e.c.
,.u.
- a.
,J
., y.,: : ;.:q.
,.,J :. e ~ 1..,. L.
C U=-MT S
'4 E~
O, X.
r.
e h
9 NPS FORM CB 100 k:
.. ): l
.g. O NW:: 7.: /~* 5.:
l '. 1 COMANC;iE PCAK SHEET _[} _
0F
. UNITS NO.1 & 2 ty?
Ci.l ENT, P R OJECT __, ____. _. _
.c r - :.
. ENG R..
.. DATE 7-II ~
SUBJECT 2 C- /- I 62.- 00 d. - C 3 i K y ps
.ft.' ' ' * * 'I773 ~~ cH K'D. ' ~"'U) DATE Z'/
.' ^ !
nps
- ~~
~
p 5IN G ~> L :I(.o.14. *A UTl't. 2
~
x te HT U d. h.m C.4 6 cl<.
E A I C.T.
j_/
/ NS E ETS : --
- ACtl1-DYD. $ t\\ '8 0 NPS s
"2 C.A c T: 0 H
@t N 06 CL'
'3' 2
bO f" E /H2- -
1ActAE.MT
[dr
- = '2 % O A 4 = - Q 4 C) h
.60 ' < _
u
~
T F P_ t.t rf-E Lc 5.::
4-77 k Rs s-Is~
F ?.c M r8. t c. I (f 7 'b FEIL ih."p n.: s c :7-T 4 ls.8 b :
4i e.
- h. n 5.pf i y
=. o ' b c L $ w s.. p :
A cki..e.5 = l ?.
= 20) p bAM7bdt-:
T =
13 11 A j S=17 67.L i - su F T=
t I-~
k-i S=wA z7 A '@ T 7 +?.l '., K c u s..
9
- c. L _
- , % l- !. h_ m c h.
,I 1
t a
/l' y-
.115
"~/)'
N - )
i I
1% \\ '-
z.-(
- r,, j l
- x ? - c.>.
[I,
/
I 1h g
9
- .lf <
- l. o
=
cQ...
( % c 4::. y (7. u.,..).
6 cck SA M ')
,3 <.it.
1
?'s.n '
4
-7 *- ( n2 t t.'
,q,.zS D.v v :
igK
(
17 67 1; * -;-J' $ 4'zl{' ({z u $
.E.-
Chw W :r a dI:~
CT:
?
'2711 )
1M77 0 o 4-t
=
s u.! :
.<iat oe W-
W 1
.e
.'.g,..\\
JOB NO.3 ~?3" :' - & - I*~
~
e.v.
SHEET
/
.O,F _,1,0.y
)
a gM CLIENT / PROJECT ENGR. r"/N D ATE 7. / 7-3 2, nps SUBJECT t'l M C C
/. '2 3 4. O / l - c $3--.R CH K'D.
N// DATE 5 ~/8-f'-
~
e M
', 'C oC~
I bu y
p
- j//cf 89)$ 5 h-f
\\ l2, $
f$ '<l W E /f C /l & C.*t.
~
n 2
W l
I.
A*
~~ 2[
ll Ch D 1
~
/
t
'I i)
G S
e
- I g
Y O'
g' b/g l' * ' LI
.~ e 9
I H
L
- l
s t47 - F : l '+ y/rJ M; - o 5
t-1,., -
m f,v s.'
- [k.
- "
Q
' ist* ml * % e.'
h
,',k.',,*s} '
bbb h
65 ( 7 0.5 Ci' ] 5 rF~,A u:
.i 4
>=I' l
If
- }
D.
\\
s;.9.
m
- )
,a-
~
-?
f e
s ct I Of i
I a
K y
l; T '
l'dI N ' ''
a I.
__l-i
~
e f*
.s s
s-
-x~0 s
- g-c'~_
3
' -' c ;l 5
- ~
1 ' ~.:
g, '
y
'n' c.- i l
, j, l.
r; s;-
'3 '
r-l 2
- i { !D
(
pi L-
/
.~... *.
1 e
9 y
.s j-t I
l t
- Yl3,
'.i ~.':1 I
-5' l
ll ~, -
I I,*" l k
-* f,- )
}
f
~ - - -
~~
.-_--g I
. = >
.,.-6
/
\\,
i
(
e m
O e
0 I. 3
{\\
i 0h.
=
6 l
7.ie! hy
.a e i
~
.---vs I
aC
(
c.o79 )"
o 9'81 1
0 I't. 4 \\ o k.
2,;ti-ss.Jo
-)
=
4 1 7. D
? g.
Arts.3 w
CC 9
0.
~
e m
e
+
= ee -
9 77,,,
a A
I T l ' 6,;.,.,,/ e u,/c, 2 9,;
& L,...d.c.,e
/s.
-k rr r io
~
rae see 7% f fle e.sp,n<er
}G, b a's ova g. le' ys e e a.,
yery eenseeyafse g reech b
pic /ce.;p ussc/
y a
th
/s" s t 6, s<.,
n., d Awes f e4e. -
/be:,h/es.
fe r. bo M f4 <
.Z'as << r a d /4 80 // (/z ts # 7? >, a.,
l and
/Z&7 S} e< <)
sen /
a sed fben Ar s Sr p e yardfy 4,f4 the stegi}Af
/<~% fona l<
to I~,sa t a d
/L /t 4 se i virt(*f q,e
?-/7-6 '/
S 0
S e
o y
e e
4 9
6 e e e
o G
O e
e h
a 9,
p e
W i
~
C. P. S.E.S.
R-Soly flee
~, -
O.S.A.
Calc. By Date. /3 31-81 Folder No,._
'!bdN
Date.12 3I.
Sheet 11o.
L.of
'S Chk'd. By Subject A f - l 041 - S BK
$ SUPPORT l-
-l l =
/
i
^
N N
SINGLE ATTACHMEllT
{
r-COUBLE ATTACHt4EliT l
I
[
C
'Arrnch,=*.1( *-n,-
Ebh" I
coff
=*
SIZE 7 g. -
+
ATTACHNEllT
@4d' g.g
- a. C
~
., -T l
BBCI INS 6AI l
=
y SIZE y
c)
C6 EMBEDMENT
/?c4**[-
l j ---
..gr__
y CIESS
.I f N,,
Gk Gk 9 /f I
LOADING i
a-LEVEL C
="
i l
i 1
y FORCES IN Las. AT EACH WEi.DED ATTACHMEt1TS*
lNSatT~- Ctffdcuf
/
on stor) l7.f 1 k
- 17. 6 7 K F
F M
My M
M
{z x
y x
z,
-y
,, e 9 ?.10 I&%
./
r
- Fx,My and Mx AT[of' SUPPORT FOR DOUBLE ATTACHMENT
(
REFERENCE:
c p t Lerret. scois-:9,capA. es 64
)
fAl-TC $gyy}gg c
~, -,,, -
,.---------,.--,----,-,--v.,-
- - - - -. - - - ~ -
i g
i t
t 2
J.
.)
.r.
- .A' e
e z
g'.
8 e
e e
m e
e e..
4.sw om.a
..s.a re-a.
.s e e.r o u me '. 3..w s.
s LESutTS OF ANALTSIS Foe toAo CASE t.
mEviEWED 57 NL9 '.ON.f.,/M[h CHECNED BV
- ON.3/b7h
~
- e,
.nneans.................e.............e.
L7 soLT soLT SAFETV ULTIMATE ULTIMATE COMPUTED COMPUTED DESIGN ggg (INTERACTIO UUM9E.R ITP1 FACIOR TENSION aME8R IENSION SHEA#
UCJOR V4LIDAIED p
i A
1.00 ilt]O.
Il6 LO.
21 1333
( 0 33a YES 1
2 4
1.00 17850 IT6TO.
2583 1412
.P21 TES g
3
]
SigyICE_ t, eye (.q_ S ?.-]6 I
/
GLATE GENQlNG STRESSI ALLOwA8LE o 2T000 PSI CONPUTED MANIMU84 s A337. PSI TES
[
'esseece........
THE BASE PLATE DESIGN OF MANGER MARK s A F. 3.g i. 0 4 3 3 3 3 m --
/
V CE8ttIFICATION *.....IS_ VERIFIED.IN ACCORDANCE wLTH NRC_I,E f.U_LLEi1N T9-07 8
k 4
9 e
5 1
e 8
g g
S 9
' 'T g
- 4 g-g R
_. ( ' t :.. u.
. ; i *.
)
)
a FORM DHI.5 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
C051ANCHE PEAK S.E.S.
Agent For g** 4 ~ g DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COSIPANY rium, c.d...
D ='.
C*k a f* Afgtzgynedy TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COSIPANY g
4 shui N.-
ot r
TEXAS POWER & LIGHT COSIPANY
~
Chk'd/Apped. 37 C 4 H Teb.- N.-
Ac~-l-097- 037-643k A6-80/L7 sw.e n.r. %.es,.. N.-
WELO 0/ECk BETWGEN MEMSER 4 ANO 5, EEF:
bid =4
~
Sw, = bd +$': Swe. ' 96E
/~g = /20 S Y
A 3
futOSbtHE a.
M3 = 1209x 15 : /8tS5 tH.'"
l
= /6 + f.$
f 3.
- 2/. 93.1 ra -
PUL LOU T N Z' 18135.
=
s suz 2133
= 2(o+d): 16 tn 8 so */in
=
SHEAR fogca :
fx.
1209
/ 5 l #//n.
Ls./
8
{850 + /5/ f & d63 /in.
2 REsutfANT FORCE CN WELO:
LECy REoD =
00'
- 'O68 4 *25
- 707x18000 usEos g* T/LLET WELD AldEduVO /6 THEREFCeE C V.
/Ik'OfAlGER7 A AIO IV2"6 804 7hA -34) GuAl/f/6ATION.
ECCEN72/C/Ty oC 7H& SCl.'T W/ RESPECT To q of 7'S /4 NOTGN:!DEE!O.
M-C-
0%
p.
REACTicu A TC: 6 SW (REF PA4s3)
),, to/2s* j REALT/CN A TD -8 34"
/4.s*
t, -
/N6ER7'
/ 7'EusloM = 6 54 4 25000 iW6ERT*/N 4HEA P =~ h :. /ES ?L :. Sc.s # d26000
'2
/.33 133 8 34-SOS.
a / +.w 7.: 'Q/ 7. < /
~'
25000 25000
, rex-A LLOWA 8L E LOA D /N TENStoN /)g',"$ &CLf : 28,/lQ g32y.gjy A Lt.oMA ell l&A b IN GNEA2 l'/
2
' SCL 7 : /7670 WO"O f284 605 1 -
002. < l
.p.
, [2 9/10 17670
CASE AT'IACHMENT B CASE EXHIBIT 743 R svizinn 1
[m U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 1978 (M REGULATORYGUIDE OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY GUIDE 1.124 SERVICE LIMITS AND LOADING COMBINATIONS FOR CLASS 1 LINEAR-TYPE COMPONENT SUPPORTS A. INTRODUCTION with the specified seismic event. thus helping to General Design Criterion 2, " Design Bases for mitigate the consequences of system damage. Com-Protection Against Natural Phenomena," of Appen.
Ponent supports are deformation sensitive because dix A,
' General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power large deformations in them may significantly change Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Produc.
the stress distnbution in the support system and its tion and Utilization Facilities," requires that the de-supported components.
sign bases for structures, systems, and componen,s In order to provide uniform requirements for con-l important to safety reflect appropriate combinations struction, the component supports should. as a I of the effects of normal and accident conditions with minimum, have the same ASME Boiler and Pressure the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes.
Vessel Code classification as that of me supported The failure of members designed to support safety-components. This guide delineates levels of eruce related components could jeopardize the ability of the limits and loading combinations, in addit:on to i supported component to perform its safety function.
supplementary enteria, for ASME Class I lineareype l limits and appropriate combinations of loadings as-This guide delineates acceptable levels of service c mponent supports as defined by NF-1213 or Sec-tion III. Snubbers are not addressed in this guide.
I sociated with normal operation, postulated accidents, Subsection NF snd Appendix XVII of Section III and specified seismic events for the design of Class I permit the use of four methods for the design of Class linear-type component supports as defined in Subsec-I linear-type component supports: linear elastic anal-tion NF of Section lit of the American Society of vsis, load rating, experimental stress analysis. and Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure limit analysis. For each method, tne ASME Code de-Vessel Code. This guide applies to light-water-cooled lineates allowable stress or loading limits for vanous l B_
reactors. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Code levels of service limits as defined bv NF-3113 Safeguards has been consulted concerning this guide of Section III so that these limits can be used in con-and has concurred in the regulatory position.
junction with the resultant loadings or stresses from the appropriate plant conditions. Since the Code does l B. DISCUSSION not specify loading combinations, guidance.s re-gm Load-bearing members classified as component quired to provide a consistent basis for the design of NQ supports are essential to the safety of nuclear power component supports.
y?
plants since they retain components in place dunng
'd ) i the loadings associated with normal and upset plant Component supports considered in this guide are hb conditions under the stress of specified seismic 1 cated within Se smic Category I structures and are events, thereby permitting system components to theref re pr tected against loadings from natural h
P enomena or man-made hazards other than the spec-function properly. They also prevent excessive com-ified seismic events. Thus only the specified seismic ponent movement during the loadings associated with events need to be considered in combination with the emergency and faulted plant conditions combined loadings associated with plant conditions to develop
- Lanes todicate substanuve change from previous issue.
aDpropnate loading combinations. Loadings caused USNRC REGut.ATORY GUlOES cOmm-, eO w n..m 80 me sw e,. Of m.cO -.n.O.
us w,ce,a.,o
- ~
~~"'*^ **
," *"' * * {.,""f, -
"' ~'*
a.w.. tor, c.on,, w.o. O once.e..aa iO ra. Doo..C m.tnGa.
s,.a a 08..O
. c
.t..
O.
r.,
O. t, c-O.,
6,
<.,..t TO a
.t. t.ca n wa n, m. m e*,a mo...a, io.r.e.c o,Oe a.
i n.,o o
.r.
ri.a t a. t O. O
.a, t-o.
/
i Regw. tor y G udet y uoti vo.190.CC sotat t Or to prOvade guaGSMCS 80 004eCantt
'=
n s
/ #
bodWf t e
I O*er 9.Ctor t 7
dre N11 tuGWrif utes for rogu.tges.nd COrRO8a.ACT sust h the"t
+1
tO8 reuwsteg 2
a* wee end M %.cm 1
T vw *. sea WROGt ftd totut.Ont @f ferent from tetoes tet Out,a i he Ou'd** **'88 be.C c80,
. 048 J 'MeV Oroved.. t,s.a.1 fOr fMG tend.ngt reOwegste to 1944 **tu.4C# Or Cont snw.rtce
'88 00'atd Or isC9n99 DW m@ COf4RbMOR p
g C-t.
0,
-.rO, m... m
.,9
.~O
.t..
D eO e,,,0,,,,,,e_,,_,,,,em_.,,
t.mes.an gu oes
.n ne rev,see as.DerOcri te to accommod.te co<nsmeats.ne
.e.,
On
,o,Om,,e,,,,,,,w,,On %
m, c
,,,s
., y, qu,oc,
go,,
'O FOflGCE Mese eeforen.teOp 3r e n cer s.ece 70's s gusGe on.g reweted 66 8 F 96u lt Of ejewesaOas pow &d Oe Th.ste.a swe a t. rig
- ao U S Nme., 4 -w. s im m. w j tutst gesteve 60mairients rer svert 'eges *he ownin ge45 Edd it.Oe.8 St eit r ev.ete IPW49ftsagina DC
?O' *A A t wa f tr Dm me
-).v u a i ' spa T F-i 10/Q
s by natural phenomena cthIt than s;ismic svtats, stresses should be calculatrd with the vtlurs cf E and when they exist, should be considered on a case-by-S, cf the component support mat: rial at temperature..
case basis.
Allowable service limits for bolted connections are derived from tensile and shear stress limits and their
- 1. Design by Iimmar Elastic Aanlysis nonlinear interaction; they also change with the size of the bolt. For this reason, the increases permitted
- a. S er Temperature. When the linear elastic by NF-3231.1, XVII-2110(a), and F. "170(a) of Sec-l analysis =whad as used to design Class I linear-type tion m are not directly applicab!c te alkable shear component supports, material properties are given by stresses and allowable stresses for bolts and bolted Tables I-2.1, I-2.2. I-13.1, and I-13.3 in Appendix connections. De increase permitted by NF-3231.1 I of Section m and Tables 3 and 4 in the latest ac-and F-1370(a) of Section III for shear stresses or cepted version of Code Case 1644. These tables list 8
shear stress range should not be more than 1.5 times values for the minimum yield strength S, at various the level A service limits because of the potential for temperatures but only room temperature values for non-ductile behavior.
the ultimate tensile strength S.. At room temperature.
S, varies from 50% to 87% of S for component sup.
The range of primary plus secondary stresses port materials.
should be limited to 2S, but not more than S, to en-
' **"I '" ** * **#*****
- Levels of service limits derived from either mate-the value of 0.6S,. the increase permitted by NF-rial property alone may not be sufficient to provide a 3231.l(a) will be above the value of 2S, and will consistent safety margin. This is recognized by Sec-thus violate the normal shakedown range. A tion M, since XVII-2211(a) of Section III defines shakedown analysis is necessary to justify the the allowable stress in tension on a net section as the increase of stress above 2S, or S,.
smaller value of 0.6S, and 0.5S.. To alleviate the lack of defined values of S. at temperatures above For the linear clastic analysis method, F-1370(a) room t t,-.-
and to provide a safe design mar-of Section W permits increase of tension limits for gin, an interim method is given in this guide to obtain the Code level D service limits by a variable factor values of S. at temperature.
that is the smaller value of 1.2S,/F or 0.7S /F. De-t i
Pending on,whether the section considered is a net While XVII-2211(a) specifies allowable tensile secuon at pinholes in eyebars, pin-connected plates, stress in terms of both S, and S., the rest of XVII-or built-up structural members, F may assume the t
2000 specifies other allowable service limits in tprms smaller value of 0.45S, or 0.375S. (as recommended of S, only. His does not maintain a consistent design by this guide for a net section of pinholes, etc.) or the margin for those service limits related only to mate-smaller value of 0.6S, or 0.5S, (for a net section rial properties. Modifications similar to XVII-without pinholes, etc.). Thus greater values of the 2211(a) should be employed for all those service factor may be obtained for sections at pinholes, limits.
which does not account for local stress and is not
- b. Allowable lacrease of Service Limits. While consistent with NF-3231.1 and XVII-2110(a) of Sec-NF 3231.l(a), XVII-2110(a), and F-!370(a) of Sec.
tion III. A procedure to correct this factor is provided tion 111 all permit the increase of allowable stresses in this guide.
under various loading conditions,. XVII-2110(b) lim-its the increase so that two-thirds of the critical buckl.
- 2. Design by Load Rating ing stress for compression and compression flange When load-rating methods are used, Subsection NF members is not exceeded, and the increase allowed and Appendix F of Section III do not provide a by NF-3231.l(a) is for stress range. Cntical buckling faulted condition load rating. His guide provides an stresses with normal design margins are denved in interim method for the determination of faulted con-XVP-2200 of Section W. Since buckling prevents da. ion load rating.
t
" shakedown" in the load-bearing member, XVII-2110(b) must be regarded as controlling. Also, bucki-
- 3. Design by Experimental Stress Analysis mg is the result of the interaction of the configuration of the load-bearing member and its material prop-While the collapse load for the experimental stress erties (i.e., elastic modulus E and minimum yield analysis method is defined by 11-1430 in Appendix II strength S,). Because both of these material prop-of Section III, the various levels of service limits for erties change with temperature, the critical buckling experimental stress analysis are not delineated. This deficiency is remedied by the method described in I
' Regulatory Guide 1.85. " Code Case Acceptability--ASME Sec.
tion III Materials." provides guidance for the acceptability of ASME Section III Code Cases and their revisions, including Code
- 4. Large Deformation Case 1644. Supplementary provisions for the use of specific code cases and their revimons may also be provided and should be co..
He design of component supports is an integral sidered when applicable.
part of the design of the system and its components.
142. 058 1.124-2
A complete tad consistnt design is possibla only lar; plant csndition, the stresses cr loads resulting
- hen system / component / component-support interac-from the loading combinations under that plant condi-w tion is properly considered. When all three are tion do not need to satisfy the design limits for the evaluated on an elastic basis, the interaction is usu-plant condition.
ally valid because individual deformations are small.
However, if plastic analysis methods are employed in
- 7. Deflaitions the design process, large deformations that would re-sult in substantially different stress distributions may Design Condition. The loading condition defined by NF-3112 of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
- When component supports are designed for lood-ings associated with the faulted plant conditions, Ap.
Emergency Plant Condition. Rose operating con-pendix F of Section III permits the use of plastic dih h hve a low pmbdiliy of occume.
analysis methods in certain acceptable combinations Faulted Plant Condition. Rose operating condi-for all three elements. These acceptable combinations tions associated with postulated events of extremely are selected on the assumption that component sup-low probability.
ports are more deformation sensitive (i.e., their de-formation in general will have a large effect on the evels ofService limits. Four levels. A. B, C and stress distnbution in the system and its components.)
D of service limits defined bt Section III fer the de-Since large deformations always affect the stress dis-dig asMmed with different plant condi-g g
g, tnbution, care should be exercised even if the plastic analysis method is used in the Appendix F approved clear Power plants.
methodology combination. This is especially impor-Normal Plant Condition. Those operating condi-tant for identifying buckling or instability problems tions in the course of system startup operation, hot where the change of geometry should be taken into standby, refueling. and shutdown other than upset, account to avoid erroneous results.
emergency or faulted plant conditions.
- 5. Function of Supported System Operating Basis Earthquake (OBEl. As defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
In selecting t% level of service limits for different l
loading combinations, the function of the supported Plant Conditions. Operating conditions of the plant system must be taken into account. To ensure that categorized as normal. upset, emergency. and faulted
(
systems whose normal function is to prevent or miti-P ant conditions.
l gate consequences of events associated with an emer.
gency or faulted plant condition (e.g., the function of Safe Shutdown Earthquake iSSE). As defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
ECCS during fat.lted plant conditions) will operate properly regardless of plant condition, the Code level Service Limits. Stress limits for the design of com-A or B service limits of Subsection NF (which are ponent supports as defined by Subsection NF of Sec-identical) or other justifiable limits provided by the tion III.
Code should be used.
Specified Seismic Events. Operating Basis Earth.
Since Appendix XVII derived all equations from quake and Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
AISC rules and many AISC compression equations have built-in constants based on mechanical prop-Svstem Mechanical Loadings. The static and erties of steel at room temperature, to use these equa-dynamic loadings that are developed by the system tions indiscriminately for all NF and the latest ac.
operating parameters, including deadwei ht Pres-8 cepted version of Code Case 1644 materials at all sure, and other external loadings. but excluding ef-temperatures would not be prudent. For materials fects resulting fr m constraints of free-end move-other than steel and working temperatures substan-ments and thennal and peak stresses.
tially different from room temperature, these equa-Ultimate Tensile Strength. Material property based tions should be rederived with the appropriate mate-on engineering stress strain relationship.
- Pm # e' Upset Plant Conditions. Those deviations from the
- 6. Defocasation Limits normal plant condition that have a high probability of occurrence.
Since component supports are deformation-sensitive load-beanns elements, satisfying the serv-C. REGULATORY POSITION ice limits of Section III will not automatically ensure their proper function. Deformation limits, if specified ASME Code Class I linear type component sup-8 by the Code Design Specification, may be the con-Amencan Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Preswre trolling criterion. On the other hand, if the function Venel Code. Secuon III. Division I.1974 Edsuon inciuding tne of a component support is not required for a particu.
1976 winier Addenda inereto.
'l Lf '.'
G Q'
b l.124-3
. ~..
ports excluding snubbers, which are not addressed cr th latest acctpted vtrsion' of Code Case l herein, should be ccnstructed to the rules of Subsec-1644
's tion NF of Section III as supplemented by the follow-ing: *
- c. Method J. When the values of allowable
- 1. The classification of component supports stress or stress intensity at temperature for a material should, as a minimum, be the same as that of the are listed in Section III, the ultimate tensile strength at temperature for that material may be approximated I
supported components.
by the following expressions:
- 2. Values of S. at a tempen.ture t should be esti*
S. = 4S or mated by one of the three following methods on an interim basis until Section III includes such values:
S. = 3S.
where
- a. Method 1. This method applies to component support materials whose values of ultimate strength S. = ultimate tensile strength at temperature t to S. at temperature have been tabulated by their man.
be used to determine the service limits f
ufacturers, in catalogs or other publications.
S. = listed value of allowable stress at temperature t in Section III.
S = Sur
, but not greater than Sur S. = listed value of allowable stress intensity at temperature t in Section 111 where
- 3. The Code levels A and B service limits for com-S. = ultimate tensile strength at temperature t to l
be used to determine the service limits Ponent supports designed by linear elastic analysis which are related to S, should meet the appropriate S r = ultimate tensile strength at room temperature stress limits of Appendix XVil of Section Ill but tabulated in Section 111. Appendix I. or the should not exceed the limit specified when the value Stast accepted version' of Code Case 1644 of 5/6 5. is substituted fer 5$. Examples are shown S. = ultimate tensile strength at temperature t below in a and b.
tabulated by manufacturers in their catalogs or other publications
- a. The tensile stress limit F, for a net section as Skr = ultimate tensile strength at room temperature specifi,:d in XV!!-22: L.b et See:.. n 111 should be tabulated by manufacturers in the same pub-the smaller vahte of 0 nS. or 0.55, at temperature.
lications.
For net sections at pinholes in eye-bars, pin-
- b. Method 2. This method applies to component connected plates, or built-up structural members, Fi support materials whose values of ultimate tensile as specified in XVII-22tlibi should be the smaller strength at temperature have not been tabulated by value of 0.45S, or 0.375S. at temperature.
their manufacturers in any catalog or publication.
- b. The shear stress limit F, for a gross section as S,
specified in XVII-2212 of Section 111 should be the S. = Sur smaller value of 0.4S, or 0.33S. at temperature.
l 3,,
where Many limits and equations for compression S. = ultimate tensile strength at temperature t t strength specified in Sections XVII-2214, XVII-
[
be used to determine the service limits 2224, XVII-2225. XVII-2240, and XVII-2260 have S., = ultimate tensile strength at room temperature built-in constants based on Young's Modulus of tabulated in Section III, Appendix I. or the 29,000 Ksi. For materials with Young's Modulus at latest accepted version' of Code Case 1644 working temperatures substantially different from S, = minimum yield strength at temperature t 29,000 Ksi, these constants should be rederived with tabulated in Section III, Appendix I, or the the appropriate Young's Modulus unless the conser-latest accepted version' of Code Case 1644 vatism of using these constants as specified can be demonstrated.
Syr = minimum yield strength at room temper-l ature, tabulated in Section III, Appendix I,
- 4. Component supports designed by linear elastic analysis may increase their level A or B tervice limits a If the function of a component support is not required during a according to the provisions of NF-3231.l(a), XVll-plant condition, the design limits of the support for that plant con-2110(a), and F-1370(a) of Section III. The increase dition need not be satisfied, provided exceuive deflection or fail.
ure of the support will nu result in the loss of function of any of level A or B service limits provided by NF-other safety.related system.
3231.l(a) is for stress range. The increase of level A n/}
1.124-4
\\ u, n
or B service limits provided by F-1370(a) for level D Section III aivided by 1.7 should not be exceeded for
- service limits should be the smaller factor of 2 or component supports designed by the experimental 1.167S./S,, if S. > 1.25, or 1.4 if Su
- 1.2S,,
stress analysis method.
where S, and S. are component. support material
- * " " ~ ~ ' ~ " " '
- 6. Component supports subjected to the system mechanical loadings associated with the emergency However, all increases [i.e., those allowed by plant condition should be designed within the follow-NF-3231.l(a), XVII-2110(a), and F-1370(a)]
ing design limits except when the normal function of should always be limited by XVII-2110(b) of Section the supported system is to prevent or mitigate the III. The critical buckling strengths defined by consequences of events associated with the emer-XVII-2110(b) of Section III should be calculated gency plant condition (at which time Regulatory using material properties at temperature. This in.
Position 8 applies):* 8 crease oflevel A or B service limits does not apply to limits for bolted connections. Any increase of hma,ts
- a. The stress limits of XVII-2000 of Section III for shear stresses above 1.5 times the Code level A and Regulatory Positions 3 and 4 increased accord-service limits should be justified.
ing to the provisions of XVII-2110(a) of Section III and Regulatory Position 4 of this guide, should not If the increased service limit for stress range by be exceeded for component supports designed by the NF-3231.l(a) is more than 25, or S.. it should be linear elastic analysis method.
limited to the smaller value of 2S, or Su unless it can be justified by a shakedown analysis.
- b. The emergency condition load rating of NF-3262.3 of Section III should not be exceeded for
- 5. Component supports subjected to the combined component supports designed by the load. rating loadings of system mechanical loadings associated method.
with (1) either (a) the Code design condition or (b) the normal or upset plant conditions and t 21 the vib-h lower bound collapse load determined by ratory motion of the 0 XVil-4200 adjusted accordinit to the provision of the following limits.,BE should be oigned withinXVII-4110ta) of Seenon !!! should not be exceeded for component supports designed by the limit analysis
- a. He stress limits of XVil-2000 of Section III method.
and Regulatory Position 3 of this guide should not be exceeded for component supports designed by the
- d. The collapse load determined by 11-1400 of linear elastic analysis method. These stress limits Section 111 divided by 1.3 should not be exceeded for may be increased according to the provisions of component supports' designed by the experimental NF-3231.l(a) of Section III and Regulatory Position stress analysis method.
4 of this guide when effects resulting from constraints
- 7. Component supports subjected to the combined of free end displacements are added to the loading loadings of (1) the system mechanical loadings as.
combination.
sociated with the normal plant condition. (2) the vib-
- b. De normal condition load rating or the upset rat ry m ti n f the SSE, and (3) the dynamic system condition load rating of NF-3262.3 of Section III I adsngs ass crated with the faulted plant condition should not be exceeded for component supports de.
should be designed within the following limits except signed oy the load 7 ting method.
when the normal function of the supported system is to prevent or mitigate the consequences of events as.
- c. He lower bound collapse load determined by sociated with the faulted plant condition (at which XVII-4200 adjusted according to the provision of time Regulatory Position 8 applies):
XVII-4110(a) of Section Ill should not be exceeded r component supports designed by the limit analys,s
- a. The stress limits of XVII-2000 of Section III i
and Regulatory Position 3 of this guide, increased ac-
~
cording' to the provisions of F-1370(a) of Section III
- d. The collapse load determined by 11-1400 of and Regulatory Position 4 of this guide, should not be exceeded for component supports designed by the
- since component supports are deformanon sensinve in the linear elastic analysis method.
perfoemance of their service requirements, satisfytag these criteria does not ensure that their funcuonal requirements will be fulfilled.
.b. The smaller value of T.L. x 2S/S, or T.L. x Any deformance linues specified by the design specificauon may 0.7SJS. should not be exceeded, where T.L., S, and be conerell as and should be seusrad.
S., are defined according to NF-3262.1 of Section
' Since the design of component supports is an integral part of the deugn of the system and the design of the component, the de.
of the material at service temperature for component ugner must make sure that methods used for the analysis of the supports designed by the load. rating method.
system component. and component support are compauble tsee Table F-1322.2-1 in Appendix F of Section III).1.arge deforma.
- c. The lower bound collapse load determined by nons in the sysum or components should be considered in the XVII-4200 adjusted according to the provision of denso of compontat supports.
F-1370(b) of Section III should not be exceeded for 1.124-5 e)
{}
component supports designed by the limit analysis D. IMPLEMENTATION method.
- d. The collapse load determined by II-1400 ad-justed according to the provision of F-1370(b) of The purpose of this section is to provide guidance Section III should not be exceeded for component to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's P ans for using this regulatory guide, l
supports designed by the experimental stress analysis method.
- 8. Component supports in systems whose normal Except in those cases in which the applicant pro-function is to prevent or miti ate the consequences of poses an acceptable alternat ve method for complying 2
i events associated with an emergency or faulted plant with the specified portions of the Commission's regu-condition should be designed within the limits de-lations, the method described herein will be used in scribed in Regulatory Position 5 or other justifiable the evaluation of submittals for construction permit limits provided by the Code. These limits should be applications docketed after January 10,1978. If an defined by the Design Specification and stated in the yplicant wishes to use this regulatory guide in de-PSAR. such that the function of the supported system veloping submittals for construction permit applica-will be maintained when they ae subjected to the tions docketed on or before January 10.1978, the loading enmbinations described in Regulatory pertinent portions of the application will be evaluated Positions 6 and 7.
on the basis of this guide.
\\k I.04-6
" **I '.
- l. PPA-29,063 n HIBIT 8 M TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE M' EMORANDUM CASE ATTACle4ENT C To M.R. McBay - Enoineering Manaaer clen' Rose. Texas March 30, 1983 sub).cs COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 1/2" DIAMETER RICHMOND INSERT SHEAR TEST ~
v.
Attached is a copy of the Test Report on the results of the shear test on 1 1/2" diameter Richmond Insert. Based on the results, allow-able shear loads used in the design at CPSES will assure a minimum factor of safety of 3.
This is true regardless of the code allowables applied to the bolting materials.
Per ASME - Appendix XVII Section III Division 1 Subsection NA Fv =.30 Fy A307; Fy = 36 ksi For 11/2" diameter bolt; allowable shear is:
fy = Fv A = (.3) (36) (1.767)
= 19.08 Kips Per AISC Code Allowables For ASTM A-307 bolts Fv = 10.0 ksi For 11/2" diameter bolt; allowable shear is:
fy = Fv A = (10.0) (1.767)
= 17.67 Kips 17.67 Kips is the'CPSES allowable shear load for.1 1/2" diameter A307 bolts when used in Richmond Inserts.
Test specimen No. 7 applied shear load was stopped when the de-flection dial gauge reached full travel at a load of 58,300 lbs.
Based on the ASME allowable of 19.08 Kips, the associated factor of safety is 3.06 minimum. It should be noted that neither the bolt material or the concrete had experienced fracture at this load and additional load could have been applied. Based on the AISC allowable of 17.67 Kips, the associated factor of safety is 3.30 minimum with load being stopped before fracture occurred.
CP{PS-29,063 C
Paga 2 of 2 This should respond to all concerns. If there'are any further coments, please advise.
+:
1 S
R.M. Kissinger V Project Civil Engineer RMK/sgf cc: ARMS OL, IA J.C. Finneran 1C, IA o
t
l l
t TEST REPORT SHEAR TESTS ON RICHMOND 1 1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS MARCH 30, 1983 Prepared by Approved by
[-g
' J.C. Gilbreth R.M. Kissinddr Civil Engineer Project Civil Engineer
F
. TABLE OF CONTENTS Y
1.0 REFERENCES
2.0 GENERAL 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.2 RESPONSIBILITY 2.3 TEST APPARATUS 3.0~ PROCEDURE 4.0 RESULTS
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 6.0 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 - - ORAWING NO. FSC-00464, SHT. 1
- - CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE TEST REPORT APPENDIX 2 - - TEST DATA SHEETS APPENDIX 3 - - LOAD-DEFLECTION CUR.VES
l.
t L
1.
l l
r TEST REPORT l
SHEAR TESTS ON RICHMOND 1 1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS
^
1.0 REFERENCES
1-A CP-EP-13.0 Test Control 1-B CP-EI-13.0-8 1 1/2" Richmond Insert Shear Tests 2.0 GENERAL 2.1 P.URPOSE AND SCORE These tests were performed.to determine the characteristics of Richmond 11/2-Inch Type EC-6W Inserts when insta11ed'in concrete representative of that used in the power block structures at' CPSES and subjected to shear-type loading. The strength, deflections, and type of deformations produced by this loading were the qualities to be determined. This series of tests employed only 11/2"-Inch Type EC-6W Inserts subjected to shear loads.
2.2 RESPONSIBILITY The tests were performed under the direction of the CP Project Civil Engineer. Witnesses to the tests were: A Nuclear Re-gulatory Cannission (NRC) Representative from the Arlington, Texas Regional Office, the NRC Inspector stationed at CPSES, a TUSI site. Quality Assurance representative, and other site engineering personnel.
0
2.
2.3 TEST APPARATUS The arrangement and details of the test apparatus are shown on Drawing No. FSC-00464, Sheet 1, included in Appendix 1 to this report. The insert specimens tested were'taken at random from the Constructor's stock on site and were, therefore, represent-ative of those installed in the plant structures. They were placed in a thick concrete slab cast specifically for these tests and which was composed of materials and reinforcement y
similar to those elements of the plant buildings. This is "4000-pound concrete" (28-day strength). The laboratory test
-report on the concrete of which this slab is composed is in-cluded here in Appendix 1.
An apparatus for applying shear loads to the specimens was de-signed and built on site. This facility employed a 60-ton capacity manually operated hydraulic ram whose thrust against a crosshead was transmitted by tension rods to a 11/2-inch thick shear plate bolted to the insert specimen. Base reaction of the ram was transmitted through a structural steel grillage to the outer face of the concrete slab. Ram thrust was deter-mined by multiplying the fluid pressure (PSI), as indicated by a gauge on the pump, by a number equal to the ram piston area in square. inches. Deflections were measured by a dial indica-tor mounted on a remotely anchored bracket and with its spring-loaded probe in contact with the specimen bolt head or bottom nut where threaded rods were used. These instruments bore valid stickers showing them to be currently in calibration.
3.0 PROCEDURE In perfomance of the tests, inserts were cleaned of concrate mortar and other trash that would affect bolt thread engage-ment.- The shear plate was attached to the specimen insert by a suitable length bolt or threaded rod of type shown en the test data sheets, Appendix 2.
A new and different bolt was used for each insert. These fasteners were tightedcd " snug tight". On three specimens the shear plate was attached in direct contact with the top of the insert. On six other spec-mens a 1-inch thick plate was inserted between the shear plate and the insert, representing the " washer" used frequently at this location in pipe hanger installation. Shear loads were applied by the ram by operation of the manual pump. As the load increased from zero (o), indications of fluid pressure (later converted to load) and bolt head deflection were read at regular intervals. These intervals were at 400 PSI on the pressure gauge, corresponding to 5300 pounds thrust. Load application on each specimen was halted before failure occured and when the load had reached a size considered to be suffi-cient in compar.ison.with the design load values. At this point in each test, the NRC Representative indicated his con-currence with this consideration. After this, the load was removed, the apparatus detached, and observation was made of the condition of the specimen.
.3.
t 4.0 RESULTS s
As can be seen on the test data sheets, the maximum load appl-ied to specimens on which ASTM A490 bolts were used ranged from 88.110 lb. to 95,400 lb..
The bolts could be seen, after removal from the insert, to be slightly bent. By measuring the distance of the bolt tip from a line perpendicular to the bolt head these deflections were approximately as follows:
i, Fastener Specimen No.
Bolt length Deflection of Tip Type A-490 1
4 1/2-in.
0.0 in.
A-490 2
5 1/2 in.
0.05 in.
A-490 3
5 1/2 in.
0.10 in.
A-490 4
41/2 in.
0.05 in.
A-490 5
5 1/2 in.
0.10 in.
A-490 6
4 1/2 in.
0.0 in.
Other than these deformations, no bolt showed signs of inci-pient failure.
Loading of the three specimens employing a double-nutted SA-36 threaded rod for attaching the shear plate and including the 1-inch washer plate produced a reverse curve in the threaded rod. The offset between the approximately parallel ends of each rod was approximately as follows:
Specimen No.
Offset 7
0.4 in.
.8
.4 in.
9
.4 in.
The fact that the end portions of rods were not truly parallel accounts for the difference in deflection measured at the bot-tom nut on the rods. Although these deflections were expe-rienced, there was no sign of imminent failure of either the threaded rod, the insert, or the concrete.
There was small spalling of concrete around the top of some inserts. This allowed the top of insert to deflect laterally and in the case of Specimen No. I to deform to a small extent.
However, in no part of any test specimen did breakage or com-plate failure appear to be imminent.
In each case at the time operation of the hydraulic pump was halted, the applied load was increasing, showing that neither the insert nor fastener had reached its maximum load carrying capability.
4*
The factor of safety far each sp2cimen based on th2s2 maximum applied loads is shown in the following table.
FACTORS OF SAFETY BASED ON
/
MAXIMUM APPLIED LOAD Maximum Facfar of Safetu
~
Specimen Applied Fastener Number Shear Load
' *g., Afax. Apolied Lead (Hips)
Design A//own' L.d s
/
- 88. / *
- 0Ns.st 3.32
=
A-490 8o/f 3
g o,,
90g,,,
, 3_4g W//" Shim &
S 9 S.4 SSf/js.St 3.60
=
2 95.4 SSf/jg_5, =
3.60 A:490 Bg//
4
.95,4
.939g,,,,
3,g9 Y6 /~ Shim &
6 90./
S0*!/kg.51 3.40
=
7 58.3
- 0*f,,s 7 3.30
=
3A 36 Threadad
/ Pod 8
63.6
'/iz 6 7 3.60
=
"//" Shhn A 9
63.6 63.gy,7 y, go
- Lone' halfed due to die / indicator for def/ecfion havin.9 reached ife /hnif of fravel.
5.
5.0 CONCLUSION
These test results show that the performance capabilities of the Richmond Insert in shear exceed the design allowable by a ratio of more than 3 to 1.
Thus, a minimum factor of safety of 3 is indicated. The test results for the. specimens with the 1" thick
/
washer are comparable to the test results for the specimens with-out the washer. This indicates that the presence of the washer had little effect on the performance of the bolt or the Richmond Insert. If additional bending stresses are introduced into the bolt as a result of the presence of the 1" thick washer, the test results show that it is not significant enough to distinguish the difference.
Based on this test, the design allowables for shear loading are acceptable for use without further investigation or additional calculations.
9 s
4 e
4 4
APPENDIX 1 t
e G
"Y~
p At*CHE ?"Att STEAM ELECT.'lle - STATIO.'s p
g,g/
cATE Pit *ud.' :e CC.tGE331vE TE373 0.3 CCNCPETZ
'"* *" "* c"[ 3 ; f
, 'n:::::', aE -.91_GE.!t.I - Y /
Qy~ g/gg/q i As.#.,sr i a A.
M,o a A.
CA w,o e. A ToTat wartaieArCw Type Ca Cupin, l: : ;I,iF l 6(2.0 as
/2.0 tsS
^#
Fe/,0tes o
tes
/Y2 Mal f/
//f,P t
tas 5
2-.:Att..
g 2 j 81 * * }&*:,.
OE**EV / CJ V3.
"20 AC:E3 t8 0/CENENT RAfl3 ase CU.
TOT AL
".J SPECIFIED CESIGN STPgNgtw 2
- ?*
C AL.
.h?h ll. D d. hh0
$0$
5 hfrf FSI CA*5 44
- aA'.C Cr Mus%T TYPE CF 2'.lC*ef CMAN3 CF AIR ENTP AINING ACMIXTuRE BRAND CF wtTER RECUCIF ACHlXTuat Wa*
f E C A.
e-- -=k ff a
'., l :n.'Pf tj ('le.b u.-
2 b3 TR tiebwn, 2.G.3 2.57 J
C A.
$p Ca. CA.
Sou9CE F.A
$7. CA. FA
- r..ENESS WCCUtES F A.
I T*.it CF wer:=a5
!a*CH Loa TICMET NC.
SAMPLE TAKEN ATs
. I AN' /
[
c.y. [MM
?
ll'4ET+JD E
OF *L * *iNC [ PJ, O suCxET esiTE A-tto ous wtAr o.
Ai. TE CosC. TEu..
Sot; [
0 euCC ES O m7 CuUTE
,2 el-33 /fr;E(Ueg-3 0
- r 6 / 'r
- 7 Vis l TiVE OF Aw443 AT' UNIT WT. C'J. FT.
MIX 10 SPECIMEN TAKEN SY SPE 1 WEN CAST 57 At3
' /hN tsS.
1,32.
OS6c RarT~~~
d6 78'S 6~ 2. 5 f _***. =0E4 so g l b!A**J9EC AvC. 04 CATE CAPPED l?ESTED dh
%j TYM C#
TIM E DATE MAX LcAC CCh*9EsmE
'CA IN s w.
CA3'*ED Bf TESTED t 3.
STAENGTH py gy F8EJg T
- k)_sS*A 1 Y.hols 2 *lW &
O*12f O~l8*'0584Sco
~$ Silo WC &
Q is'i'h ]
~
~~y C07
- l W 073 t, 2
- l-95$:D$h]D c
l '123, s-C. 2.5 k$L ce9 h I. ) A W m A5 M
6*10 &
- -n-@ in on 57, io i; u sdas M %
nn 26, X V%
we ors.2 8 -n-e3 irr cn-23iY 0
/, nCh 5 9 -4.S h_d 0 6 S* E T.] e e A
'Vil $~C
'b
\\(351s-P!Mh$h'.co:
3 "T5lu]ro, tS' 70 N $ 4W L
vs.'tC*Es sv-LIM
[r 503 /
T :Av *aE*aED tr
- m..: re:co 42 4 /fs- /t.c4 7g yg
_~.:k *.:avmww.cc1 r
- u_ ;. s.
O n
fo& '.hfox-<stit71oa 00/
U, NeL:-
Va u.S w A
p.,,,,
4 O*
"b dd[
.j'JANCHE 7EAM 37EA9 E LECTRIC STATION Ot7-M
,co. ~,__s e w.
.DATE RE*0rt T C.'l 0%7 *!:'5:vE T CF CONCRETE no: :u=E DlN?!I l*,b' T5
~7~g 6'ock
'' "* # q
. m vs:sf r&
a,o r A CA
,o C A.
TOTAL ArE=<aarc Tva! or CuniNo
'/da.id
//f8' I.
A As~
f, i 20 tas
/.2o tas 7/60tsz o
tes tas
. u.. -. E 4
r 8 C's t.*. '
- E -?.* #~ CJ 73 Mg3 ACOE3 H 0/CCWENT RAT!o A14 CU.
TOTAL y
$*Ettrito CEsiCN sTAENGTH 2
I Sis 7 tEs 4/
,.T 7 6
/I.I., cz.
Sr of Mcco.s.zS ca.
ea,3 l l581*.C Cr5E E':* j ?r8E CF CEMENT
~7/19 'n2.
N)h 3/4 84A*80 08 Ar# ENTR AsNING ACWfrTURE S4ANo or WATER AEot,Cins ACWixTURE W AX slZZ C.A.
Q.-
C
$ ' s, k.E ca sa ca. C A.
scuaCE r.A se ca. rA ri e a.Ess scoutEs r.A.
r Tj.\\(Ue.o m.y-DL3 7%) &b,:qs.c-
"L La 3 e2. 51
=
l TY'E CF MahG3A 7,e'.CAO Ticulf NC.
SAM.tE tax!N AT:
I62."256 O CEwat ui E=
re.Ws G point Cr o,se A.x A,.L i g
e.v.
WET,.co Cr *.AC;*.3 I PUMP BUCxtT CATE SAwotE3 wouR WEATHER AIR TEvp CONC.TEwp.
stuwe euCSits C sELT C CauTE
.2.ia s jpg Eks.
So r fp r fM m TNE Cr wet N s AT UNIT wf. CU. rf Mix to.
sPECinfEM TAKEM av
- PECwEN CAsf 8Y Asat Es =At..ANr I32 D S bo w e---
f6 -M S~ 2. *
'7a eev-.; -
/ VL(. 5%
tes
! m.~ow in j y, j EA stal Ave oA.
oArt Canato TmE oATE e x.toAo co--wt C, %., W,g Tw C, 3A
.N iN.
C-t o av TEsTE3
'EsTEo
. s.
sT*E:.crn y
m:A<
i I I
i
..'M g
?
I t
6 i
i i
- i. Mll i
.=
i i
i
!d NA i i
P ; NA l
l l
I u
eL3W.G.cn j &.ot/ 2.H-33 rtis 4:S%,p.14. WS5sco l'k o
'i~ns.7.ns DC i
) fz~Cd fi;h G.ccS 2S'83 (O GS1') 4-n e9 (?/,90 ~726C79 0
)by Fip,
l' Tw~ ; C5Wt.o c.:.I>-n-es %.)
A W " z. i s a = noe.a 3 7o IM M ;.' =C
.idil!..
l l
i iACarm s. e.u.
.E..-
i 1.-12 H m ed)
CURING CONTROL TEST RESULTS FCR 28 CAY EREAK ta.* A* P! 't Cu-EC CTti'a0E'aci nEL3 CUSE3 cvtiNCEC E*tt.**+
.P s.: )
(C)
STEENGTM (p S I) to) rd)
' 31 k
.r. :, - m.< e.
r
- 2. m.m. z.
- r. -
- E'
.1 As3vt wst 8C ECUAL To on CaEATEa TeAN o est C4 (2) AeovE Nf ED h07 EXCEE3 THE DESIGN STRENCTH ST MoRE THAN Sco Psl EVEN TMouCe.
Tnt 01s C *iTE9fCN is Nof MET
... "C'r* a ti. /s 4 : *:. J.1"DlO _[ } 8 S
- Cs* % ss.v ua;...E
.a.. m.T. J C.7. /
-*-0AT 7mEmato av IN CaECatser.,_/h
- ~.: 8.., c so.,,' ""~4 - t.'/ - t is.' :.
4 2eN
~
- 6-C" **EPAsto Cr C>at:ets at YM f" c.q r%.r t.to /!y -- M N
- Qarcyci;. g f
.:*D.a. :.:. : a.1 :- r s~: ve.n_2y m (D
fi futC TM fortMrA' lord N!
u.:b'c S f
,;..,,i.g; Tusco L,.a su j,gon s
f APPENDIX 2 TEST DATA SHEETS hu ' d u ' mes i'm t hi
^~
1 dientV6DJ A~'
RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
SPECIMEN NUMBER:
/
OATE #2 VN ~ A BJ 80LT SPEC:,4-490 W/ SHIM PL.
[
W/0 SHIM PL.,
DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *
(IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.)
(L85).
L i?c-a
.A
.. n i: :
..f21 fee rJoe
- f..W fcc
/g cm
. ccr izcc
/E90o
.eh
/4 e c Elsuo
,ier zuo fc.roo
.!.39 dWC 34 dec Y
.se 8 2fsc
.77 /co
,2cc 3&c 40 @c
,2]c 16co 4% 7co 27C 4 C 00
.f3, om
.30&
44'0e fB300 SGh di >'s s/d - M.d. <<.K-d l
. 3 s;C 4 fee 6J,dev
%dar454.4 4:u,.a J.Q.
~
4 52 p 2ce de foe i Jo rgw 74 too S
.6/3 4 a <*
79fm t,~7 CM 84sco f, fee
$&D ggt /C J.= Q *4 A * ' ~ ' & & "
e, *ww,- w
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOA 0 ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /888 JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER N C/r 604 I
PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER /##/
DUE DATE: 9 b 83
./
DIAL GAUGE: MATE NUMBER E v 9#-
DUE DATE: Es M EJ PERFORMED BY:
WITNESSED BY:
9 229/, avg'fV)
We**
f f ]~ N '.V)
/
DATE QA REPRE5ENTATIVE DATE 1
i
--v e
w-,
.,--,-..--w.,
-,~.,
-n,--m,,.w,e,..m n,
_m,+w-m, mneyy_n,,--,,,,.,,a-n.vw-w-rnv.,w--,,w-
=.
APPENDIX 2 RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W !NSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
SPECIMEN NUM8ER:
2 DATE 2 2 "Aa d NJ 80LT. SPEC:
4 - 4 96 W/ SHIM PL.
W/0 SHIM PL. V
' DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *
-(IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.)
(L85).
e.040 4x TJoe
.02f teC
/0,doo
.D&2
/2 00
/f;foo
.c94
/ Goo 2/, Eco
./$c 2DM E4, foe
, / '72 ZWe. 3/, 600
. E/2.
24 foe J%/ec
. iTV-3Eed 4&s'id
. 297~
24kw 42700 3c6 4 fro f3, coo 1.
>324 t
44 eo in Jim
.348 4fre 64 ao 37/
J" Zee 44fm
.fc0 S4ce 74 foo
.A$4 ift 0
'7yfeo
.4 72 d4Do J%/do
..f/3 c:Bec
,oo, /co t
f~do
'7Eoc 954oc Ceona u/e
.',* i i -
e+,n 4rC Q i~
A M % ~ - /~ % A N % L,
$se/) :- d,x'.bmh7"On.
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (L8S) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /5. 2 f JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER /$CN 400 PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER
/82/
DUE DATE: 9
'8=-<. NJ DIAL GAUGE: MATE NUMBER 849#
DUE DATE:Ed a 's 2 1
PERFORMED BY:
WITNESSED BY:
Y f/h7e GDra rny
'd
/
3 -zz -c DATE QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE
,-,s_.
..-,m,.,,,-
...,,,.m,,,,
m-,%,,,%m,._,._-~._.yy..,,---.
_,,,,__-.my--.,y.----,,,,-%,,,,,,-
Ar. 'f.NO# E RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
)
i SPECIMEN NUM8ER: _Y DATE 22 M f3 j
BOLT SPEC: A - f-94 W/ SHIM PL. V W/0 SHIM PL; DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK
- I (IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (8.5.I.)
(L8S).
n P.///
fDD 5000 0, Df3 BAO
/Di dC0 C $$6
/200
/J"fod D.A78
/#w 2/EM
./W Efeo af See
./7f as400 J/,600 a2D7 29tw JZ/40
- 50 JE*D Hfed
. Scr Scoc f7 7eo
. Sc;f" +Ne ff, oco 4l'7
- $Ce fd<!ad 443 A 8tt AZ 6de
.fe/
f2#c dB yeo f.f*7 S4 cc 7,s*Joo M A C L h !4
. 4/2 G.Gfe 72.fve
,642 44tD 89'8st
. ?LF 6 Hec ft)/e*
%% dyM M ;7;
- u W d 4-d:44 # =* ; s.M
*
..Tpo f4ps S8,300
. 44'A f'844) 6.)'60"
.r//
S2 K SJ,Peo
~2 36
.S~Get 79.Eco-
,M ndis z sas.n.
. f 7/
ADoD 7P,JDo 4 4./-
.n.;c. M M --/. Si,
. 60s,t dyrt Bgdeo
. C%4 66/O fe, /c o
.6B6 7dco grwo-G~~ s-.udu o. x;m <nQ~
M M.24d4 4 e-/.sru*-
- r,.~jiE
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.)' TIMES< J. d 8~
JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER d'C/r 4o o PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER
/BE/
DUEDATE:".O'u EJ O!AL GAUGr: M&TE NUMBER 209/.,4 DUE DATE: ##.i~ b'3 PERFORMED BY:
WITNESSED BY:
t Y I'
'h/
3 *d2.VI bhts7$'A S'J:2.? ff OATE QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE
[
RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 SPECIMEN NUMBER:
[
DATE 2 2 M M N I i
D.*g BOLT SPEC: 4 - 4 94 W/ SHIM PL.
V W/0 SHIM PL.
A OEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *
/
(IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.)
(LBS).
- c. ct3 900 J~/od
,rri fee
/c Geo
. C 9/
/200'
/f, f to
../J2
/4 op 2/ Eso
./fo 2 coo 24,soo 220 2<tc 3/, soo
.Z65-2Btr
- 37. too
.3c)3 32co Art. 4eo
.'334 24w 42: 7cs s Tp $~
4-Pcv f.7,coe
- 3'f/
49et fe, Joe 4/b" 4t 6do 63,Cao 94 fide M 90o
.#74
~$~4 AD 74,200
& ~J 2,. O s sL, /% 2
. $0 'T Gefo 7f,fo*
4 n O ' =% & N
~> g
. b")$
$4cc 8fBee
.S 70 CBee 90,/Co
. f., /4, fde.;d Vis &'$
-Nd.tiu M Jedi, y ~7.6A
+$4 m'-m I-g A M Y M c."v/s
%~
M s*;' bW
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACKTHRUST(LBS)=GAUGEPRESSURE(P.S.I.) TIMES
/J. df JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER 8 CN dos PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER
//d/
DUE DATE: 9 L 87
/
OIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 2094 00E DATE: EO M '85 PERFORMED BY:
WITNESSED BY
. h.
YY ~5'EE 93
/h'e.h'*0.8/_ 3-U_ f3 DATE QA'REPRESEtiTATIVE DATE 9
e -. u-3 RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC=6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 SPECIMEN NUMBER:
6 OATE 22 Tha*4 ' J Bot.T SPEC:
A - 490 W/ SHIM PL.
W/0 SHIM PL. 7 DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *
(IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAIL!!RE MODE (P.S.I.)
(LBS).
o.o 39 9'oc rgoo
.cc7 Boo
/0, Coo
. C99
/Eoc
/f,900
/Jf
/ Cree 2/.200
./ 73 2 we 24,SCO
' 22f" 24w J/,10e
. d 1.4' 28cc 37/ed 32 z 3Zoe 42)co
.xc7 3 c oc 4'7, 70 0
.pt accc f], o so
. a.co 44cc ff,Jkw
.&df Hoc 43,400
.c'74 fino 48,900 de a seAc.a m 9,,
.727 Sces 74,2co J t w a.c & 2 J e1 &
- 's 5~
Coca 79,.ree
.Sc?
44c0
$f 800
.fff Oc0 90,/de 6 a -Q s".:,s M..ume.i e
. w t e, & ~ W M m '
M.M a l~ n Npu
-pnc q ir e
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES
/_P,da' JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER /f C/r 6 t> (,
PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER
/Bd/
OUE DATE: 9 O w '# 3 DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 2099 DUE DATE: la M '87 PERFORMED BY:
WITNESSEDBS:
6/NEV52h$ 3'-22-t']
lbAe 'Eu%. 67
.b-'J)
/
DATE QA REPRESEllTATDIE DATE 1
e.
arwam RICHMONO 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS i
SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
^
4 SPECIMEN NUMBER:
'7 OATE 8 8 #'
- 3 BOLT SPEC: / A J 4 /o,/
W/ SHIM PL.
V W/0 SHIM PL. f;t-g DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *
(IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.)
(LBS).
0.08/
4 00 f.100
. 2 7 7.-
' Goo
/o,4m
.@e
/ded g,90s
. W.?
/GCC 2/ 200
~
a $~/6 2t.1CW E4564
..f4 8 2+co st. Beo
.44,7 E8De f7,/M
. 7 72 JEco 92,reo
.8/.!
J6 CO 4 7,740
.38.9 Loco
$3, e**
+:#oc
$~4 5" 2La.L.;w * 'r%i 4 w, --
a --
aa /Ae.e, A.4&La %
a
. d b.r & e f Asc2t W
l
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOA 0 ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE'(P.S.I.) TIMES
. J. E r JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER A' C N 606 PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER
//2/
OUE DATE: 9 -M 'BJ DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 8494/.
OUE DATE: Ed M '#3 PERFORMED BY:
WITNESSE0 BY:
, b, J - 1.z-13 tZsr 4 & a 5.n.g DATE QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE
RICHMONO 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS REFERE.NCE: CP-EI-13.0-8 4
SPECIMEN NUMBER:
//
DATE 22 "/7*/ N l
BOLT SPEC: d'4 14 A'o/
W/ SHIM PL.
7 W/0 SHIM PL.
OEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *
/
(IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST ^
NOTES - FAILURE MODE
'(P.S.I.)
(LBS).
Ad29 4co J~Joo
/9e Be
/44n
. 34r
/2ee AC9eo 9e#
4 eo zuco
.4r7 Eow Ed, J~u
.s'a s 4e
- Jt,8m
.6 / 8 2#D 25 Jent 4ff
.72w
+&M
. 74r 34 *<>
ss7,7e
. ffr ALac f),no
.810
+m
.rnsa R Ae. n. J _n, a
.912
+ 8 oc c.s.sw 6 <DXAL me A,4 % ~
A
< & x, w n.da n.. n A.
J It
/)
\\(
L
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
l JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES
/ E, /#
JACK: ' EQUIPMENT NUMBER M'C N
(;o /3 PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER NJ/
DUE DATE: 9 Jna Nr
./
DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUM8ER 8494/-
DUE DATE:
27 20,1..
PERFORMED BY:
WITNESSED BY:
p.. a. f m 3 2 2.-J'3 l%f>;@e.jw 3.s; g,
/
DATE QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE
,,-----.---,,,------n
,--------r----,,-,,m.wnw,-,,-
,,,--.--w
-n
,~w-_ - + -
RICHMOND 1-1/2-TNCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
SPECIMEN NUMBER:
7 DATE 2 2 W<*' M FJ BOLT SPEC: J4 -34, M W/ SHIM PL. [
W/0 SHIM PL.
~
DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *
(IN.)
PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.)
(LBS).
ao17 4'c o f3W e O '? /
YJC-
/0, M
./2 n i, o es
/C 9" e
/ 7 '7 in eo 2/, 200 e 225
.2 e c o 26,f@
i
< 2 & C.
> ye n J/, o'M
- 340 2700 37/00
.Wo 31cc 4 2 9'"
~
e f 2 (-
3C e o
</7, 7M
~
a609 v'c on SL w
?.
a fe 9 [
'/Voo SB,f.m l
V2/
4800 G2 w s
I au ddA/A:e.
w
- w. m c
e
- -ede:-.
h A o A C..y m
)
?
K.
E l
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
J JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES
/ 8. ET JACK: EQUIPMENT Nt!MBER gCN 6o6
(
PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE* NUMBER
/8d/
DUE DATE: 97
't 7 m
DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 24fV DUE DATE: Mb'n c
./
PERFORMED BY; WITNESSED BY:
Nr O d-YiEA i
S~A2 S]
YWM k0,St.7-22 P7
=
DATE QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE
=
r
e
,g I
r.
t APPENDIX 3 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES t
t i
i I
kl{$ !! $
[2' ' If'k $
t I
- '/ 'b r
a W(4!
gcGNP-d f
u M.n p..?h,,UOMMf$,@G
!}j, i
4M i
! ! r i f
I iMiN 9 P
Nd,.g. isl' l@;l$m$!I!ici-"%+3fMg;"plj0
{. s. ll I
}
j j y!
j II l !
- -,.m,L. %,m,~m g..,s gJi 3,,
t
,m e
3 3 I
f l i :
4 ma l pr, li h
b k b i
A1 e
j g,{ 3:mt?-g I
a
.g r-41 d
gri4 ili it,p*
+h f
e
- H t
4 n
a 4
gwge:g!
p 71
~
a i
~-
,fC_s j i
4p+
j l
~
If n
,f j
1]
h.)
i t
2.
4 4' iP m
__J['JL l.ni j
g 3
ac. ~l j-L (E[ h,;'
jt '
T-t M
f J
3:
w
..n
.hih jl
$ 'r.
-D f
i u
s
.r E f Ehl m
1 i g'. !
35
-9+'-iln i
[,
M M
6
]k.T [e e
u hi u.,
j bj 4
,, }
,..a '
J 1
y i
i J
c:
a
]
g-g e.t
- i hk k
2,j W
4 br "
aq $mll1~4',B..
4' Ei !
[
F U
u f
i :!
1 2
L
'il
{g lii i
1 i
p
?* :
1 NN I
N l
h h
I I
_Li.,
L. y _, _ LJ ::5.$
j li 85 l
1 St Et.
4l:.._q___v: := fi "I,.t.):.ct fg lio 3:..g::..g 1:
t 1
i,
_....... 4
- e..z....
1 t.4 s*j k T+1 l
I f it r.
e
-,.a.,
_ me**.y
-w.se - - - - - #4 -
rr jg
~:
s 0
0./
0.2 0.3
- 0. 4 O.S 0.6 0.7 0.8
- 0. 9
/. 0
/OC e
O
,/,-
/_ _ _
/
/
,/
-7
~~
80 e-e
/
p#
/,o f
/
.s s
/
/ /
/~~ f ',, -
p is
/
- s _,,
I 6A f
ff
_7
,f fv 4
/
,@ / e
/
x
,/
_?
,&'/
/
~
/,
/
l 4
,,N// *~_
/V~
1
/
n'
,r'
[_,
~ ~
/:/
/
/
j
/ '/ *
/
k
/ /
30
,1
/
l.
/
/
/
/
^J,!
L E G END
/,
,'/ f.
A-490 Bo//, Wf /"Jhtm8 20 f
' /
'$s'
A-490 Bo/f, W//**3/shn /
s..
s
- - OA-36 Rod, W/ /"ohlm $
~~
/
/0 7 y.,.
Q Spechnen Nutnber
~~
S l
1 o
o 0./
- 0. 2
- 0. 3 0.4
- 0. S
- 0. 6
- 0. 7 0.8 0.9 40 INCHES L
DEFL E CT/ ON'
~
h t
hg f OAD - DEFLECT /0N C U R V Es3 kb N
r..
g 9
o D:signttion: C 805.- 79 s.f;3t v. -
CASE ATTACIEENT E
[
s
. ; p_
- p..-
p.
AME RICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND M ATERI At.S ?.O..
f-
.5
.~ A.'...
}A =
- .k 1916 Race St.. Philadelphia, Pa.19103
- '. i
- ~ '
=
Reprinted from the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Copyright ASTM y pd c y; w. ;. h.., - If not listed in the current combined index.will appear in the next edjtion.,.q j]
'.-2. {.:
.. ~....
e.g(.,
=._ ', y e,
f-^ ->, <
y,-p } y' q.
.~ ~
qgy v -
F'. -
Standard Test Method for wJ 4
?dMN REBOUND.' NUMBER dE-RdENE6 N $. ) 7.7 ~G y y.? s
-,,. CONCRETE'i ~~ ~
7 D
?. ' J,,..v* '
s.,
^
, 3 ;". d This dandard is issued under the fixed deugnation C N05. th'e'numberTmmediately following ike deugnation indicale kh h
.*, ycar of onginal adoption or. in the case of resinon. the year,of tass reymon A number in parentheses indicates the ycar ojast ",,h reapprovat.
,t.
A IL l
=
. y' i(
{
A p
N
- 1. Scope *
'date testing of vanous sizes atid types of conc'ete d
- Q,c...$.1
- 1.1 This method covers the determination 1
construction.
- N-
'Nk. M d.g:
'of a reb'ound number of hardened concrete 4..! Ahrasirc Stone. consisting of medium-i a
using a spring-driven steel hammer.
gr in texture silicon carbide or equivalent ma-
- " #. ' :* a
- 2. Applicable Documents t-h.
- 5. Test Area Y $ y.i.c n.[E 177 Recommended Practice for Use of clatum of Test SurfaMoncrete
- w-2.1 ASTM Standard:
members te be tested shall be at least 4 in. or.
' Y d'M M the Terms Precision and Accuracy as 100 mm thick and fixed within a structure.
,S' Applied to Measurement of a Property of JU:d S a Material:
Sm IIer specimens must be ngidly supported.
,;:. r g~,p Areas exhibiting honeycombing. scaling.
7
- 3. Significance rough texture, or high porosity should be avoided. Concretes should be approximately?
3.1 The rebound number determined by this method may be used to assess the uni-tk same age and moistue conptm in og
~
t be compared. Dry concretes give higher formity of concrete in situ. to delineate zone's
~
rebound numbers than wet concrete. and the
~
or regions tarea f oi poor quahty or deteno-rated concrete'in stryctures and to indicate surface layer of concrete may be carbonated.
I changes witn ume in characteristics og g @er u
numbers? W Mnn
^
m tenal against which the concrete was EreiE.m.' as inose caused by the hydration of cement so that it provides useful informa-pl ced'should be s: nila.- rNote 2). Troweled tion in determining when forms and shoring.
surf ces gener Ily exhib,t higher rebound i
~
may be remove'd.
riumbers than screeded or formed finishes. If 3.2 This method is not intended as an alter-possible. structural slabs should be tested fr m the underside to avoid finished sur-native for strength determination orconcrete.
faces.
- 4. Apparatus NOTE 2-WhEre-formed surfaces were ground.
- ~*II I"*'I" D ""d ""'"D* *I 2'I I"'
4.1 Rehuund Hammer.3 consisting of a
. sygg-Q' spring-loaded steel hammer which when re-
'This method is i.nder the prisdiction of ASTM com.
ji.pN leased strikes a steel plunger in contact with m8"" CW on Concrete and Concrete Aggreg.ites and n the direct responsibility of Subcommittee Co9..
?.
the concrete surface. The spring. loaded ham-02.05 on Nondesiructive Tesiins of Concrete.
l J,
mer must travel with a fixed and reproduci.
Cur'. it edition approve <' May 25.1979. Published July ble velocity. The rebound distance of the 1979. Ooginally published as C 505 - 75 T.1.asi previous c
,4,,,on C 80s - 75T.
{gjk
""dd';ailable from Schmidt Test Hammers. Inc., 502 g ~;? -
steel hammer from the sted plunger is meas-
' Annuar so,a of Astu standardr. Pa ts 13. 14. 15.
I ured in a linear scale attached to the W,%
frame of the instmment.
North Tacoma Asc.. Tacoma, Wash. 9M403.
- Zoldners. N. G.. "Cahbration and Use of im act Tes
-[-
1-NorE.1-Several types and sizes of rebound-Hammer." Prcreedings. American Concrete nstitute.- '
hammers are commercially available to accommo-Vol 54. August 1957. pp.161-165.
.m Mg i
3'
. ' '.1. -
2921 C et c..
.N-._.....'.....-
, J. :
%? csos m
~
- ~
?.
- .w ;. m v n u. -:. v. y x plywood formrd mernbers and 0;4 for'high-densityif tion that allows' the plunger to strike perpen.-_
i plywo6d f6imedjuya'ce[h,4v,ii beeri notedj*;C, '. dicularly to the surface. tested. Gradually in. -
n..
.~.........
~
5.2 Preparation of Tr.st,Surfar.c-A Ii C crease' the pressure on the plunger until the.
2-
[.1b,y 'ariahhall bdatilhastLjiqgpr50Imm)n hammer impacts. After impact. record the Q.j '.diin'e' tert (H,eavily' textured. yoft.y surfaces {E rebound. n 6' K. -.v.ith,s. ose~ morta.mr shall be gr.7u.n.d Nm.ooth.'.' T. ak.e, ten'readmgs from,each test area.' N8 lo Iwo.tmpact: tests.shall b'e. los.er together1han'f w b. .w t 3 with the' abragive stone; described in 4.23r c th.formet{ip traiwfeleitTudac'el sh'all bef.I inhr 2'57nnl Examine the impression made' ~ ' lM Sm' rested'with7ut'grindin'g'. Thieffects%fd'r>in.i ~0n' th'$rface after impact'. and' ~ disregard the ~' and carbonation can be minimiEed by thbr@(- read,ing_if oughly.3etting thisurfaces for 24 h prior t through1a near-surface air void. i I testing? Concretes over 6 months *old*may * "~ ' ~ I require grinding to a depth'Ef /a inMr 5 mm ify
- 7. Calculation -
} i' [5 f they are te be comp ~ared to markedly youngef 7.1 Diseard readings difTering from the ai-Q.. lf concretes *. Grinding to this depth is not feasi-erage of 10 readings by more than 7 units and g I V ' li ble without power equipmentfGround and~ determine the average'of the remaining
- read-Y unground surfaces should not be compared) infs If more than 2 readings differ from the
/ 5.2. Other factors that may affect the re-average by 7' units. discard the entire set of? readings > , i; si, suits of the test are as follows:... 5.3.1 Concrete' at 32*F (0*C)~ or lessjnay' ws g%,j exliihit very h'igh~ rebound' values. Concrete
- 8. Precision
~ .g MJ M should be tested only after it has thawed. 8.1 The single-specimen. single-operator. g.d 5.3.2 The temperatures of the rebound.? ' machine. day precision is 2.5 units (IS) as Tf: ' 'i'3f.; ~ 6 - [{ hammer itself may affect the rebound num^ defined in Recommended Practice E 177. 'M i .e.. ;. ' ber-T" and Interpreen d hbnd Ham-NOTE 3-Rebound hammers at 0*F t-18*C) may, .'4* exhibit rebound numbers reduced by as much as 2 mer Results 3 '3' 9.1 Optimally. rebound numbers should be 5.3.3 For readings to be compared the dii correlated with core testing information. Due rection ofimpact. horizontal. downward up-to the difficulty of acquiring the appropriate r. ward. etc.. must be the same. correlation data in a given instance. the re- F 5.3.4 Different hammers of the same nomi-bound hammer is most useful for rapidly sur-nal design may give rebound numbers differ-veying large areas of similar concretes in the ing from I to 3 units and therefore. tests-construction under consideration. should be made with the same hamme'7IE order to compare results. If more than one
- 10. Report liaiEiiIcr is to be used.UQfficient number of 10.1 The report shall include the following e
tests must be made on typical concrete sur-information for each test area: faces so as to determine the magnitude of the 10.1.1 Stmeture identification. differences to be expected. 10.l.2 Location of test area. for example. NOTE 4-Rebound hammers require periodic 10 ft from bottom of Column 2. Bent 3; or 3 ft servicing and venfication: annually for hammers in from north end. 5 ft from left curb of span 2. ,. 4 heavy use. semiannually in leu frequent,use. and 10.1.3 Description of test area. for exam-whenever there is reason to question their proper - a e operation. Metal anvils are available for venfica, ple. wood-floated surface dry ground with f4 i ~~ tion and are recommended. However. venfication abrasion stone. Q' on an a.nvil will not guarantee that different ham-10 l.4 Description of concrete:
- M
[- g mers wdl yield the sarne results at other points on , the rebound scale. Some users compare several !p^M. i hammers on concrete surfaces encompaning the I c' ~ usual range of rebound values encountered in the 'd field.
- Gaynor. R. D., "tr. Place Strength of Concrete - A L:
i ~ Companson of Two Test Systems." and "Appenda to i. g Series 193." National Ready Mued Concrete Assn.. Tll. ^ e
- 6. Procedure
( .. _. No. 272. November 1969. 6.1 Firmly hold the instrument in a posi-ApnNigi Ready Macd C nerete Assa. TIL No. 260 et.... I. Q 's. a., ~ e s O . Z.. 2922 C-9' ~ ~ ~* ? 3 J
fb hh. C 805.,;.
- ms n
s;; p:e s-::;--
- ,.3..g.c
,.,.n.... .r -e .-.,,.... ; f .-., ;. _ w. ;.. 10.1.4.1 Compositio 3 :n, if known:^a'ggregates,M.10.1.4.5 Type;.of forms used for the test : i?; O.... cement content.:.' water-cem. en.t... ratio ~, air con.. a.rca i.f. knos n.or discernible ~ r-F 4.... M..... tent, admixtures u' sed, etelly% j'jQhy;* 10.1.5* Average rebound number fo ~. e. 7' [{-1; -10.l.4.2 Design strengthq f. .itest area l: ik;1f 3. d i f : 10.1.4.33g'eL'ys.[y;g.. Wy, r;%Q'i 10.1.6 Values and' locations of discarded ; W 10.1.4.4 Curing conditions?and'any unu-rebound numbers, and ~ 26 101.7 Hammer type and serial number. f E sual conditions related to the test ar' a. and. j,' l. e ~ * - . " L.7) 'c:j 'fl, Q ifi :.Q.;R. .;, i, ...c q... " ~ ~ The Amencan Sasirts for Trseine and Matenals takes no pasawn resperting the salidity ofa.~v parent esches a userted sn a e.nnes sinn mah any nem me naioneJ in thu standard. Users of this standard are espressly adsiseJ that descemmaswn t,-- ofthe rahday ofany su< h patent nehts, anJ the nsk ofmfnngement nofsus h nahts. n ennrrly these um n respunsubshly. .? Thu vanJard is subject to rension at ans time b.s the respunuble tahnual cornmarre and must be resuenrJ esers fine , ?- seats and f not verssed. eaher reapprorrJ or mahdrunn. Your e nmments are mrard either for resssoon of thus standard or ~ ~' ' for adJasonal aandards and should be addressed ta ASTM lieudquarters )'our comments udl en esse careful conssJeratson at a meermg of the responsible techmcal rummater. whoch you mas auenst ll sou feel that sour comments ha e not recersed h g a faar hearmg.svu should make sour seen. Annan tu she ASTM Communer on Standards. l Min Race St.. Phdadelphia. Pa . k 14l03, mhsch mdl schedule a further hearmg regardmg. sour comments fathng unnfacunn there. sou mar appeal to the ,b .I ',L ;. ASTM BoarJ of Dsrectort .3 ,&,e v-~~ > r - ' - >: 4 7,':.* - r. .:....,. o - s
- _5'%
av e
- c. ;,
, *s,.* * ' ' ' * * *,.. Q ".-l_, 'e','p*. . ' s t ' l4 ~ t- ,.,.c .y . M.. t I ? i ,.' %,p :. e...,' % *. '1.f,epIrt ~ e~ ,! r?%3 wM*
- e
,,.r -:,. b:.q:T:t Q -i.Dd-} . %;F y .,.J %s-p. t ** 9 .t ,9'- f. ...p .
- C.. *
~ 8 e. 4 4 4 M $Q h'"' ..: t-I % t..
- s t
$$k k b F.. p 5 i* f.
- {*
s. ,.y ' f. 7,. a ? I; 3. q .x g 2923 c. C'- 10 ~ * ) ~l 1
^ b, ' * #.h.fc, - _ /[ f.(....r ;.+ h, *'% ek. 1.. a. y. ',7 N 74 (, s ,s o .% :1, ,.:.- a as. y-
- V'
'( j ;,17 '.f-p ;.. w. ). A.. 2 '. y !... ', y,. 3.p',# - [* .r.,. e. , c. - <='..'.., - .., '... + n. . A'.. ,n.gr '.,.g - " ' 'u'a: g 4 - *. 4;y.y,,7. ) M,, -Q.- ],, e l, }';r 4 :., ... r c - ... w.es-wMr sz a .. k. y;., ~. - r~, ;a; .g CASE ATTACIEENT F e., nn an,, enm r .m Handbook of Structural Concrete W Edited by F K Kong Professor of Structural Engineering x University of Newcastle upon Tyne R H Evans, CBE Lmentus Ptolessor ul Lml Logineering p# University of Leeds Edward Cohen W , Managing Partner, c Ammann and Whitney, New York Frederic Roll 7. Professor of Civil Engineenng University of Pennsylvania F d y/.* E McGraw-Hill Book Company L' New York St. Louis San Francisco g .s. 3 ,z 9 1 s i, -Y g - <......~: m p -. e; a -- x. , ' j' y.t, ".[
- y
-)' f, a...' '[: ^ \\ \\ b ~;.. '- a... : .y j.
- ..j,,',:,','-',.,!
'.'..T. ^ [fy, ...4 4; - ft * ,,,,,n g, ., A < + !Y r
i i. i. j 27.so n a ph,*i, r
- d..p*t evasumun n-Ji co..:. r - 5 d.1 e qua t cu g
i ../J h,,; 4,p,. .6 on gyrpeidacular surfJtes or even on the same surfacc. In the lasser case,lilile of ,., [.-- } j 541 areas Cracks I the omcrete h umpled Since a puhe mill not trasci atrou a crati but may travel i $1 1 arimnJ a a.mL of the dest.wtion ed its path is smi I*=> prcat. the technkpe-may be I,f %g., ,g*- r. 1mcatums and frespeency Type and size used lesh to locaic amt to esplore the entent ad cracks. It is excellene for asuming .gj y %.T 4 trachmg. stalactnes the umhmmic ed cimcrcse. Velocity lesch depcmt semic* hat on the nature d g Extent of coercminn or chemical metack secrecate. but nual mature concrete in g..wl combiion has a schicity in excess d 'y I ~'T Siamn 4 iin m. 14 ewuifiN. In reinforted tuncresc. the rewlis are not significantiy Esivwed secci affected M the reinforcing *tect unicu mmt ed the path bciween the eramalucers is t. Dramage cco,pecJ h a single bar. The ics has been uamlarthred in ASTILI C547 71 [7) st 1 a., = Wecpholes f Ha h'ng and IK M Part 51251 4 l 7.12 RAmnd hammer ib %. b.. .,s., Shires to drains A f; , gd. N There are cscral desices which meawrc the enefficient of revisutism between .l ! ucci and amercle. Pnihg.j ihe most popular td alt nim-destructi e tests is the pg g. ..,, }y I 7.2 Non destrudise gests i Schmkh reboumt hammer a spreng-loaded device uhkh drhes a seccl hammer gg' ,:p j There is a number ed tests which are nim-deurus1ive, or nearly so. and which can be applied to concrete in snu. They arc styd so dciermine ufe urionine time and agaere,I a.orarete surf.ece with a staeklard anwiunt of energy amt mea urcs the jT. 7-a i
- b' -
y datance
- ihe hammer relummt. De method has been standarired in ASTM p4 Ah in preside enformatonn usefulin the evaluatum of quesinmabl,e,,concreje.1)nforts-
. i $ Cp04.70 **] and its.440R. Part 4 (251 ney require sen readings in each ei g.. 6, i. I .n.atcig. these teus do not measure compreuive strength. But since the sess resu,lts seus arcs The reboumi is wmewhat scmeine to the incriia of the cimcrete in that 1I s if change as t_he cemerit hydrancs, as does ownpressive strcegt) it a reaggble on a that slab. and manite blocks of equal urength onwrcie might rive shghtly !l .f f gnen camcrete to espect a corvelasson bctween non-destructhe test resuhs and i S,1 _ pt Tesi resuhs. These seus are used wishfgreatest contklence wheel Jderem read ngs, but the mettust can pms ede a puid usumment of the ricar-g 6 wrface lser ed eemcrete. le ...[ s g4e' e. M compleViune a4 correlatium tests has tren conducltd in she laboratory before an 'h attempi h made to interpret field results When it h necewary to cammine queuwmaNe timcreic rn the field in the abse)nce of cuyrrelat*m data, seus may be
- d. g,g,,.,.rernenn rennemcc
..hh 7,; 5 ...e prohc. shn-h has been stamt,nshis-d in ASTNI CNot '4171 hres a a .J 4 "3.PhT1.Edhlb_ ort _t htqueummaNe cos.creie ami,em_ctmcrete, which.has been yn.g p,. oide ento shc powreer bv a powder share, oi c. refuth ominillsd C 3 lougas3t plane. A companwn of enuhs prmides some bases for evaluation. /r7 ' Certamly. if the quesimmable accrete produces as g<md results as the acceptaNe em.m r m. De penetratum of the protectile is measured in prat 1ecc. the g 'l '+ k.nsib r. nahng inwn the concrete is mca ured ami subtraciest inwn the sonal N ;[ y Q,. concreic. there'em letale reason so doubt the quainy of the questumaNe concrese. lencih r order en determine penetraiam. The metinst retrives its createst me in
- yl
-\\ g y:$ One note of cautinn is neceuar)(the test results are all to some degree sensitWe 10 the moesture conteni of the concrete. De correlabon tese should include the acictmi-n unpping time. E 'I_ JY range of moisture le els likely to he enniumered in the field, and field tests in the lll .W'[(33 {,fel.. gg pg,,,,,, c absence td correlatum should be restncied to tests em concrete of similar mostu.e The fulk. acess, standardised in ASTM 000-78T[7]. actually measurn strength. II Y in n r. mal form. it requires emhettment of a met.it errert en occrese as the hj'C , T (.{ l coments. A ctwnplete dncussion of tests currently in ene in gisen in[241 mmt , m, ]A - ownsmm tests are summarized hcInw' ? } 7].. oncret. - Maced De mu ri cnmists ad a cylmdncal head and a shats whuh y ( niesid : rhe surface. A censet-pull satL upplies a pull-out forte throuch a toil
- ' yq%
7.21 Puhe telutiev threade nio ihe shaft.De reactum to she load h supphed by a concemvic metal ,{ 1 The int whnh umpin the cimcrete most ctwnprehese cly in the pulse velocity rmg bem swa the concrete surface mich an imide diameter larger than that of g' { te t. whkh measures the velocity of a mechanical puhe between two hamt. held the ime cshnder. A concrete failure is forced appronnnatch em the surface ed . I
- ' Ji,, g 3
3 f% l peeroclectric or magneio-strictive tramducers placed on the surface of the con-she fru h of a cone formed by the imert cylinder, the bearing ring and the le ,r. ) g7 crete. An electrome timing nrcuit men ures the time of tramit of the puhe. As failure eface. A recent development has made it pmsiNe to install an imert 6 4 t J A, mdependens meawre is made of the dhtance between the tramducers, and the after the concrete has hardened. I
- 7. 8 p ;
i qu< ment of the two figures yicids veincity. De method is hmited only by the range h, y[ I of the smirument and the accewibihty in the surface by iramalucer holders. Usually 7.2.5 avat.og eeus i s in struciural concrete, neither a serenus. While heavy duty imiruments are For the creak-off method, a tubular de pnsable form h inserted in the concrete. ,k\\ i f avaslable with a range of 15 m f 50 ft) of concrete, the portable units best adapted When the form is femmed. an intact core of concrete. still attached as its base, l fy'
- . i.
s i' to structural wurL hase a ranre of about 2 m (6 6 ft). Beu rnuits are obtained remains. A radial force is applied at the surface to produce fIctural failure at the g -,.y \\.-, when the tramducers are on oppmite sides of a member, but they may be placed had of :. e core. De meilust has nos been standardized but it is desenbed in [261 { Lyh4; - : 1 g. i
w... eww smuurm quamy comrot. and evaluanon 27-33 y t 7.3 Core tes: Referernces h { Usually, when a dispute as to the adequary of strengih in a structure
- ses, cores are dnlled and tened. De core has an adsantage mer.es-deuructive tests i,,
thai it provides a dwect measure of cimipressive strength. the parameter which I. ACI Onnmittec 304. Rene,memled practice few measuring. mising. tram-a forms the basis of strength spenncatuwn. It he the denadvantage that et seldorn is pwimg ami pixing nmcrete (ACI 304 73). Amenran Comrere lesmute 'P ennumucally feasiNe to get the quanony of data Ihat h routinely available frorn mamad of anorarer pracare, part 2. lu80. pp. 3tu-l to 314-40 j l i l ? mm-destructive tests. Furthermore, it is not almays pwNe to obtain cores as 2 WdMcN J J-. O"a erse nonenn rirm handhd. 2nd Edn. AkGram-flin. New hwL.1974. Ch.19. ? ramhnn incation because of the possiNiity of damage to the structure. Thus. .\\ Natumal flureau of Standanis. $proficarums, srJemace. and nelice scchnical / I L-dechions male on the b.nh s4 ctwe teu results are likely to be of questionable 'aP"'rmenn frw emnmceckd omghmg and measuring derwes. Nils llamh=.k f uathsical valnhty. The strength criterion to tv apr sed to nwes is rmt obvious 44.1980. 2tn pp. g e / y since alte envin nment ed the cured concrete throughout its hfe is likely to have
- 4. Omcrute l%nt Manufacturers llureau. Omrecte plant siendards of the CP3fH.
I i been sinnewhat ddlerent frtan that of a stand.irJ ecse cylinder or cube morst-cured beh Edn.. Sdver Spring. Maryland.1977. I at uandard temperature. The procedures mandated by ACI Commitice 318 ?. US Dcpartment of the Army. Goil wwks omsmerke guale spenrwarnm-BuilJmg code meuirements for prinfmerd emirerse [271 require ihat three ctres tie drilled for each strength tesa which falls more than 3.4 MPa (500 psil below the roarecer. CW-03305. Owps of f ngineers. Office of the Chief of Engmeers. I Washington DC 197M.101 pp. design serengsh. De concrete is ancreed if the average of the three is at least
- a. Sarchlow. R. W. Omrerse plant panfracrum. Omcrete Plant Manufacturers R5% of the design strength provided thal no single core has a strength less than flureau. Sdver Spring. M.arytarm!. 1973. l12 pp.
j 75% of the de ign strength.
- . American Socicly for Te ting ami M.ncrials. Cancresc and mineralsegregares:
8 { manual of nmerrte restmg. Annual ihmk of ASTM Standards. Part 14. 1981. g g l'S Department ed the Army Gani aww&s conspurtum guide sprofirarum: rast-sn place smnsural coewrese. CW 03301 Corps of Encineers. Omre of the [ When all tests of the concrete itself leave the adequacy of the structures in dc.uht. Chief of Engineers. Washmpton. DC.107tt. 65 pp. i the unenure mas be acccreed hv the budding authority if it passes a load test. - ACI Comnnucc 3tN. Resunmended practwe for commlnlaine of notrete { 3,.* g r.; Detailed imeructam for such a sest is given in l271 When a entum of a structure i ACI.'idN-723. Amerwan Onwerer insnrure manual of concrcre pnsenre. Part 2. es to bc seued. the portum of the dead inad nos already acting shall he placed on l*N2 pp. 309-l to 309-40. ehe structure Jh h before the Irve kaad h added. De structure shall be inaded to %adilcll. J. J Omr crec cress,aceke handhd. 2nd Edn.. AkOram. Hill. Nem .y MS% of the total deugn dead plus hve ined in four equal merements applied in % ork.1974. Ch. 34. h} such a manner as to avoul shock to the structure and arthms of the loading ACI Commutee 3tm. Cold weather omcreung. Amencan Omcrcre lmtreurc f materials. After the test head has been in poniton for 24 h. initial deflection ananual of emwerse prarrace. Part 2.1982.pp. 416R-1 ta 3tI6R.22 readings shaft he taken. the test kind shall immediately be removed and final { deflection readings taken 24 h after removal. A flemural member is comidered C %hmless. S. and Wiung. J. F., Oncrete. prentice-Ilall. Englemood Chffs. New J satisfactory sf there is no shshle esidence of fatture and if either of the following ~ ICCf I98I Ch Il- [ lininh $s.andards lastnutam. BS 1881. 1970 Methoifs of sesong unwretc,
- l g.
ciednkms is satafied; l *"hk* 1970- ] lat De measured masimum deflecten is less than 1/2n0:30h. 8 (M The measured maximum deflectinn exceeds l'/2einunk hue the deflection .- h reuer. J. A.. IllacL. D. F. and tses. T. P., An apparatus few sac rapid ?
- I
- "*Iv$8s of far h narrrre an determine as cemens c,mtem. Cement and C m.
t recovery withm 24 h after remrnal of the test load h at leau 75% of the c'Cte ^".octainm Technical Report 42.44H.1974. ? maannum Jeflectum for nnn-prestressed concrete or sn% for prenressed ?! helly. R T. and Vait. J. W. Rapal analvus of fre h umcrete. Concerre. Vol
- 2. Na 4. Apnl 196N.pp.144-145.
{ ctmcrete. liere. I is the span of the enembers supported at the ends or twice the span of Howdyshell. P. A.. Evaluarum of a efermiral scrknspac se dercrmine water and P cantileser members. and h is the overall thickness of the member, rrmens temeent e,'fre 4 concrete. Con 4ructhm Engineenns Research Labora- )
- 7 tory. Champaien. Ill., Technical Manuscnpt Mll9.1975.
A non-prestressed member failmg to show 75% recovery may be resessed not l' American Omcrete insinuie. Accelerosed surnera rcinna. SP 56.1978. 310 pp. I carlier than 72 h after removal of the first test load and shall he considered la 13 phdico. R. E l_unatics. liars. and haNhty.1 Am. Concr. fase.. Thw.. Vol. 73. sainfactory if it shows no visiNe evidence of failure and recovers at least 80% of W 4. Apr.1976, pp.181-183. g the manimum deflectson in the second test. Prestressed cumcrete construction shall I* 38'"PR'an Standard for Cairrrec. NS 3474. nnt be retested. 5 ACI Committee 214. Recommended practice for evaluation of strength test 4 ij pt I
l l 1 I,' st .* T 27-34 R E Phitico T, f'[ results of concrete #ACI 214 77). Amences Concrete lastuaae manual af p concrret procnce. Part 2.1982, pp. 214-1 to 214-14. E
- 21. Grarit. N. T. and Warren. P. A., A cusum-controlled accelerated cunng systers
.c g for concrete strength, forecesams, RMC Techrucal Centre. Egham Surrey, d I O j, Technical Report No. 79.1977. '2. Briiidi Ready Mixed Concrete Anociation. Code for ready mazed concrete, i t' Shepperton,1975.
- 23. ACI Committee 201 Guide for making a conditen survey of concrete ss 9
9}l service. American Concrete Inststute manualof concrese practue. Vart J. I982 pp. 201.1R.1 to 201.R 14. '[. ;, - 'G
- 24. Malhotra. V. M Testant t.dened concrete: non destructn>e methods. Ameri-l can Concrete Irneatuse. Monograph No. 9,1976. 2fh4 pp.
e- .g;;i g t r..a
- 25. Inntnh Standards insatutkm. DS 4408. 1971. Recommendarwns for nom.
i 7.-, f4 " g'
- 26. J.diamen. R. f., in-wiu urength evaluation of concrete: the breakoff method.
... *. 7 [
- destrucave methods of revs far concrete. London.1971.
i. 3 '..1..- j-is f. ( . g /,/. Concr. las.. Vol. B. No. 9. Sept.1979, pp. 45-51. g c, - (-~ ] t ACE 3lS-77). Ameru en Concrete Insutuse manualof concrete procuce. Part 3 ,T i
- 27. ACI Committee 318. Buildmg code requirements for remforced concrete
[ a:. e L. ;{k I 3 (,' 1982. pp. 318-1 to 312-103. .. 4.. ,.y,.. q r g..# r. '1 Jp [ M' [.?[,.f; ;... I i .;-~,... t, ..g o ,m& a. a-
- v.
q. 4%l 'e 72 L
- \\. f* '>%
gl N . f 7 = g 4. li I v I 7'a ~ : ) e 1 i.- 4 E q- { ~- 1 r ,k
- s A r
.\\. n ,s.
.i TESTING HARDENED 1 CONCRETE: 4 4 NONDESTRUCTIVE METHODS ~:: 1 V. M. Malhotra 1 I 1 2 9 l n I l rq,,,, THE BOWA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1: I.) AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE DETRolf, MICHIGAN 't af e 7608O(S I
.s e ACI Monograph No. 9 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Turs nosoc.aapel is peablished ig (gyghcTance of dCl objectises in Y. II'd'A% I!41*MA. internationally known researcher author, and speaker, the ficids of engineering education and technology. 'The Institute
- i. Head. Conunution klaserials satime. Cana la Centre for Eneral amt is not responsible for the statements or oE'nions exPtened in its and "Renounes. Ouawa," Canada. "He twenal his B."Sc. degree from th' e Uni-
"" Y U" ""'I D* "*"" *' ""EI puggications., Institute publications are not able to, rior ir.tensted iersisy of Delhi. India. in 1951 asal his Chil Engineering degree frone the I to, supplant indisidual trasnang, responsibility, or jtulgment of the Unisenity of Weuern Auuralia. Perth, in 1957. llis eyerieme in concrete / user or the supplier, of the informatune presented. technology ased soils esigineering imhules everk witn Snowy.llountains f IlydroElectric Authority in Australia anal the construction induury in Isalia aseil Casiada. fic graisicd has present employer in 1%2 as klaserials Fn-gineer amt is currently eng.igeal in applied reneanh in the Echts of emurcie i amt somrene aggregares. 5 i Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ilia rescanh mo:L in the areas of concrete seuing, bchasinr of con- }) Malhoars. V M crete at low amt high temperatures, and desclopment of tests for in-situ Testing hardenal concrete: Noniestructise mentiods esaluation of concrete has led en numerous information airsulars, techniaal OCl sno.ograph no. 9) P'P"5 8"I "'can h reports. These have been put,hshed by ACI. ASTal, f.; lactaks bsbl=>graplacal references amt indes. .WCE. IIC (Canad.i), ami RILEAC lie has made signiluant contribussens a
- 1. Comtese-lesims
- 2. Nenatenarantise te. sing na the Echt ut aatelerated strength testing amt newulestrinesse seuing aim! as d
I. Title.
- 11. Ser6es: Ameeican Concreie Innenute sionossaph no. 9.
ahe insenior of the ring tension test for determining the tensile strength of b TA4403f?49 EP0136'7 75-2r.stt2 concrete. His researches in the area of high.urength concretes hate led so I 1%BN 0-al38-1155-4 the desclopmens of sulhar-inElerated concrete. lir. XIalhosta is a frequent speaker at seminars organised by ACI g chapocrs amt es uhen insised to a Idress graduare students on concrete ecch-g Cereisk im nologs in E ngl.imt. the United States, klexico and Canada. lie has ad. .e C " s ne** } N ***(("***d"$ dres.ed seminars and oncetings organised by ACf; AST11: ASCE: EIC (Can. f3 gg ada); the Bretish O.rurete wicap The Inssinut.e Aledann del Cemenso y a# eieks me -ed. Ind dias ashes es prod ne. d
- i. e., se. er 6, o., -
del Cinurno (111GCh Alniso; meal Aemiarson Venenslana de Productores ,ea ; 8* *ehme e8 **** be ear phese p s w be r ei we= or he a da Cenu suism. Caraeas. lie has al=o sundinated internateunal wminars on de==*. maa=d = =anea er mot or me'd=e for seed * ***==a eeeeeduce w for wee ensurise inhuohm held en ILlersu Cit, in 1975 and at the !!nisersity of j aa =r h*8edse w== ==4 stoma= or de. ens. m i.e., 6. 6 d Maesa I cam. AI micrrey.1leno, in 1972 and 1975. t, 8'** 'he *wraoM p'waewr* Afr. Ellanra puned she American Coeurene Instisuee in 1960 and it pu,g% ,,7, has maintained anise participation in aEairs of the Insassute ever aime. Ele y is preiesents a enember of the ACI General Actitisies Committer, and chair-I., Paa ed da che u d se f a, e man of ACI Chanser Aasisiaees Gunnesence aml Crnsimistee 214. Esaelmarson 3., e of Itaults of strengsk Tests of beld Concrete. lie is also a emmber of ACI j Denmestees MS anel 224. ami past scaretarv and chairman of Cmnminee 118.
- ' I
fle heasled ACI Committee ils when thas comnpiter detehoprd ACI padde a inseas from Foilven of Concre,e Swuctures, by Jocob Feld-ACI Monograph cainni SP 3.1. Enefaece of Competers on ras l'eerine of Mrmsweel Entrneereng )- No. I in Concrete. Evolvonoa of Coacrose Propers.es from Sonic Tests, by E. A. Whewhorse-ACI la 1966 Afr.11athnera was the founding presidens el the Canadian 9 1
- "*A*to*t,'.f Co cre,e-Meci,on.s, and Co.,,,o,. b, Wdhom A-Capital Chapeer. Act. In hn capaciis as the chasrman. ACI Chapeer Atsisi-S.
Fr.e a Cordoa-ACI Monograph No. 3 3 henna stee, he has been responsehle for the formaison of a number of + the IndH"* thdP'"S 3*nh in she Unneil Saaies and Canada. In 1973 he was Dwrobdity of Concreee Cons,recison, by ofwbwe, Woods-ACI Moaogropis No. 4 Des.gn of Fle.wrol members for See,.c and 3:es Leod.ag, by J. R. Allgood end she general chairnun of the ACI Fall Consention. which was hekt in Oi 2= s. ) G. R. Swihort-ACI Moaograph No. 5 Hordened Concrete: Phys. col and M,chonigog Asp,c,s. by Adam M. Newdle-asmi as was misiler has guiilame during this periemi shat ACI iuhlication 5P 39. Sehersor of Coserrere are.fer Tesseperature Estrenees, was cloped. ACI Moaegraph No. 4 In asklition to ACI. Alr. Alathnera is artise in technical commitsees of Bener Coacrete Paveniene Serviceability, by Edwin A. Can,y ACI Monogrople mher organs #ations related in coeurete sethnology, among them the Ameri- -{ Precost Coacrever Handling and Erection, by Joseph J Weddell-AG Mono. 8 geoph No.O padsan Standards Association anal Reunion International. Des laheratories ) D'essais et de Recherches sur les materiaus et les conurwtions (Rll f1f). e % k n e O 1r -g L', ., [ ~I '.[ .b .: b '. I L. - S. ~
- =:.g -
'8 ) fa - ".*,.- {. ' 4 g
Presently he is chairman of Canailian Standards Associatiuse Cann. mitice A 23 I on Concrete Elaterials and Alethods of Concrete Conssrunenn. l and a*>ciate edisor of she Canedsen femenef of Cruel Engencering. Also, he is secretary of ASThi kehrammissee C 09.02 05 on nondeuructise seuing of j concrete and a snendier of Rll.E AI casamissian on the same suhpt. In 1973 he mas elected charact fellow of the ACE. l. k. .Feh,' CONTENTS l-u a PaErAct. Ei I s,.o._,,_ z 1
- 1. Se. am li s.es.ss,,,,,n.s 3
Williams itsaing Pmol 3 g Frank Spring flaminer 4 i E'inheth Pemlulum llasamer. 6 Une of Surlaae liardness Tests. 8
- 2. Ranurse altiene..
9 Shmid Reliuunit llammer [ly* = 9 Rebound humber and Cannprewire Mrengali. 23 'h
- i Rilmaand humber amt ficmural herength.
22 ? 's^ j Reinnun I huminr asul Polynner inegnexnasal Osuwscic. 23 5? Reimaamt huanher anel blintulus of Elassicia).. 22 g An Iniern.aeional Suney on the line of the &heniilt n Rehnurm! Ilamneer 21 3 Schmidt Rebound flammer and las haandardisation. 25 timisaamns and Usefuhecu. 25 j
- 3. l'asata4sens Tsueugins.
26 ^) Sindei llansmer anil Spit Pms. 26 Witulwir l*rabe.......... 26 .f fiato.siian of I.c Windusr l'auhi Tes........... 35 {g 1.eenications anel Usefulness al alm-Winiluer Prahe Tes. 41 e iE y
- 4. Ptstocr Tests.......
41 [ Recent Seudecs in Nortia Amtska. 44 .a t, g Tield Use q_ Adsantages arul I_ienisations.. 50 s, 9 50 g
- 5. Dnaunc on Visessums nisinies.....
52 I TI coretical Rasis of thnamic nicitu=ls. 52 [ Priswepal ihnamic liettumis.. 53 Q Resonant Frespeenry afetiwns. 58 .4 d v. e ?? ,s
QQ... . *
- M *H. h'* *t*%^m.** **T. f'%. y*
.V ~ =s : * *. se *=.=. s.-a - - . i. <r ' >*
- q.p*,s' & f.V.%.,'94 s..g > c.-. j. - s' 9
~ ; * *;. ., n y' Q:y.., p 7 - -. x%.$ p.; y <,, *. ?. p,.t r.- c y ': t_L ; %,, :,. _x_,- . w.o s,g.. _. / g, g ; & .. ; *;. ~. - )- .g. y 3 ,..*.Q n g,9., - ;y- g.. a..% g. q.l.x y,j.,, __; p_ -. yg& y y.- q;g,~ 4. 2_ 0 R E U_ E_ E N N E. A R_ R 2_ R__O 0000_ CSRM % 0R2 .-.: =3 :. 2 : . S 5 .m ..c E M : $ :m
- g. d 8-.
- E lg6
..C n s
- c2
- .2 2 e
C . I g
- E :2 s.=y ;-
.:2 .2c. :-
- .2,, e
+ I s C "e - E w . E *l t.h j,- Q c =.1 o. se 3 E ; 1_ v'! e
- 1..
.,., =9 A g.g-- g 1 E g 3 4 cpE T ..3= .,s u. . s s. .: 2.x =I, g .;a
- g33:g:
3 H g,[ g
- C
$.* g y a.s - O 3y ,,= Ek *ke. .$E I c :
- 3 f.=.=s ggaE e
- 3
- 2 <* : 3_
s = =2 . 2fl. h3$28thg5 EII e .a g - .d z 2 g ; a g a. a. ]ca i ,.l al. [ 9. ! : Iline
- g *.Vg.i; _.3_g z
.:.g e.1 g w s- ^-, [..-l... z - 23 g.= T.,
- y I.] 2.g I.s E r x z g a r s s E^3= 2
,3 8.* t ! t m. t-ga.~asse Q.xE**W
- 2 > ~.1 W.
E W m g g _.= e.F; E = E h P_e.E w :.9l>_= .$2 .9 S 2 .9 E 3 $ 3 l .9@3C . o.E.3
- X k.E E
f - * * -, ce lll C a, <J A"c=-.< 3 <o < 8 < c 3 Z E E <R E T.g..=22503 wd H d .XE 3-3 - gE 8..- ~ 4 e s i n $5 S SGS 3 E$$$?;EG000$$?U$$$$$ E $ _$ 8_ U_ E E_ $. E_ E C O
- e IE s.x
. : 2, ..t. w d1
- 3,
.e u p=32
- g f,.-
- c
- p c w
c aky-_
- o l 3 2 =y
- 5
.=5
- "E : E _ d :
g T0= < E..=,,. e m .I ., a g !. e, <.a - y ~ . =: :7 8
- d i.=.e :.g g ;
g [w a
- 5C*.s g-.- 3n5 a E 8-2 Q 8
- c. G.x g E*.=.=
2 gy.: c y.sha$. E .m 3 = R.W 2 a C ._i T s 2 k w.r :.. y 'g .. m.
- g>7a a
..z l a g3w s. c .a s og "#*e e na .3dg*o Qs.yy C- . C W t s'. ! ' d L 7 "x =,2 .g,2 3 M.1C E g e d ] l '5g " I ! i,!. 2 4 ge 8 w , g =.2 ':^E 593.5.c'=EI Y y; s ac =s a lp -g = C : t *.,, -3 4 J. 2 .1 c E g,.* _,.w g 3 '
- .E l 3 J 2 >"
2 4.I 8 g 3gE-5eg 3. :. f.,, j a ! j y., y= f 3-
- 3 82"H a = _3.g *E g o 2
_e
- -,, X Ea 7. p'_"g*ll12.g$5._a Q=p
- .'.*b.,C2,,A >;aEy!3.=.a.
7g .o ..a a- = m =y c a =c ,w y gW9 f.y=4l g2 a a g =.w. s T*ce- -C ,,, g y
- =
1 is = 4 w o s
- o. 8.7. 4 j 3
- 3. *e g 3 :, d :
4 o Te 3s *2y c E 5 5gs T.& E a I 3.w*je'Iz=E_c]:n.,f a o#2o m -TN, I sIo Uy 7.l W., , n ] -5, a g,, o 'c 3. I ~;
- r
- x. O s &
,E3 3 C. a b ] g.g 3 E,, ._g 'w l. eg = ~5 g o " c'. 'E. "a.a 2.,:5 9 7 ".s.= 3,22..*E.* * - W [ # 5 2
- g. '*
- 4. I " *= : R.6 'L 2 m ";;.E
- C ee5 u
=--c
Te E = 2 S
w ^ , go
- o*E 2."513.*# 5 *.93?***D4 irr1* c. e ".4 ' *
- ! =
. E 8 2 I 'E a o ,w 9,.E E: C. c. : '9 a w =.: e [,E 'E 'g g e g,a, d a. = I.* O. a a = ..t Hw g e. < a g
- ,, a.
w ggo 0 . o g _s =6 aa 330 2 .=.J c ; e b 2 - 11 e A...j 7 eC A* g A..c.c w P"..& r r 4 ri
%z.g.1 p R.. - ( %g e n. 4 W'.l. I,! +:,,s, i .a i e: p ., R. l
- w#j'y l
M1.- -y.. l
- F<-
. s> INTRODUCTION ]H$ s.M y f p}. o i ~7 : '.S At the present time, statulard ustlais of determining strength of hardened concrete consist of testing concrete _f g~ i j specimens in compression. Occasionally, the test specimens . l j.. f - f 21; '. are broken in flesure aimi sension. In North America. the F. ' ' m - .tandard specimen for compression i;st is a 6 x 12-in. (152 x 30km) . q $') cD, E ' f, ( y - c31imler, while in the United Kingdom and sescral other European euimities the specimen is a 6-in. (I52-mm) cube. In concrete ecch. .gf. c,c, - G nology, the great emphasis on the determination of strength of con. .] p;% f.l' = (i ucte. which almost reaches fetish proportions in some instances. (s a r d. p1.
- imple to explain:l A number of other properties of concrete such as
,, M J' ~;g. ' in clastic behavior and to some extent its service performance can he ipproximated, dir-caly or indirectly'. from its strength characterissics. ^.. - yg ]I,. 2 l The strength tests, regardless of the type, are escellent for determining ]g 3;; J-jig - j - the criterion of quality dming manufacture but they leave a lot to be ' f k. '47f ' desired. The main disadvantages of such tests are the delay in obtain-ing test results, the fact that the test specimens may not he truly repre.' entative of the concrete in a structure. the necesday of stressing the T'- 4 . N, W--D sest specimens no f.tilnre' the lack of reprodutibility in the test remles. f am! the relatively high cost of testing. As a result. there hase been a <p .. ' ?.',,' D'L large number of attempts over about 35 years to develop quick, in- .{i. O c. 4s espensive, reproducible methods for testing concrete.' both;in the
- aboratory amt in structures.' For the new tests to monitor the senice, f.
, n. f. hehavior of concrete structures over a long period. it was impetative 4..f. ' j, m thae these tests be nomlestructive. His approach, thotegh new for the s i,', 3.... - 4 sesting of concrete had long been used in the testing of metals; these- .. j f s-g < *. M, e.,s 3 .% fl foie, a vast amount of knowledge and experience accumulated by the w. y i metals imlnstry was readily available for application so concrete tech- -).y.f Q?. - (% ,1l-i. gr.r -l -h. ' nology. Of coune the composite nature of concrete did necessinate f, t some modi 6 cations and changes in the tethniques and equipment .'{W> a e q.e.~. :e .g .rt M. kk.s[4 ,t -;.;. \\ 2. 6, 7,. +. '
en,
- isttooUCrtone l
$NTsODuCHoM av 1 l amt t* being uwd in the testing of metals? nevertheless, it was a gieat 1 elp in t u..n tethni< pies, have tren uwd to measure moisture content l getting started. t shidness of coeurete. Iknme the slirece de ermin.itio i of strength irnplies that
- 8. A,umstic eminion techniques. These have been umi to cosmicie specimens must be loaded to failure, it becomes almmlantly umir the initiation and giowth of crads in concrete.
[y clear that sunulestructive methods of neuing concrete cannon he es, gected to yicht abelute vahses of strengsts These mesluuls, thereffe3 It is to be noted that all she above nondestructive test attempt, to measure some other progerty of comrete: from wh,ich an methals satisfy the following basic criteria: {' e aimate of iis strength, its durability / amt its clastic parameters is old I. The tests can be done on concrete structures in the field. tained' Nome uech properties of concrete are its hardnessfits resinanc8 . The test erguigunem is portable amt, with minor excep-I to gencaration su peopciiles, its rebound number', its resonant fitj eions,is bawd on the principles used in the testing of metals. l specuc3.'aml its ability so allow ultrawnic pulse velorny to propagate tinaugh it. TIr electrical progerties of comrete, its ability to abweb-Strictly. the term "nosateuructive testing" should inchule watier. ami trammit x-rays and gamma rays, its respome to naulcar such widely med tests as visual examination oc, as someone has put it. i' activation. amt its acoustic emission allow m to cuimate its moisti.re .the human e3c brain sntcm anistettmmedmedy ruher a haR{lCAs someni, density. thidness, arul its cement content. Bant upon the or a microwope, with or without scale. as in an ontimt nyt1 ah e J ahose, sariom nomiestructive methals of tening connete have Iren pwmrimeE tieveloped. Alany other long-standing tests, which really are nomiestruc. I Y ""8 J"I"' r 't*i'i'I
- 1. Surfue hardness tests. These are of imlentation type, in-
'I " I"I"I' 'I",d"*""I"I ".u*reniems y" yeigtung Wunw umler hmned, uren densuy nwa chule the Williams testing P siol and impact hammers, ami are med change due to imiuced changes :,- + mrerature or moisture. delet mina-i ? only for cuimauon of concrete strength tion of specitic heat, ami detennu.doa of permeability to either gas .. Rebonnd test. The reboumi hammer test measures )he or liquid. Notwithstanding their nondestructive nature, the above el.nu,e reboumi of coswrete amt is pnmanly uwel for estimation of tem are not covered in this monor,raph because, with minor cucption, soinsetc sucugth amt for temparaine smesuganons. the) fail to meet the basic crie:ria for nomiestnictive teses outlined i 1 Penetrasson and psiloiet techmugues. These include the N me of the simbi hammer, Spit pins, the Wimbor piohe, arul ele pull-t'aerefore, dewtil=s in detail onts unface n out seu. These meautre the penettation ami pullout reustance of con-h.ardness and reboumi test *., genetration and pullout techniques, aml j ocie ami aie med for strength esu,manom, but they can ahn Im nel ibs* tent These are followed by a description of the combined methods approach in which more than one nomicunic-I"'"""F"*"*'"" 7) L Dynamic or vibration resis. These m.chule sesonant fre-site medumi is used ea cuimate strength of concrete and radioactive spients amt mechanical sonic and uhrasonic,formity of connete amip.she velocuy mettumla. amt nuclear method. The magnetic, electrical, microwave absorption. These aie uwd to evaluate durability amt um ami acoustic eminion methods are of limited application ami art 3 3 in estimate its urength ami classic properties. Inictly descriled in the concluding part of the monograph. 5. Combened methods. I he comin.ned methods m.vohing uhrasonic puhe velocity aml reboisted haminer liase beeti used to
- The*< are abo dealt wish in ansme detail in anneher ACI mannogiaph cuimate suength og concrete.
Ee=tannee ne t'earrese Propernes tress Semic Tem, by L A. h iuschurse.. SCI fi. Raduweive and nuricar meth<xis. These m.clude the u. gnaph h 2..unctoran Cannew Engnuw l ha Staw t nnerim Prem tra3 amt gamma ray penetration teus for measmenwns of density and th-n=i. l'A los pp-f thidness of conocie. Aho, the neutron scattering amt neutron acti. satime methals aie uel for moiuure and cement content determina-g liori.
- 7. Magnesor and electrical meskuds. The magnetic methah I
air primasily naucined with determining cover of reinforcement to comiete. shescas the elecuical methah, imbuling murowave aberp 4 i ^2 v .F. i '- - Y - WW*.M -fT iac.t.'.>- "-)-> hs ; J .... + + ' p ' '<. tt ..m.e g 4 - - - 1c ,f ,y.- .y. ,u , y., p, :., i...- r. 4.~ pj y4 ,w ', - , ;, - -. ' - m y . 7.1 G., F. .. A '. ;.. N #,. 4 r~:1 C ' w +t i"' .5g t
( i i n. l ,I i t i i CHAPTER 1: SURFACE j HARDNESS METHODS j The fact that concrete hanlens with increase in age anal - l ) strength has1al to the derclopment of a number of test inethods to measure this property. The known smface __ I s hanhfess methods ase of imlentation t3pe and these condse i d eswntially of impacting the surf.ue of concrete in a starulard manner, ~ / using a gisen mass activatal by a given energy and measuring the sise of imlentation. According to Jones.' these methods originated in j Gesinany in 1934 and were incorporated in the German Siamlands in I!M8 8 Williams
- in the United Kingdom arul Skramtaer aml i
Isduhinst)* in the USSR have alm reportal the uw of imicutation enciluuls. i The basic piinciples of various innlentation devices to encas-ure sinf.uc hardness of concrete have been outlinal by Caale* anni 1, Vassisch.' There is little apparent theoretical relationship twtween ] the strength of concrete and its sm face hantness as so measural. Ilow-cur. within limits, empirical correlations have been establidwd he-tween stiength properties and the d.ua obtainal from surf.uc hardnns ina s? ) The three known mettuuls employing the indentation l win-aiple are:
- 1. Williams testing pistol -
- 2. Frank spaing hammer -
l
- 3. Eintwck perululum hammer I
WILLIAMS TESTING PISTOL
- J in 1936 Williams
- seportal the development of a anting pistol that uws a ball as an imictater. Insicail ol being acted upon by a unstainni lo.ul. the hall is proiccted with a d.
initahic energy by means of a spesially desinnni pistol. Tlw diamener j of ele im;wesdon m.ule by the hall is measmed by a m.sguifying vale. en enter nwans. e 4 '7 ~
3 4 , s 'Is. ' l .._.-o a, g e. se. i :i s I l m:s. i ... '.[V ' f is-h l B t t i-j r e tc .... u_,... s,. t,. ..u.1 k.,..' i - -5 -s,s htted with afilleitne di.ameters of balIs', azul impact is achieseil by = $ n( [""' '# [-:[ plaing the lummer agains the surface under test armi manigml.ating 4 ,. j g -. *. i the spring nwchatusm. Generally about 20 empac_]_re,adings are taken 7, y.'. .h: at short. distances from one,another_ami..the nican of the newits is l j ef r' j "y, ' '**y 'N S - considered an one test value.' The diameter and/or depth of imlenta( 1 sioni is meassreil'arul this in turn is correlated with the cosupeessise I j The ecsaing pistol (Fig.1.1) measures spgminiately 6 x.5 x ""@I *I'""C # N D' Y"8 "*"N"' " k 'N"d I - 1 114 in. (152 x 127 x 381 mni) azul weighs about 2 lbs (0.to Lg). To i ogErate the pntol is heki Ermly against a relatistly smooth face of to gnoude an energy of 3 ti5 ft.lb (50 kg<m) or of 0.91 fpth (123 kg<m) so that the uklentation on alw concrete surface is wulun n3 to M i l curwiete tuuler ses amt releaned by the trigger. A single operation can eimes die diameter of the ueel ball.' Figure I.4 diows the hammer j he accomplished in about I usin. The impression obtained is usually 8""'*- y spsite durp and mell dc6ned, particulaily with concrete of medium j aml high strength. The depsh of irulentation is only about 0 0G in. (1.5 mm) for concrete. with coinpressive ssrengths as low as 1000 psi 60 kgf cm9 inntras or meccarum, sm l he twility of the nicthoil actoisiing so Williams dc3 rials we t ) ** I em on alue appreim.ac scl.stiondiip foumi to exist be.4-een the compres. , *. l.. site urength of soncrete amt the resissarxe of its surface to impact., i On the basis of some 200 tests.' Williams established the following ' L **, scl.atiomhip: 9.mxo m{ g i { f, is preep.srtson.1 tu l/2, tihere (, is the co-pressese strengsh end 2 9 is shi..nne s.we area at i temat >n. g
- .ooo fg,.,
- .f.,
rv. 1 mo., Stiamixv aint lesfuliinvP have also regiorscil alie tise of a 6"
- E
'4.i ' 6 pissol in the seuin:; of comrene in the USSR. 8' )*.om ] E t*- g 3: ' v. i .j ? FRANK SPRING HAMMER U sx* 7.*** s f A line diagram of she trant spring hammer
- is diown in f pg; s*
y s-Fig. 1.2. armi it comists of a spring <omrolled mecham,un ,y 4 ' j* homnl in a subular frame. The tip of the h.ammer'can be ) f' o o, s c as. c ars o na
- t.
ciaastran or motsaaron, as. 5,_,a.
- e.,n...
_,...m. ,,a ts ~.. s,...... t. c h... ,,, n...t s,.....,,,,,,....,,.,,.,.,.,..,..,,.,,,,,,,..,..s .ov. .s -i-j W 1e8 8 R t$ b
- i
. ~.... .......~m s i.o, ...} '.. ..g-w.~, N ..s'. S :.7_a..,% + x t i
- m. \\
,; y,... m-1 i n. D .z \\ / k Q Ob i ' f 3'... e / ' ~ ' 2 f f.; [ e p -. g g ., g.,.;... -o j ' f.. ' ; -,. N W / .l - J, J / q, 3 c,. ,g ,3 l ... i.,_v ...,,i...,. w 6._,. i,, ... -.~. P,p. " ' - s d .c Ref. 6-) -s i. e 6 ,s d..w { k.*if$7- ,g.s t.y',,,.l-[L( . -f.f,l ' [*9.. - A.,, .)',L M. i '..Y '1 ~ ?.? Tj s,ftg.' -Rfh., 'nlj[i,$ l ,,N ni,. w- ) W{? k 7,.5 - rN*. r l U 4' e - { /.-. s,
- g
.,.,i..,,i. Fi, 1.4 -F,..k g,.ga;; i ' .,..,.., :.pc.. # ".4 *. p })- O. .u t - W f,2 3,. e. . <r a.#. u - p.- s, 7,(,-a._.. ~.g_ M (" 't i c~ , p;g j. - 2 EINBECK PENDULUM HAMMER --^ d"'"' g j A line di.sgram of the Einbeck pemlulum hamnwr,is given in, A ' ',? , j' '_T 'f,.,*T i. '. Fig.1.5. The lummer consists of a horimntal leg. as the end
- n
- e 3. 2 of m hkli is pisomt an arm with a pemlulum heal weighing / ~' -q- -. - f-about 5 lin p5s Lg). The imlentation is niale by holding the hori-
- 4...
'Mi'
- a.
Fie. 34-Eiabah g 4j sontal leg agains the concreve surface umler test ami allowing,the
- k, " - 6
,'C. ,,,$",',",",,',",*,76 j '" M [- ! 7 j pcminhe.n he.a<l to strike the concrete.# The height of fall of the 4
- -c y., ' J,
, >y , 4. ;-. * ' - gemlutum heml san he easied from full imguct (180 deg) to listi im- ..'f gma van sleg). 'Ihe diameter ami depth of im!cniation are measured " '^ "* g'-('... '. ' ; y-ti ami ilme are then correl.ated with the comprewirc urength of comrete. Figme If. shows the lumnwr in use. i-<)'w. Tlw biggest drawh.uk'io this hamnwr is that it can he used' The main Icatines of she Williams sewing pissol. ale hant , ',, '7.f 4* onis on serthat imimes amt is, alwrelore. Icw versatile than the hant sgaring lummei. ami alie EintwiL pemluhun hammer are gisco up i> g f Argin1mlis I. 'r..
- 2.
i spiing fumnwr. f E' ..Nt' I ilf:(. +.
- y.. ' y l
l i 3 py.. ' y . p., + m. 6 s ..g. s.
1 l l cuarne : a E, y USE OF SURFACE HARDNESS TESTS The surface hardness sesis are simple to use arut providg a large number of readings in a short ting.*llowever. Weil' l amt the RILDl' Wo: Ling Group ost Nomlestructive Teuing i of torwrete" hac gunnted out the need for extreme care in the usg l of these sesag Frequent calibratidalist'cheikSi~the fe'sr7ia.bnery a arfuuha desirable. This is aho true foe the testing pistol. The typt; of minent appears to acci ine ieu resul:1. sor exampi,e. concreie 7I ggg ggg made wnh high-alumma cement,has gisen dillerent resuhs from con-crete made with portland cement. It has aho been reported hv the In 191'l Shoretl described a scleroscope method foi deter. RILD1 Working Group' that in one imtatue fire 41amaged concrete mining the hardness of metal's. This meilux! depends on die, has given a higher estimated strength than comparable undamaged height of rebourul of a hardened sacel hauuner when it is ,g conmac. To correctly interpret t.he test data. it is desirable to Lnow dropped on the metal usuler sess.'The only known imtau-the mix proportions. sype of coarse aggregase used, age, arul moisture ~inent using this principle for coiwrete testing is the test hammer by e d torulisions of coeurcie usuler test. WeiP has recommended the removal kimildt of soft mortar layers from the surface of concrete before using the impact hammers. Studies carried out by WeiP avul die RILDI Working e.roup indicate that the strength of concrete insuler investigation can SCHMIDT REBOUND HAMMER In 1988 a Swiss engineer. Ermt Schmide.'s.es* developed a be pinlicted with an accuracy of 20-30 percerit by the use of test ham-test hammer' for measuring the twdnew of concrete b3 the mess Williams' has claimed somewhat better accuracy for the testing is rebomul principle. Results of his wo L and those of iterrig piuol une pitwitted to the swin Feder.il Materials Teuing and Esteri-ear =h s ic . us.tes tat rs iees.e a.snais ci ele Rechetti.rs s.u tre nwns l Imaisnie of Zmich, where the hammer was cointencied ami me.was ci ers c uwaiuns. cucmisely tested. Sime then, this nondestinctive method has gained rero;;nition in laboratories, at conuruction sites, and in the piccast onwrcie imimirv. Acco ding to Kolel.'* about 14.000 Schmidt re-Innuut hammers h.ulleen mkl by I'i66 on a woildwide basis PRINCIPLEThe Schmidt reboural hammer is principally a mrface hard-ness tester with little apparent theosetical relationdiip tr-l tween the strength of concrete and the reboinul numIwr of the ham-mer. Itoweser, within limies, empirical correlatiom hae leen cuab-lidied leturen snength pioperties aml the sebound number. Fmther imicL'8 has attempied to establish a cortelaiion between the hammer icinunut numler amt the hardness as measured by the Beinell melluul. 6 *? ? DESCRIPTION l'* The Sihmids relunnut hammer 1 sir K2 (oehei3 air 1 s pr M arul Tyge I.) is deown in Fig. 2.l. T he hamnwr weighs aluxit' 1 I g! t
_,i.e a - + I.'. %..h e a -.a., a 3.i - f M.,k,.,. 7 4 [ s 1 -: -. M.,ye 1. ci se, 3 4 g,,,,,,,,,,, l l .p. \\ ij .hy..... y, a nie -nn evise see .A .n,, e,i - 21 .,'..p Q s.,e 3 i r %p I " ^
- j "
e Pushtuttee com t. . i. w. .. IFS I He*mer svise her L. d A. [g[# ' ' ~.- .,- L -, e '. 2 py _ gg p ] _ g3 j ~," ' r. ,k - n.t e oms a-p - a. c n. '.*'.a..', e ce, s- ~ pp . ; % p. ' ; ; lal.. w:'.-... - - 22 ..p,-e-i, ,.. x..P.4% Wg.X.,A - 3.p o i3 gg y,,,,g, l j* 7 r,s. 2. i sa w.,ei,.m.a h. e r,,e n 2. 13 pieer cover g,._, % ' j t W ,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .y g 13 Poud 14 Diemmer meee 4 s 1 lb (1.8 kg) astil is suitable for use laotti in the laboratory anal in the is neieining e,eine 3.., il field '*'' "'las ,..s. t* ] consists of a spiing<ontrolled hammer mass that slides on a phi,nger g_N }' ~{, j A cutaway view of the hammer is shown in l'ig. 2.2. le 'j . ; ;C ,,p,,g,,,,,,,,,,, 3 ,,'s .,1 i i within a tubular housing. When the plunger is pressed agaims the ,,,,,,,4,..i.4, . ! : (,. 6,'
- ' y '.[,
4 y surface of she concrete. ig retracts agaims the force of the spting; se i,i, ecee. i* y when completely retracted, the springis automatically released. The et Lect aus 19 - ,j,l l l ) hammer (mpacts against the concrete and the spring <ontrolled snass, at Pie i t.4 a bmion. the sider aan le held in pmition so allow realings to 1,e gg g(y . 7. ',.,' V .g , ' s.. J rchommis, taking the rider with it along the guide scale. By pmhing 23 Pe=1 e rtas I !,4. f% IJkcIL a$ A_ _ _g4 1 Y
- e. t l
4 2 ^,. ..E ) Q .~r . ~ e ;_ 4 8 _} .' 3. i +;i i METHOD OF TESTING J / The dcirimin.ition of the hanunct rebmmd numler is a 'l4 ' N.[ { , m. -,.. j' very simpic procedure and is outlined in the mannat sup. 16 ..[ '. phal b the manufacturer. Briefly,it comists of releasing the plunger l 7.(y e.g j 3 hom the lotked position by pressing it gently agaims a hard surface.
- , i. '
The hammcr is shen remir for me. To carry ou* the test, the phmger J4 m is picswd suongly agaims the concrete sus f.sce innler sess. ~l his re-( ' UA J! Icae she sguing lo.mled weight from its losked juniiion, ihm caming ic 15 lj' A 'N f.,, 6-f an impaa. While the hammer is still in its sewing position, 17 'y sli<hng irulex is real to the nearest whole number. This remling' is 3
- f 3
'8 10 j design.ned, as the hammer retxn.nd number. The numler of the 8 ,,g Q f ',l a, remhne to be taken per test is the same as for rahbrating the hammer. 1 gg .l y? 3 [. ' *i f '-- as dewnbed in the wction on ulibration provolure. I'
- ~* -++%h ge ILfalhosrava 8* has elesctiheil the are of it.c hanuner in the W
gd ' u testing of 6 x n-in. os2 x 3m mmmh,*,s erig. 2.s> mi d .on. FIG. 2.24 cmsy www of the Schmid' ret o.ad hammer. ,'I 2 m. n fl - netc wmg wall of a coalway beidge in Ottaw.s. C.mml.a (Fig. 2.1). 3. 3
- n.
J - s .- o ie ..y; + l '. f{ t..: 4 a .,. Q " 7 l )((,1
~ cnarias a assoveep anannon b ..,....,? -.,. '. '. - a9> - mes -*1W .1 * * *= q. e ' y t lp. i .,ya*g " k'q, ~. url .. /.e d.h g ;2 ~ g;jt<
- 1. t :s '
e n , e. y: e. . ' 3 {m y,* =. t4 -~ _ ;, q*..,,, -. x, G.4-.V' y, f. .. 't ..T~y 4' ? g. .J. ..: m, - . s.- ffr is,,. [ d 1 j$he" _, : s a.').1+ i Q 'p l ~ 1 + V
- ,i=_ _
f )'f %. y. , [ Fig. 2.3-Schmidt rebeend " ' F' # * *g's ' -N. liemmee in woe se gest e e a I j a .i WWU ' uid.,. - - n. 12i (152 a 305 mma.c.on. v 4 .ri.nd.,. m. she h. i,\\ a crilader has been restreined - g Fig. 21-A conum ..'. p. p.,, - h:k,i in a compression-eesting me. 4 l G .._y chine. (pre, e.g 3 3.3 ] P4.. p.' *,$ v.'. w6ng well of a,h.,od- +,..t.1.., ro ..:.r..,,s. 4 . ~. e . a. 4 . rg y.,; -.t,.- ~,. s r.m 2... [ n ,is. p gy.;f f p,. d 6 \\ 4 l 't i The ent can Ise corulucac3 horiconiall). vessically upwarit ori .) downward, or as any intermediate angle.".ti cash angle 'the actnumd' l numler will Ise different for the same concreie"and will require sep. arate caliteration or correction charti Zoldners" has shown that 5 ' points have so le added to the readings in the downward direction'
- l. Prepare a numler of 6 X 12.in.* (152 X SGmno cyl-
{ so eranslase these readings so the values for horisontal testing.' im*wrs coscring the strength range to be euroimtered on the jols ute. Use she s.ame cenwns anal aggregates as are to be uwd on the loh. Cuec she cylirulens imder seamlard moist <uring room cosulitions.1 3 Leepng the curing perinil the same as the specified comrol ay,e in the ' j CALISRATION PROCEDUgg facht. ] Exh hammer is furnidwd with a calibration chart supplied
- 2..\\fter capinng. pim e the c)hnden in a cominesdonaesting
""hinw innler an initial lomi of apprmimately 15 lwicent of the ( by the m enulutures. This caliination chart can le uwt i" ' "I '"'I"I'? '" inh u,mg. 2.3b Ensure slut cs hn-ulinn.nc but so nestrain the sireiinen - 4 i only when snaaerial and sewing conditions are similar to those in ^ je eflect wlwn the cahbration of the instrument was carried out. Each on. =0 hammer rasics canniderably in lctformame and needs calibration for ' f: sese on ioncrete male with aggirgates prexhwed from a sgecific sourre. a, .\\ pratical proteihne for sahbeating the h.unmer is outrned below- '"'" "Mhsi nc 7s 4 m s r m 2 e 7 < i as I too p < cia adaua*. h==lui, ^ ' * * . 3 ' h ~ 6 i
mesas a anac.umso man.oo 562 . {.,g(.,, y 7 .~. }
- 3. AlaLe 15 hammer reboumi re.utings. 5 on c.wh of 3 8000 l
t' scriiral Ines IN alog apart against the side surf.ne in air miskile ,, / '.j5 %,. h -?. twnelesnis of c.aah c3 ruler. Avoid hitting the same sgnia swire. For , ( _,, \\,',p einhes. take.% se.nhngs on cash of the 4 mokleil f.ucs sitiumi hitting E 7000 M2 ,j j the s.ause ynne twice. /c / i.V i -1. Aierage the readings arul call this the rebnusal sisimiser [ se / MI 8 -. m lor ile 3 auler (or cule) ensuler ness. g f f f. h t
- 5. Regran this pecanlure for all the ctlinders (or cules).
/ 4Schaudt f 67 '- ~ f I. 6 Teu the csinulcis (os cube ) to failure in coenprewiose and 7,i 5000 / 351*'s 'Ui '- J -- plot the retunuul niemiers against the compecujoin strengths in psi / / p p 1,
- u f [
..s (Lgi cm2)on a graph. /- r .s / /, 284) j / ,e ,/ ,f; l 1 [{,". -.
- 7. Fit.e curte or a Une by the method of leau saiunes I,i dooo 3 / Q-
,/ A i3pi..d cente cuablidied by Zokhiers* for limestone aggre. m /, '/ / 7 + g s l ' ~ *:.0 ".,./ f /s 3000 W. gate cuemeetc is Jmwn in Fig. 2.5. 8 ff ,( 8"" ,f i 1 a ',' +,~,- ? Fegme 2 6 shows four calibration curves obtained by incarch g I weekers in four thfierent coimtries." It is important to noic that some / 841 ! Ah " ') e 200C } of the curses deviate considerably from the curre supplied with the 8 ',n t ' *f. %\\3].'" / g,,,e '""1 {lh ,,. k - g hammer. }
- BOOL, 20 30 40 50 j
if ftE800ND NUMBEft [^; ,,s,. 2.6,Celebretio,n corwes obeelmed by di#eeeas laeostie.asers with e Schmide, [ d 'e [$ Q
- f. "
l .I a-F, -. e..a f ,,,,,,,,,,,, n a, c,,,,, 6, c,,ee e 6e 6.ed.ien Type w. .g Fm ' ". " " = ". * * * '. '. ' ". '. ' = = (Frene Ref. IF.) .g i v-- y g p,,. ca we t, - a,,. r. M ,g.,',._' [i l ough the schound hammer prosides a sguick, inespen-ese- * ***'.eesu mm.ees, f I p l '/[.M '""l sive means of the< Ling uniformity of concrete, is has sciious /. [. .,,, y j 3 ** j lunutations and these must be recogniard. The results of the khanidt J 'h;.. i = j
- E-tf,, '
I rebomul hammer are aRected by: I.'p4 T '. B 4 m-Q. s* .no b.
- 1. $moothness of surfac imder tes,
,. $+ [ - '"'h,j"' l.
- 2. Sire, shape, and rigidity of the sperism n
.7. l,, ',,} 4. 1. '...
- g
---4 Age ef test specimen '1 s ! {(, 4, !. d g / '. ,A -== = A surface and internal nminure condiiion of the soitricte .".l ,.-m, { .l. ?.
- i. T pe of coarse aggregive 3
{y
- 6. T pe of cemen 9 i, :. y, 1
3 s j
- f ;').',. - ?,, y $.
7-T pe of mold u = = = = = = * = = = = - 3 3 3* ,/. . smo' -N - Carbonation of concrete surface 4,t il These limitations are discieswd in the foregmng oider. 4- /..' g g p y, jf ~ *, .;* f ie namse sanseus ane .n.n s ' j :_ -,.. :,M n SuOOTHNt55 OF SURFACE UNDER TEST 2.I * ' I! f.e 2.5-eetoe.eash., bee-een sempren e.. reno.h and rebo ad avebee fe, This'has an importani cWers on the arturac? ni she test re-1,3."~~"" 1im - ?,h t mesmae ege egow seacrew obeemed wdh Type N-2 hommer, iFrom esf. 20J suh s '1 hc Swiss Federal niaierials Testing and Espriimental Insti-1 ,q w.. w:tg ,! b.. u ? = .n ... c._ a ' f ',, 4, ;y
- ,, ' I.
,k ' { y v.,;
- Q.
~ _, n ' ; 'Q. _. l 'g., j. _ : L. p %,- .}', [_. }," l ^ I. ; ; ' % "l ~ ; ~ [. ',., '. I RQ., [ ' 4N l -l l z ~f h 1I.' ~' u-pn.., .n,._.., _.. >y ~ _ - >, ~'
cuartta a
- p.g%,-
1 1 t-f se a she tomrene was cast against fornm.** Whenevei'the formed unfme ' $ ' ',,',. ' g inre scroenmemls that tie hammer be med only ora surfaces where mmo LOAD, K8/Cas j> 7 j see 4 di -e- -[--*-- M.LTDSLM.a.112.rg ' d l is sough nunc accuraie results can le obtained by grimling is to imi. , i..e,'.. sorus smoottums mich a caiborumhun siose, le has Iren sfuwn by, o#8 ' w485 u
- h l
kolck" arul (. scene 2' tha trowelest surf ucs or smfaces male agairg ,.t. metal lorms yicht rebound numbers 5-3 persen liigher than do l -.f.,,,,1t
- o
. -[$ surf aces male agaims womien forms
- This implies chai if usch sur-
,-[ l n faers are to Ic inctl. a special calibration curw or a correctioni chart ya / - M:o*' __ sodo mm_ y ..,g a ? miru le olmainn!. Further, artmeleil surfmes will give a higlwr scatter / /*, + -.,.'*
- se-arest e oes.=s crumotas, eeoo e.a T,..,. 4 _.
unh.e s of iminideaal roulis aml. theittore, a low confuteme los Ese -...e-- / - s - - 8 g~
- i l es-ear,[
l t } L:.. s oinciatioet j . : J' v o g 4 j 8*.-/ I \\ a,.o, _ [, ';D l., ,. -7 y J j g l )8 4. ' ' i ' 'I 1 SIZf. SHAPE, AND RIGIDITY, OF TEST SPECIMENS t 3 5 If the concrete section or a specimen is small uwh as a shin 3 , $J- -'. j Icam. wall, G-in. (l52 mm) cube, or 6 x 12 in. (152 x 305mm) cylimler, any mosenwun under the impact will lower the rehoumi remlings f {9* i In .t ' A.: i { j, 3 ~ 'v unh cases the member has to be hed or b.uked up by a heavy mass. 3 If unalt test specimem, for esampic. 6 x 12-in. (152 x 305mm) amo sm .ooo ,I,,.[h <3 mlers are the onh ones available, it is best to grip the specimen RESTR AINING LOAD. PSI ti ) in the testing m.achine as outlined in the calibrating prornfure. This g,,' y.',I) t Fie. 2.7-se w.iniae load we rebownd re. dines for e a 12 in. H 52 s 305-thminato apgneriable movement arul sowicaws she effective m.aw of e
- I
""") trhad*'s. Gwa set. 22.) i t i sie aule 1,3 ihat of the machine. la is lumever. uiggnant tha, smaller ' a. 7.* f-i se a pieres shouhl jneferably le avoided became they give comiwently [ 3 F'85 sao J hwer rthumul numlers amt a higher scatter of reudet 8 than the re-j 7; g# [b la h.n tren shown by Alischell ami lloaglarul: i i uraining loal as w hich the reboumi numler rem.sim comiani apgears j l g ;;. g -( io sar, wish she imhvidual sgrcimen: however, il e cffeivive rnaraining ,. ss eo ' ~ +- ., '. C '% # i j lo.ml for comissent rendes apgrars to le about 15 percent of the ulti-g. y j j s W- ) ij.. f mate urcugeh of the stecinnn (Fig. 2.7). Zoldners? G cene.2' aml Grich:5 haie imlicated effectise loals of 150,2r.0, amt 300 psi fin. IR. E.,g 3CD i jy;[' _$ ( A t; g i 21 kgf ftm3. sesgettivel aml time are comiderately lower than the ] /g j
- .,, y ss 3
l N h bk: 2 15 pericne talise obtainnt by Slitaltli ami llo.egl.smf. I $ gee: nP WT 200 4 , ] e as F I k
- 21., '
}f"1'[ g ears 7 2 .-f Q 4, 3 g / ? f q ,%,4 4 AGE OF TEST SPECIMEN j . k [*.h.4D j k KuleL" has imlisaical that the raic of gain of surfaca liaril-p* s---a 25 -m eere ,dJ r,p 8 s'l ' ens of com tese is rapid up to the age el 7 days anul folhming mhich - 7
- lo seve
,o 'p-r]r g ~ alere is hiihr or no gain in the surf.uc hauhms. Ei has been confirmed f j ;' hs iokiners* ami vun se ami i, is dums in Fig. 2 n ihai for ca. o,o f L em wg, 4, hM surngth Ingher reboumi salues aie obeanu.d on 74tayehl cylinulers s ,l, eh.m on 2R d.ncht cylindest is is suggrunt ihan when ohl soncrete is in le neued. direra c'orrelation may be nece sary lenween she rehoum! '/h, 2 s-ea.6 ,..s,,,.. g,,,,,. j L.b 1 te, s v; ,t f.3 _, n 1 4+3
numlers taken inn the structine amt the nunprewire urengsti of core' 6000 422 l talen frona the structure. E 7m"Z The uw of the khmidt hammer for testing low-snength con-ef f i encic ai catly ages. or where sonacte strength is less than 1:100 psi l ,#f,f 470 kgfirm*). is not retennmemled.88 lecatsu rchoanal numbers are too y [,' ) low for accuraec teasleng atul flic test liawni-r badls abmages & can-M - tiier l crete smiacc. tigure 2.9 shows blemidies cauwd by hammer impact can f, j unfaces of 8 hr4,1d and 341aj'51d unwrete cslimlets. 4000 j 2el 4 i l 4 t; / f "g hg SURFACE AND INTERNAL mot 5TURE CONDITION'OF THE CONCRETE 't ,/,/ g 3 l } The degree of naturatime of the concrete aint the prewme g3000 / / 28 E of sur[ ate nusisture have a decisise cliect oss the esaluation of ted y / / )l i'! i hammer roults." **22 Zoldners= has deimnntrated that well<ured.
- f 4
a + air.drial sgetimen[ when soaked in water'annt tested in the saturated,,' / a . ;,~ e I I surface <hicd cueulition.'show relmund readings 5 points lower th.in, f j l[. l l {g 1 u hen toted alry. When the same sgecimens weie left in a room at 70 F-j f t ] (21.1 C) ami mir drical, they recovered S points in 3 days usul 5 poin,es, l i, in 7 days. Klieger" has shown that dillerences up to 10-12 pomts,an loco,, go 4 reboutut numbers exist in a case of S-year.cht concrete (made witt,e y q T pe Ill cement and a sand aiul gravel from,lesas) letween slece- ? 3 k trictis stoned inn a wet condition and lateratorf4lry samples. This F.o. 2.10-a.torie ship betwo.a compressive ser.a t and abound numkr en a dry and w sore ,,s..h of..coacrete crianders 'l4 1 . l aliRetente in reboimd numben reprewnts approximately 2000 gni .cr. , sp,em Ref. 25.3 g .110 kgf/cm ) compreuire strength.' ? 8 9} ~,/~ la is suggewed that, wheneser the actual suoisture cosulition } s of Llie hekl concrete or specimen is not known, it woulil le sicsirable i j to presatserate the burface neveral lmun prior to testing aml uw the y' y. l ' l f .. A 'j : '
- [.' \\
sossal.uion of the naturated surfacc<lrieil comlition. The rel.iiinswhip ph,Ms 8L "p ' d.' $ l R.. pg u?...p i.h.;u~g.1 ~ j Iwoucen smnprewite strength of somrete glitulers ami soboumt num. ' - - " " m d -" - ' - d - - - ' " - in "# = = 1 e U s ,J l t lE. e.;. v i 'c i a TYPE OF COARSE AGGREGATE i ll f It is generally agreetl that the relminul number is allected bs
- j y,t p.%
lbe islic 05 aggregate inwil..hrottlisig to klieger,M for cepeal compreh ? Q use urettgths concretes m.atic with crushed limestone aoarse agi:regate i -r L '.7 slMsw tchositut rmBulerb appiotimatcly 7 points lowel thail tho%e Ior h. g4 rom rcies m.ede with gr.nel so.erse aggregate, repse eming apgnoxi-9 KQ
- m.etelt ItMin p i (70 kgl,s m2) stilleirtue ils coinpressive sirengiii.
. 7
- f.
- y gy e--
,)g 4 ' ApJ A ([' (E.L Gaich:3 leas showse that. esent Blunegh the espe of toagge ag. P C3 ) J-I{
- d. *;
3.$,' glegate tewd is the same it it i, oinaine.i 1, .. aisie,ent,ou,re, aiiic,. - 3 h ,,Mf b.* .7 , _ - -~ .,,k,,,. .D, un-,* u d ent cahldalima ctal'Ves wouhl he needal. Figure 2.11 shows results of one sm h umir uhcre fom dilleient grasels weie etwd in making the F.g. 2 9_f eght have old Deft) and three-der-old leight) specemens showing sur. 4tnicrete cslitulen geslett. The spac.ed in cenuprewise sticingih amotig (. fece t,lemishes etter Schmade 1*ommer eenPoct. (From net. 24.3 j e ,_'j i o
l g , "g TYPE OF MOLD g f-hfischell ami lloagtmul1 have carried out studies so deser. p mine the cuect of the type of concrete mold on she rebomal unmler. { g g Companion cylimlers cast in sieel, ein can and paper carion moms g_ .Q,g dmweil no signiferant diMerence in the rebound readings between those d,.} ~ / 4'/. s casa in uccl mohls ars.1 sins can snokigbut the pa'per carton; molded q - / specimens gave higher rebousul numbers. This is probably due to sly ,j I face chas the paper mold witfulraws moinure from,the plastis concrete. 3 y a ~ / g **, j thus lowening the water <cment ratio at the surface and resedting'in a .I higher strength in ghis area. Since the hammer is a surface hardness 2 r i f. a teuer is is pmmible in such cases for the ha.nmer so indicate an un. I [ T I, = scaliuically high urength. Is is alwredore suggested that il pager carton t j { mohls are being uicd in'the field the hamnwr shouM be calibrated _,_ _/, ",.v agamst she strengtli vestiles chiaineil from test cylirulers rass in similar j f( ' l mohls. I -..-m e Z ".".".",l [ This special calibration is necessart only when the results of l if g setannut tests on c)lisalen cast in the fe'l are to be compared with u 4 slune oletained on cylinders cast in the lateratory. Ilowerci. if in. situ 3 concrete is to be neued the type of mok! for casting control c)tivalers ] a 1 7 .,,o. 2.11-f 8'.<'it 9'*a*.*s. I'** 'b88'ene sources en rebound nwebers of con-ri
- I I
lesomes immatesial. i srinas.,s 2n 7 1 k i e N I the conves regnewening the cuixtete prepared with the four grasel CAR 60 NATION OF CONCRETE SURFACE I tuuw aggerg.un s.nial hom 250 so Gio psi (In to 12 kgf/cm ). sinlate carbonation of concerte signiinamly atleits the 2 Gattuc." iii his apptkatimas of the Silunish selminut haim unn,a setunnut limnnier tess results. Vic carlenation dects ase 7 mer. fommt slut the use of the test hammer on specimens arul wrixtures more setete an older concretes mhen she carbonated layer can be j m.nic of lightweight concrete showeil widely differing resuhs. For $cteral mdlimeters thid and in estreme cases up to 0.R in. (2n mm) 3 i esample, lightwnght concrete made with cyun icsl shale aggregate syd." In sucia canes alie retanmal numbers can be up to 50 hit;her j ski.bl. as tiput tranprrssive utengths. dillevens relannut munters ilun those obtanied on an imcaihosuted concrete unfue. Nairable i from comrene male with pmnice aggregaie, liut for any gisen a3pc 8*icction factoss shouki I e estallidu:d in umh cases, otherwise oscrj j of lighemcigtn aggregate concrete. the sebourut numbers prmed so be cuamation of corwrete strength udt nesult. proportional to the comprnsise strength. i ^ TYPE OF CEMENT REBOUND NUMBER AND .w.niding so Kolch. 'she espe of cement significamly alittt. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH )- ehe attrnmil number readsngs. lleglealumigu trment coewicie (J" .ksonling to KoleL" armi llathoira.h t!=re is a gencial ij. gise uvengihs 100 ptrceni higher dun alwwe olumned using a caliina-courtlasion 4xemeen somgunsive sciength'of conciete am! the siem chat lu cd am comreie made with orduury guntimul cement-hammer reiwimal numh flowever, there is a wide degree i Aho ugerwillaiol scmtsit ruinicie casi gise 50 gracent lower serength of disagiremens amoing various rewaschers concerning alic aicuracy salues chan show obtairmt froen the ueilmar3 g=ud.nul tenient con-of the essimmi no of warugih hun ilw reinnual temlingt Coefficiem's j < scie cabination claris. of sarimion for sominewise utengtle im a wide sanicey of aircimens - 1 I2> 4 I
i ...., ~., J..d 2' N { aserageil in.n genens' ami cuental so periem hw==ne gransla of I,,,umi,,,,,i,r. They liare simwn due she relatioinleips mic mitencil E siuimens." Ile lage ileviasi.nn in urcngth on he narre mi ihm11 les h..th me.iuure cueulision anel aggiegme esp. in die nine nunner as U-ausewelcralely h3 psoper satil> ration of alic hamnwr,. minish allows for g,;s som ensive aval fleusral sirengths. I $ i. A.,, o the acc uraa f of smimn em-iabin siistmsnt cartici. 11) conenun. f..- cuima ion of sompremvc urengili of int speiinwin cau. nunt. and q'-
- '(%
.l insol usuler latuwanos) cinalitioni T>3 a proger13 calibrami lummer 4' .N I lin Iwancen 15 aml e *.H penent.lIloweser he probable assinacy l ! f '.,., ; $,(i t. ni polinimi of.inurcie uminih in a unu sur)t is =m !=rieni. REBOUND NUMBER AND POLYMER-i' % *,,". unen:Is. nomuly ami Ilmulrma have m::gnical the n,e of IMPREGNATED CONCRETE alw scimmuul hammer in ronimuiime with = une meiluul of anciciacil snuties fuse been reported l>> 1)iLeon et al.8" on relation. 5' - -
- l I
s l e mmg in gami.le a rapsil anal convenient meiluni 1.w cuim.nis,eg i,he. diip between the gelymer content aml the relemut numher I.f 1 l csicini sinength azul epuist) of canuiete ini spwimem. I'or in-wiu; lor Imlynwr-impregtuical concicie. The Imlymer-imtwen. pphratioen nauru et al." hase mggnied a smulunal nwihmt n.nni concrete has been reported io give up to a 70 percent higher ilI ~ ? Based on relminal numtwr ami puhe velocity meaunements. ichu.uul number than the unimpegnaied concrete." The change in
- k a6. J.,. } U T
iciannut numiser with increase in polymer cositent of concrete is Y.- I*.- shown in Fig. 2.12. 'Ihe increase in rebommt numtwr is not linear I l *).. A, REBOUND NUMBER AND FLEXURAL STRENGTH
- i'h 'he inac== in imlymer annent but is $ shaged. the funnion l, J( n Give.w: aint Klieger et al ** hast establi tied coriciatiom he-l'cing lease sensitive for low-anal high-polymer conteni. The Schmids
~., y sween sic licunal strength of connete amt the hamnwr re. hanmwr ints on gelymer. impregnated coeurcie ppe are shown in .lg- ,4 hommt umnher. They have found shai ihe relationdiign are lg. 2.13. The absolute vahme of the relmumi number increaws with !. (ga y sinnlar to those obtaiiwal for compressise seiengih, escept that the nuncassug wall thidness and apge.srs to level off herween wall thid-
- y-
,J%,9 wauer of alw new=Its is gieater. Further, alw? Imnutihaiche te uits no's of 2M-3 in. (G3-76 mm). The implications of slus are obtious. !a. . }... :, L1-t.. .v. of the anos sinuhuicd ces the iop or I' ished smi.uc of a team wete 5-15 lcirent lower than Inne sonalmted <ns she si.In og the same g " f lt.. - - ' m 'Ihe ettens of inoisture cointitioes ami aggiegate e3pe on the g '. h d '..N imam. 938 4 ' /... 1 v-flesural suengste are similar to those loinal in the comp essive urength. 3 34 j", ' [. mW 5 / $ v i.' s, J m an r.# y*. ~ REBOUND NUMBER AND MODULUS 2 l' '5: g OF ELASTICITY x er 26 Aliulull ami llo.egl.smin luse assempicd so coerclase lum-j urr schmnut immics sich the numluhn of cl.ntiaia) of she f /" ~-f somrrie primem. 'I hey emuliutal ilui no salid concia.
- 2
/ ' 'i ' ' 4 3 'h sion eonkile ma.Ir dimah le ween the relunnut number aiul moiinius 3 s 6-in.(76stS2-msi):yisiders. I of clawi.'iin lumner. a satisl.uiory eclatiomhi e between die own g18 'D t might he pmible if slie lummer weer so ir s;ahlwaseil for cash in-g <iesunut uns in cl. = 5 penrsen and stoIP' avut Kheges
- luse nsablisted an em.
$' 340 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pisiul.clanmnhip leturesi dinamic' numhihn of cl.nnaty azul re. t. . ;.1 A FOLYlWER CONTENT-WT.*/. y, ;,A *"d j '. f . si..ha ..:.t.,ui en a.i nu I e4 nes.ue estam.=..: a nh=her 8 at f.o. 212-eelos.on.hi, be, wee. polymee.mpe.oaa ed concrete and reinu,.4 gw sine..ni.: *s= *.sarts awmber week Type N hemmer. ifrom Ref. 333 4,,.,, 1,l. j ? ,E f.. g . p. .c.-"..~ ,f d... .c 4. t. . v
.g m-2 v~ / ~ ~ h ~ p. n 'a v. .e / 1 n u.oo l j
- a8 SCHMIDT REBOUND HAMMER AND e
2so S' ITS STANDARDIZATION i y in spite of the 1.ut that the selmural hammer has 1,cen in uw T ts ji 4.' gg - Pdemer Nied Pee 'i for more than 15 years. this nest has not been siamlaidised in j any country except in Ihdgaria where there h a standard 4 g, i j whith refers to inechanical nointestructive methoih. including the o relemul hammer. ASTal Committee C9 trgan a seinly of the de. ), j So relepmem of a stamlard for ibis test in 1971 and a drafi se i alard is i j g j umler diwus ion." In the lirithh Canle of Practice 116:65 dealing widi the uw of precast concrete. the following releicnce is made to the one 4 M 45 ~ 3 Unfatted Pipe j Pruided the users hase prepared their own cahbration charn by recording g 40 4 as part of their quality somnd nnesine the results of regular tests mich the { Q h.numer em rulses anal on units made inmi she same batch of comrete. the 3 i y !nhmids hammer may he a uncial nmwicurtictise test gising an approsimaie I 4 l j WALL THICKNESS, IN. aiminatisen el emurete strength. .i i h Fig. 3.13-Relationship between well skicliness of pclymer-impregnated con-j crete pipe sad rebowed number, tFrom Ref. 33.3 r i s i i i LIMITATIONS AND USEFULNESS I 8, i For pi n miih a wall thickness of 5-6 in. (127-152 mm), the Schmidt The Nhmide reboumt hammer provides an inexpensite. ~ ) i 3 pol mer-impregnatol simpic, aml quick methoil for munlestructive testing of con-j j hamme: ma3 fail to dillerentiane lxtween full 3 j wall ami p.unially polymer-in*pregnated wall. crete in the laboratory amt in the precast industry., The limitations of the Schmidt hammer are many: thew ] should he serognimi amt allowames he made when tosing the hammer., l 3 le sannoi he overseressed that this instrument must not he negarded as i + a substitme for saanelant compeession tests-but as a method for ) y driermining the 6.nLoimity of coiwrcie in the structures ami com-AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY ON THE p.ning ame coenrete agaims another. Estimation of urength'of con. USE OF THE SCHMIDT REBOUND HAMMER neie by de Siliniian haininer wiinin an accuracy of 15 no 220 + I' Ituring 1965-19ti7.an inte national surses on the uw of she I *"'"'. ""5
- I
'E"#"'***'" memn g he dQ W dhs"n en %hmule schouski h.emitier was cairical oist by RILEAl WoiL-a i E I ""'""""U"'""""'"3'" ing Group on nondescrixtire testing of corurcie." Fihy-nesen ) Aumn dmn WW m & bWmq h m mmmg D, j. isaliiidisal regilit s were received frons 28 cosineries inclialinig I frinia 4 eum s 4 Lan.nla aml 4 hom the United States. Accending to Kolel.'* win. E analued the results of this surver. she mapuny of stune repiting were er.4.=m.1 s=me."'."or st4ninent t no"n"e es a'W> c~1'"'r*iTF i
- '"8'"'"*
' i" " "se ksolwi. at Te ter against the uw of the Schma. lt schoumt hanimer in arreptance testing sent l' 'I be couwnsm was that "the Schmida relannut hammer is uwful so f: very uwful in chesking imiformity of coiwrcte anal comparmg one i eomsete agaimt anodwr Ime it c.in only he uwd as a sough iruhration j' of comrete sterngth in abelure terms" l 1 3 l a M s,
... p. +., . k,. i w N,E W w':P a x mt.,j ;,..,4: c '., t. ",..g 9' w. y. y MA,. J. y ..a a 3 i s z.. o'5. W 4 .1 3 i .g.. y g._ s - h. 4, j 7
- ; y*
- + > 3. 3 g g :,f
.,.,..._. 3.,.m v..c, 3 m4,;... .,.7 ... ~ 9- ~ CHAPTER 3: PENETRATION l J PP% I. s R, 7 { h$eI.$Q fy.. ; ~,~ x. : l TECHNIQUES I y l (. y [I* _r 4% $ ( J }Q' ggC@;g.
- '/
i ~ j SIMBI,t he nn.nmement of h.niiness in HAMMER AND SPIT PINS .;C, "..j - - i piol>ing acchn, jucs was ..t*> 1,, first repuaint by Vocilm3* in 19M. Two scilmiegues were . p. ' - *. C '
- c:-
u .# M I AI ~{s. 44 , J. .. } (by.;> c fa l usal. In one taw. a h.unmer known as simbi (Fig. 3.1) was If M. .r s'I,
- MJ c4 1
F ? 3 e 4 mnl to peifusaic comrcie..nni the elepth of hmthole was -w 'o-a } tonel.acil to nominewire utength of coeurcic cubes (Fig. 3.2). In the ' Ef.II' *e Y E l -..."..[. '. T <. ),$.7,,,', 'p ) oilwr actimiepec. the probing of coiwreie was ac hioni by fel.niing wis g,. " # ',. ' '. '. E ?- I r .j.;,,-./,R.;t-x'/*l$~' .J '( 'f*( V Spia l Jus (Fig. 3.3) amt ihc elepth of genciratioen of the pins was sor. ' y.. c.- - / W, 'J / 4' a - 4 ?
- (laint with ihe compiewise snength of coewrcic (Fig. 3.-1).
f } f n his c ntlully genfoimal investig.nions on coiwrcie subes. M8{ M't > 'l. m'. o - t Yuelhnt" foinut ih.ai stic m.asimuni eleviation of she mean tahe was 4 z 3 gd.iicni ami this was <>f ilic snne oester as.wliicttil mieli inip.n, 4 1 " ** d " "" *" * " ** M W j hamma s. 1Iom citi, inns using simhi anal spii pins were mose afttrical h j 3 the arrangement of toaric aggreg.uc than the tesis uung impact a. n. hammers, amt moie caution was nenint in the jeitoimarwe amt n alu. l i anion of ele innlis of scifusaiion aml blasimg ents. g 1 .\\ para honi ihe stata reganint bs Vortims these is little other r-publishal umL asailabic un these ecsis aiml the appear to base me. i,,,,i f seisest linie airepiame in Fmope or clwwhcie. Prihaps the imremhic. j iion of ihe schoumi meihoil aioumt 19so was one of the irasons for 'g \\_ s, 3 ihe failmc of the almne icsis to ashiese general atacpiame. (_ - y\\.....'g.
- g g
i-- g N d m h s s s \\ y j, WINDSOR PROBE p ..\\., A ..a twiweri. P=il ami e=<> a icchn;.p.c tmm n as ihe wimt,or s y poolc w.es.mh.am ni hn inning toewiese in the I.shor.non as ! 8'"* 8 i s j' well as in sinis. llw sicyclopmem ol ibis ecs hniepic w.n 'the N.' g-N.IN --- \\ ruim umirnaling of the P ni of New VmL \\mho ns. New Yo L. ml .b ihr Wunfsan \\l.n hinen On. ( umscraie ns. *I his.lcich.pment ,,' s ' was ,\\ [, f, e lose h scl.sint to sunbes regnesint h3 Kopf u Itnutes of imestig.uinen g mr .r.-,.oa. i. ( _.....i....... .ui,...s..m......,.,....,...,i, y o. ..... u. ,E j l
e FtDat?NAleQM llCHNtOWES 29 g-1 g. g 9 s e,f's ' '
- 4N i. 4 5,
l I d g- "' O i tedh.. F, lI { '#, 'C
- . C '. '..d i f
.g.%i*c$,((h'W t > i s_ - $"- dg.hf'f i. sty, p. /. U .M k l' s f v~ h 'e Wyk vy y - Q% y+ .=s f.~ J v. w, I, s1 y,.y r* ge **, N. ,M a y,.,
- %'f.
(@h,l , q ': r. e3 *: j' l6.- rk ijt M_
- e..
v s x F 1 b
- 1..
, t .e 4._ i Fig. 3.3-Blosems with Spie pines before blessing deft); after blasting teiglie). t. (From Ref. 341 . 4 .I carrical out h) time Putt of New YorL Authority were presemest by DESCRIPTION .( Cantor'* at the 1970 meeting of the Commitice on Alechanical Piop-1he Windsor prole capipment tomises of a powder actuated l pm ',- " c6
- e craies of Concicie. liighway Research lioartl Washington. D C. A gsm or driver (Fig. 3.5). hardened alloy probes, loaded car.
'} c,'- . / 12 c 'd I number of other org.mintions h. ave also canicit ont esploratory teidges, depth gage for measuring penetration of probes, and oth. r ' d ;, ; '. ' ' y'.- suw'ics with this ucw technispee.*" Arnia has acported scinhs of a related espipment. The probes have a diameter of 0.25 in. (G.3 mm), i' ele aleil investigatior em the esaluation of the Wieulx>r probe, ami a Icugeh of 3.125 in. 69.5 mm), and a frustotonkal point on the ir eit b$- ~M; V-Afalhotramt has seported resuhs of his investigatiom on both 6 x 12-trig. 3.6). The rear of the probe is threaded ami screws into a probe. f in. (152 s 30 emm) <3 mlers ami 24 x 'l x 8-in. (610 x 610 x 200-mm) shinng head, srhuh is 0.5 in. (12.6 mm) in diameter and fins snnggly I 1i 3.. y e !..' soncrete dahs. intu the fuere of the driver. The piole is driven into the coeurcie in
- ?
the hiing of a petidou powder sharge that develops an energy
- of 575
,,, s[.j la-Ils 69.5 m Lg). '. ~.. 4-PRINCIPLE
- '""'" I""" " % ## " " '""l8 ' "
f,! . 6, The Wimisor probe, like the impact h.emmers and the se. as = ..n..., o pn.a., f J ,tf hound nwilum!. is a hanhiess tesier. The cl.eim in Kopin 1: = murhe as ow = nam th J, ( .,,- 4 Je s h.et the penceracion of the probe seilects the *penise com[nessive l ' ((,',j [ [ ',' g," g g,,p,.,, j i I , [,,, } sasength in a localised arca"is not strirely tone. Itawever, attempts are s.., J Imam; m. ale hv saiious rescanth workers to establish empirical cuncia-H = gr' lh tions felweeil strent{ih projrrlic% alkI gleflestatiott of IIIe psalsi'. AI = 0 (Gsir.'x8 M M xafi(% = $ $alla @ $ign @ g' f. _.. ' $ ~ > l y": ' ' y y_ ? '..~ _ ' f., ' [ i[
7 J. CMAPitt 3 ' N==mmi. ..G g - n y.M'-4 3 us. 1". e4 .. (t? t 68 438 gle ces cyg o,$g eS40 son l f.f..... '., g ? i /.. t -. E ~ /* e.. f -1 - [ 3 ; ?-. { A 8** A.g g. c 3g, yn3 .4..,.. / {,. - ( ',[ 2 4,- g ./ {h .~ g ih / **g.*;e= y' ,/ j g 3690 ww e.
- 2
. s,,/ ,oo p .t. y f .. f r wo ,e 4 s.- j.. s; } i i, c..,g . 4 a l24 A.,, ga l,1 ,oo ../ .\\g j 8 f:. ' **p,- ek ls.t. .- y s v. j .f 4 1425 a 40 3 13 30 2S to
- 3
, ~'...^ s.a a n j _,. 3 OIPTM OF PENETitATIOss OF 764 SPlf Pet $, kne } 4 C ,3.4.,i.,,.,,6. wi.a,,,,.6.,,,,,,,,.., a,,,,,,,,,. s.,,.6.,,, . 9. m, ' f,' 3 4-e..i.,6 w, b... .,6 .# spei pe a . i.. r. ,,, 3. t,..... ._,..c.;.,,,,,....,. s areom eef. 46.3 ( :/ a '. METHOD OF TESTING l t t -U " D. f e ~ I 73W 1 y j .>.. e - 2 - ' " * ~ - De nwthuil of ec> ting is ict.aaisely simple anal is given in she N; ' h h h ) by 4 - I nusuul supplical by the in.situf.uiurer. thiell, the powiler-3 4 as tisaint ibiser is uct en hre a geolw into rein 1cte. If teu cslirulcis s^- .~T~* L .'. } j.$, I,k*' ;,- I I ase lemg prolet. thew are helil in a spraial jig prmiilal by the inaim. -- - - -- - ~,',00;, - --- - - --. i i;. - Q. ',' 3' lutuier in prmiale supuirna nigi.fia), anal a single probe reinplet is 6 uvil. Il coeu1 lwmiste a. ete in sian is to 1.e acueil. a suit.shic locating icutples an 4 Prob. befor. Ass.mbly ir '. ' ' - can. (1..,-inen) cepsilateral triangul r patican is uwil aeml j; ihriv inohes are Gent snio rawurcie, one an e.ach sooner. The cy=>cl g j p.' lengths of the inutisi.Inal goins ase nwauunt h3 a ratilnatal itcpite f*< g.is:e. The nunulaturer aho uspplies a enethanical aseraging tiesise* 8 i f = ,.. ri re.= = ,4 los nwasining the aser.ege length of the shier gnoins hinl in a tai.angu f,D 8 ~ .I -V. '; j.. ~ ;- j. 1.n p.neern. Ilumeser, the uw of the nushanical aseraging elevise is '-l m icionisticiwIril f ortane of its aihierars surepairept treaction for h 3h ) a' su. ~, .?. n., .... ~. t.. .e.,. .a..r... i. s.e. -., .h,.. e. .e 4.. ..,e ...,e,.r s.. .,-_.,...s wew
- c. i
.h,,e.a., _._.. i 0 '." s ed eier e sess erer liw ochs e eiusasteofar sker it* agatehe the tegn ad ehr s h.ev
- l. ' <-2-. 'm-Ass.mbled Drev.s and Prcee p.an t he ita=i.ss.c twem es et slu ease geh% ges neu a meitha.essel aset..e.4 etw j
i .t,,. ~ } shes. painte s es mes aspeest in a eh pah gage toew eenl theeseegia a hs4c in she esteht e.f nw *1, phac. ) Fg 3 6 A. w.$ pr.be (.a rsn.3.w,ight t..cret, b.f.r...d. feet .em-
- e ' ' '.. ^
i* bly. Eft.m Gef. 46.3 ~g < '7 . 13 I 3. j 2 e s t L-7 y,y f,., i. 3 / 1,l ' 'c r,, e3..
l l l CHAPitt 3 Ftt.ilaAlsoPG llCNNiOUtl 33 33 e l l $ 't . W & %2P E9 if$ I L i 1 ~_
- W. $MMW i
i l i , e; yam,w i \\ =
- g l
3 a.e. -<.. %. %. l % w-b .e [ g ) ( p. T ( W k- 'o ) wh. .i x' [ ) l.. T J 1,. { s ydf i db ? .r ' 9.' = 4. 4 J . '4 s.r.a ' '* ? N.'sYMvii$'d>: '1 N Fig. 3.7-A view of the Windsor probe lee operatioses e e a 124n. #152 a 305 { mm) cylsader in a holding lig. Defga e 24 a 24 a 8 in. te10 a 410 a 203 mm) l l sieb under eest (righek #From Refs. de end 47.) t gioups of tinst nicasurements for which the within group strffkient jl of iariation is greater than 3 gment.*2 pisi al sel.ations. In any event, investigations cariied out 13y Gaynor.48 I Figure 3.7 diows the probe lieing wd to test a 6 x 12-in. (152 Anni.n 3Ialhotra.** amt otherna imlicate that the manufacturer's x 30kmm) concrete r3 mier ami a 24 x 2 4 x R-in. (GIO x 610 x 2femm) ,,1,le, sannot be used with satisf ariory results. Sometimes they con-h ^ coeurcie slab. The test c3 mters aint slalis after inobing are dioun in si lciabls anciestimate the actual stirngth'* arul iii other isieranxes shev h d Fig. 3 8. inulescuimate the sciength. It is, therefore, imperatisc for each user 3 of the peohe to calibrate his probe test resuhs with the r3pe ed aggre. j gate being med. Tir Wisulsor psobe is a relatitely new inethod for which a f'. CAtlBRATION PROCEDURE si.nuludised calibration pioculure has 3et to be established. MT31 'I he manut.nturer of the Windsor guobe equipment has put> Cummince C3.l' legan a samly of the development of a namlaid for 4, fished califwation tables relating esgur.ed lengtle of the probe this test in IWI. Ilowever, a practical procedure for cahbrating the ) wish rompreusse urength of coeurcie For each probe value. slitterent l insuunent is outlined below. p vahecs for romgnewire strength of coinicie are given. depcmling on the h.ndnew of the aggregaie as meauned on i,he Mohs' scale of hard. I P8'lwe a nannber of 6 s ISn.a. (152 s sninun) c3 mlers 1i y' irw.
- It is seen knows whether the sahination cunes prenided b3 the tw skin ilM-nnn) cuirs aml mnpanion 24 x 21 x M-in. (610 x 610 x i
mannf.utmer h.nc tren derned hv snanerting Linetic energy to static nn nnni smurcie slain sosermg a usength range th.n is no be en- { 8"""8C C'I "" d'c bb site. Une the s.nne arment azul the same a3pc aml lo.nl. a sen dithenh t.iA indeed. 'or whciher Ilics are h.ird on em-s /c of aggt Ogates as ale to be use i oi ihe ph. Cine ihe c3 nacri iin. !i 8-man.a afore man-vaa. se. wh =h...k si,nt a male ce harehu,a in = hiah ,I sah. In-edicia ed att memreats es gn.w essenstre I ment eiunment. ihe harsicas.I an '"la% kar l'enenaimee Roiwanas ed Hmk1 ecol tenerne* ( UTst C 8803 } Len =n weineae. ass en eennebrant 30 Uls .1 t l I I 1 3 / e x e. g m a a x w w w : v.>
- .4 c. y
- w ; m :. s g. c. ; m.- ;
~ w ' g y. g V 3 }.
,,o-ii-i-i - si. c i s-- a, - n - i ~ i-u = ' e. i FtNt1EAi#QiG ItCMNIQUll N j ster saamlarit enoiss< ming conditiom. Lergung she curin; perial the l id hohhng gig supplied hv the manufaturer. At i4 usi as same as the spreified simirol age in the held. leau thace individual e3 ualers une gwobeit. Following this. she cali-1
- 2. 'lest three specimens in comprewion at the age sperineal.
hratimi pedme is du. ume as outlineal in Inctus 2-l. j ming gamlarit inting procedure, ami espeu the reudis an pourds per uguaic siuh or in Lilograms per upiaec centimeter ami sale the A nicA calibration turve is shown in Fig. 3.9. sogeiher with 1 as erage. Then hic three prohn into the sop surt.ue of the slah as she 5 percent confalence limits for individical values. Calibration Icase si in. (152 mm) apare ami as least G in. (152 mm) from the cilges. charts published by severalimeuigators for cinscretes male with time. a 1 Il am of ele this,e proles I. ails to properly genetsate the slab, temove l soonc gravel. chert. amt traproc k aggregate are shown in Fig. 3.9. } is amt hic anmhet. AI. ale smc that at leas ihree valist prohe results are as ail.ible. Alcawne the espeel pobe length, mmg a single-penhe
- j eemples moul the ilepili gage. Averat;c the three re uits.
l 1 Re} cat the abuse poteslure for all test sgrcimens. EVALUATION OF THE WINDSOR PROSE TEST i
- 4. Phat the esgwd grobe length in inches or millimeters agaims the compewise usength in pmunts per egnare inch or in kih>
= j graim per wju.ere tentimeter on a graph. Fit a cune or line hv the UMITATIONS OF WINDSOR PROBE EQUIPA4ENT j mettumn of Icase wguares Sometimes 95 gerent so.ifulence limiss for The Wienisor probe erguipment has the potential of prosid. e j imhsidual inuits ma3 aho be drawn on she graph. These limits he. ing a epid means of chetLing igualit3 of concrete in situ but its I;mita. I j tween them mill describe :he interval within which the probability siom mug he rnogniecd. Some of thew are distuwed below. of a ent rnidt fathng is 95 percent. j I j
- 5. Il compewise urengih of te a c3 mlers is to be rel.ated 1i S
to she probe genetration rauhs on ti it 12.in. (152 x 305mm) c3 mlers. VARIATIONS IN PROBE TEST RESULTS h {1 ~ - _ =. thece to hie sna <)limlers aie cast amt one pobe only is 6ted in each The limited pidelished alata by Ga}nor** Arni." anil alatho. j tra** *8 imlicate that the vaeiation in the gwole test results is large as 1 { R *[:;'.l%da lg:/ u I >t r,, g.. g p;g;f.-yg :j. ( P c g ". ,1 ..i?. w. i
- M -
4 p I ., v I a d 6; 6> s- @ [j. g.- ~ e : f.V J.
- - L f.
j. o 5 .g y '. ~ y<. y:., es-lj9 . s ...z. 3( - p <1 5t' i .s g,.yg..lggg y 2S_.....i. sis <_.e.. ..i2 s,i.,su 24 a 24 m 8 es. iet0 m et0 a 203-mma slabs (rigeul. ter.m Refs. de sad 47.1 I ? 1 I
r ; . '._ Os a _, Y bWT,W-[* 9.,, ' - ', L'.' Ne&. .A l%- 4?,,l + Q [ *,., ; ' l.% J.y. 4 j k
- ^ * ' "
. l.-. ,..,? .b* . 4 4,., ~. 4,. 4 4,e ..[-[ t.. " ",. f '.[ ~-' . L.:;a . k w..N '.. - - =. .?'. '.g, n
- 4..
l .... + 9 e.
- s -
y. ,' n ,f y
- . y
. r 4 ,. ".. c ;f -
- y%.. ;y.
.*4,..'b [.. :.. '. - 'JN , ' - 5 C'., J'l q u .e, y ,_e f 4 f *4 '98f9
- NFS
-' w. 4 * # $ 4 - tres. 69bf M.W 8'TD1W99 **. 8"f"N " '" *,
- * *WNab$rtad.f* 3E e
- $b.)g &Ist bag,ssel g,l w*a kul ser.al91 I sm.es 4 1. real63 es s a al s speal : 4
> >e 5 1 m ap nl3, i.ep/s t ur,s ne g t) tul quPJ at vuur. um**J P'aues se.igmugn (me ggs s Tgi) 'ut ;g a e Ps steas6aem asassale=e e *psy a (.netukae .m ie..s (mus Olst a Uvh h u' ell
- Jir'P luter5I utit il e lei les E
$U53 'llra uf 3D E $r,B y $3 1 -R]) geg3.telegniggutsg 9 (usm eagt a nus a nsO tu I gl'W 16 l*
- 5 list
- ll'*
'"f~#D t L& n # SZ l seirme s aisse ; (unu sag s ulie a al ua t's li& Lare us Put & ISD s*I'P 'Ut-U t 93 a 6; et is tousu/Ji a Osl a p O s 86 Ak i s9u s EE 4tG tim **l *! !Pi n 9 8 9 63 !s p.s i+3 (usus oug u O!v E gl9) l5 (C I Itu a 621*e & Ist pleP ut-g a 15 m S& bl lune SUE a 250 il E Bat u 3C l*e & 4GC se.stmenu en-g3 3 9 68 $6 .se**woun g e spau'h te8m ous t als a utO t'S tpf1 tul e IC Ime g g ,s,g g egrp ug-g s eg s yg $3 g (mus Oug 3 015 3 ull7 59 E9 6 ki l'0 BE la88 's *5 .951 ster at g u 0g u ys gg g igmes eless g ig
- aemannus pswj SLD Stui m100
'et) DAFl6 4WpDMs jughtg tattAB
- 19B gag
== sri ee s wa P. 5.m. sA pn yn.,,t.. .,,,,p.,p P' Pe a3% J=i="a P* mlil 4 cs..xx, ar**.nze = nen!n.us p.,ge,,g sis.eg ap ue ) geei g ,,,,,,g,, p. l g sauawaansoeus eqoad go uopopen go suop! gees puo uopot"P P'*Puois qssoq-urqatg-t C 31SV1 =w= sanannas nn socarsi m masons smssimeios avo-se .E { A " 7, {.E.d y5 .6 - r.; E 2 ~ I z = I s ~5 fCgG RT2 2c E 3 = =c 5C j j 2 ~ a =
- 3 3,, s P ". E c :... 5-=g u.'
L o a. .= [ s
- 7
= = 0 w Eud 3 E gl 8o =. e5 =- *c 5 s.=o 7 c I- =. o
- 3 a
a 3 o E s 6- = 7u - d ' v e-u o I li H 3!.:OF3**?j" = y sy tE E E. ii i? =,, E. a c t.2.E = } g g e s =. 3 f i a ro.w e., s.e s =E _y *- u
- 4
- =-
=--7 y, i cs g 3.,=,5 9c ,j = a o -=c oE 1 = N g 2.c .:::cq a g R 3
- u c
= r =g .= e s - u.r.a' 'a i e - y.= 5-h* = - w =-
- J.
.a {8 -a = 28gcw-Cio l "I. -.: 1 \\ 11 EE l 3.2 -., R-!1 2 ?.'.,3 s as o s yx
- l
. = 5 = g ,8 g =.s .' :c.i 9 :g E E =
- 6a-
\\ -i a ,a c.2.=- =, s -gg. g 3 +\\ - ! g ]*.,.. .= .= e 3.= n n -t-s 1 y .= s : -. B o s o k.! e I g .! !f 3 a - a = 3.= [2 h* 5 $ *
- es=
0 .s v e I !.1 = ~ 8 , = s. s 5 = l 2..-..;. o<- = en; ~ 2 ' .C - s M.i E .M E =' ~ 5, 9 "8 .s y . nee.-= 5o, 2.= E =g
- 7, s e
- = -= ..i w =2 -_ne .-,,, = w -t; 2: 'E =s,, o u m X k -. = 9, 5 a.. 2- .e., r c.= e :g. = -4 = i. 2 =o -= o a . I, :o es. r =--= 5. k x .g 37 -k - o s.u* o '( l' o-l a =C1 = -eu -w-lE .= a o,7 6. g i g 5 c { 5 =- o o i -= g. s-9-f v 7 4 a.esesm.nna en-ene a use.ans aussaunos no-se i, ! ..e... .w ,.p., ,.,,y
r. ..ai.o num.wot, av J Iriame of ste el.muge une.ainut luring prolung (l'ig.1M). In one in. j scuigatime, for "M41ay sess rewdis, the thilroense inn t!w strength el ts e nos ss e aos es t ses se s sio es o ean pioinsi amt sonapanion impsolet cyclirmicis sasied from II.5 percent g l p i los low-sucugth aanwicie to 17.5 percene for high-sarength (tnicacie. j g Tiw gicancr low sclawant for high-strengtle ionwrcte is proluidy stue I y soor. ar v so ele 1,n that the tosicrete surf. ace gets hanler wiele age ami serength g 7 '~ j arml. cannnpently, more sh4ttering reudts as nos c3 miens are piohed. ti I. ...- --** j ? sooo 3se [ i ? [ / WINDSOR PROSE EQUtPMENT AND NONDESTRUCTIVENESS / e The el.eine ilus the Winshor gmde ont is a norulestruttite tess ~ f '*g} is not es.mily true. The probe learn a mimir disturfunce on a verv 3 unall area with a 5/I4in. (M mm) hole in the corwrete for the depal's l_ [' "' if e3 3 4 of the gwohe. This damage woukt he of little conwrpeme if ecsaing a ~ y / weie icing carrical out on the side of a wall that is so he b.uk611cil { f f sw on a imumlationi slah than is so be covernl: however, on an exposed /'./ '- - Y, I T.sce the daniage woukt be umightly. The probes woukt have to he j za em l / / semoint amt the surf. ace guiched at akical cost. The test may be / w k[ - - mo somideral mnuleuructive to the exient that concrete can he tested in j inac - / sins.umi strurinral nwmbers uwls as retaining walls need not he dis. g's j sardnl aher nesting. l g l .a s. i. so su u. at aaposto racer tensen. em Ogwrasiem of Wimbue Probe Test Lguigunene. The Wiml-wr lwole nIui utwns is simI e aval withies the grasIa of a laboratory s.e. 3.10-selseionship bes een esposed probe tenesti ond 28 doy compres. l d Fi T he njuiguncut is well male. enggett, azul neetts little e sweaeth of coauese os obso.ned br diserent investigesers. IFrom Refs. scthun..un. 43, 45. ond 473 nuensoume essept ottasio.ul escaning of abe haircl of the gini. The spinn has a m mber ad built.in ulety featurn that prnent arsielent.at t ins newlis suales is doubtful alwihet temngnewise urcugths c.m he diw furge or esc.eje of the proin sile hom she gim. Ilowescr. wearing janliunt with rc.iwouble airmary mitium sesoising to lange nmnhers of ulets glasws is suongly a. hisn!. Tie rept.nement of the single, of gnohn ger nest.at+4 4 gnohr semplate nuy lee ncnted at simn. livreuse af the Lage seeinbahty in the prohc test traulti, the n'elniness of this apprawk l.rs in eleternuming the relatise qualiti of onmrete on place rather than in its use as a utrans of quantitatints DETECTION 08 INCREASE IN STRENGTH WITH INCREASING AGE pre,Inting the OAtny ruinpreune strength of ronrretc. la has iness shown hs Arni+a amt Alaihotra**At that for the ume amwerte unstme espowd lengils of the prohn imteawil with e inricaung age el comicie. Theiefose. the Wimtwo p <Je measure. l WIND 5OR PROBE VERSUS CORE TESTING muns ean le uwint hn anmparative sambes is has htein wggesent= shas alw Wimbor prole int is wpciior to s oic snaing ami shouhl lie eumulcred as an ahcanative in the lauer for cuinusing the senninewire sercngth of smureic. la is inne thas the CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH lnnin* Ina e ati In* sariint om ist a nutier of menines. m hereas tones, il AND FROSE TEST RESULT 5 I,mn cyaned ascas amt il iles tuse so he icuni in a cord.saue niih I he soeict.siiom brewersi suetiperwive stren;:th aent piedse AVI M (; IW. mme he watn! Im in befa aho, the sores nus luse seu nowhs.uc du,wn iii Fig. llo lie 1.nge sasi.nion in the pmhe so ir namganin! so a scuing lalan. noes. caming (miher elda in t -.m-.=w
P wmas a nueseas.on sacnmoues J.M r Oi'- as grit.ng she results. Ilowever. is lus been shown by 31allmira*8 tina , s:.:. A .[k' ',,3 ilw seasularit erner of estionare of al4tay compressise streingth of con crete cshrulers is of the same ceiler regardless of th 'est mettual meil. t l j/' Jss i' [ ;, tg p ' '? Funtwemore. the advantages of the Wisulun gp iest shouhl be g#8 / 808 imlunt agaims she gnnision of its sesa results, air folhiwing state-F* 0 sas *00Nr r.aw a / '4. % s 5.'.i meens b) Ga3amir : alsneakl Ic of interest in this rt%. a ) ,,,,3,,,,3,,,,, ,,y }. l ' E." c g g 3' ensure faeno ap ( z88 437 )1* li.eeni nei shese ecs s. the pruhe svisens dnes sent supple the auuratv U resguient if it in so repl.we soniemen=al sure sais, floweser is will he me-I' . h' -^ ~ ful su mmh the =.mw mamwr ihm she retumnd hanimer is neful. In the,, so s.s I sesas neidwr the pecbc synens nor the rebausuf hammer prosides precise a2 J';r. p,- as g p/ / 2 .lu.mnuine ewimme...ompens..e rn,gde on uxinal. omenn. wh 3 'q shmskt he sinni s.s banc areas of relaiseli kow or selatiscis high urength O v h 88 'p* n.. esme reses in sirmmern. ^ ^ 35 8 g
- , (, f g.-
n.
- v...... t g
i., WINOSOR PROSE AND MECHANISM OF CONCRETE FAltuaE ' $o p[, h O 5-. q) It has hecia claitteed** that the Winthor probe test measures ,3 m 33 ao o go8 she compressibility of a localised area of concrete by creating a subsur-RE80sM) NtJn#8 Eft-X of aggiv e is a low percentage of the soaal energy of a driven piobe [,8;[,N,~j'f,'d*[j, b e.,..n retus.nd nh,.4 mpo..d laaeth of jf I,* 't a ' ~ 1.f '. face etunpaction tsulh. Further. the emergy required so break a piece
- i.
j /; - amt the meacement of compsessive strength is not affected sig- _ _. : S nJwan 13 Supgunting d. eta for the above claims are f.uking arul it is piohe test resuhs to a miuh gicater degree than those oixained by the i. y,' ' W ihmbent if wah data aie e.nily obtainable. Leeping in mimi the com-rebonml hanmier. Where cost is a critical factor the above advantages
- b..,... '. i,
- 4 4.-
plcs nasme el the sumeure of comrete. Arnia doulas the above of slw Wimbor gnobe test may be olfset by the fxs that the initial cost
- 1..
I ).' - = numle of Iaihue in concrete when penetrated hv a probe aml his con-of the oguipment is ahnet ihree times that of the sest hannner aml b."# - 'L w shaling saatenwns in this regard is worthy of note: ilwie are scrurring expemese for the probes. Iloth tests damage the f i ' - 'b,~ sinusene sanlaae to varying <!cgrees. The reixmeul hammer Icates sur. In inunart. de cactis ihm eate pl.nc a. a prahe penetraies a run-One blemidrs on young concrete, whereas the probe leaves a hole . t ll arcic snm are ems imple ami. whasever thes are.. hey el. m : represent true 5!Isiin. pmm)in diameter for the depdi of the probe and ana) came 3% ?.- 1 ' ) unnp.n. ann. On she sansrar). the3 c.= naure,a wmples e.m.hiumana of min w ca.mLing. Furthernuwe, both of these tests have the disadvan. - '. '. ' 'r.. -, laru.hw u. imnprawon. icuswm. dwar amt tratam' ,,. isi C.m.ula aml the norihern Uniini States that difficulty may be emperinucil in their me on esposcil concrete surfaces during winter I b..' I ' [~ [ - [ - ~ immeh< Ircame of the froien state of she concrete surface. ~ (an clasiems twsween relmusul nisinbers azul exposest probe WINDSOR PROBE YER$US SCHMIDT TEST HAMMEa lengths as obtainwd b3 LIhotra" are shown in Fig. 3.11. [f '_ (4 ;- [ e [. Iloih the Wimbor probe and Ahmidt sess hammer aie basi-sally havihiess anaen asul lxials proside sneans of descrmining relative .f. . J '!) ase.a of weaknew in sancrete anuler investigatiosi. lietame the probe LIMITATIONS AND U5fFUtNE55 OF THE WIN 050R PROBE TEST 7.. J *1 eau prm:trate inp au 2 in. (5l mm) in corurcie. she puebe penetration 'lle Wuuhor probe test is basia all a hardness tester armi. liLe i t.
- - i ' (-
se nli, aic nnne meaningful than slic result, of the erboiesul liamsiner. 3 / 4.
- 1. s inher liaidiu ss testers, shoidd not be espected to yiel41 ab.
whiah is a unime furthess tester only. Ilecame of the greaser pene. wlme vahics of urength of cmurcie in a strucatue. Ilowever like the ..!.!)p *. y
- .
- 4. 9.;&;
esaanni en sontrete. Elec gnoir test resuhs are inthwmnt no a lever de. .__* ti.e mmat eme ce dw me..in i. apponimawh nas nd she om cs ihree . p"y,*;'.W-j gur be unt.uc nusisame. sessuse. aml cailum.asimi rtinis** Ilowever. sisc.nsul shsnibenions of sautic aggie;;.ste in se.su scie inuuis alles t the I" "II"" j. 2 j'. : a e I jf.f ~
- a :
f h[ 3
- y,
J. l j ",: a ~..-, -,. +.,. ...c m
En&PISE 3 ,3 Schmide relanami hammer, the pruhe sess gnovidn an estellent means I lor deactmining the relative sesength of cmicrete in the same urnrsiere e or rel.nive urengths in dillerens sarncturn willama cuensive calibra-I sims wille specifc concretes. i 'j 1he calibration charis proviiled lev the manulaturer do nos g 4 appear su be saiisfusory. Is is, therefore. desirable for cah uwr of she Wimtwir prole to prepare his own cahbration charts for the espe of comicte umler inmaigation. With change in unirte of aggregates, l ,1 new raiis,aii.n. harts it ome ma.wia orr. CHAPTER 4: PULLOUT TESTS i 1 j According to Skramiajew.38 the elesclopment of in sitia testing Lj of concaric in alw I'SSR dann fruen i 131. avut iasious pielh>ut j sests aie piominent among them. Ikicily, a pullout test y meauires with a hollow sension ram, the force reiguired to I s _ I pull out from the concrete a tjecially shapal steel rod whow enlarged ' l emt h.as fren case into that mnciese, ficcause of its shape, the ucci rod l is guilled out with a cone of concrete, the larger aliameter of the pulled-I ff one conical scciion heing governed by the annular ring bethling plate. I .y l he concrete is simultaneously in tension and in shear, the generating 3 lines of the cones running as approxima*4y 45 deg to maical. The pullout force is then related so compressive strength, the ratio of f. { pulhnet strength to comgnewioni strength being hetween 0.1 aml 0.3. in the west regermeil in the USSR. only low strength, helow 1500 psi } 1 (105 kgf/cm2), concretes were tested. 'f In 1944 Tremper" reported results of laboratort sainlies stealing with pullout ents covering strengths up to 5000 psi (35'! Lgf/ cm?) arul onchulal shas 3-h 3 j Pull +us news aan he repner uicif wuhis haiits shas are neart, as s e i <hme as for sumpreswa sesat 3 high elegree al sorrel.nism nins between the puileus arwr she { emnpressusa acus Daia frmn f.elmesatin3 um imlicate shat the gmil,an ecs can he. q. applicit so cemtrrie en isrinsure mish less error in cussnasin assisal rom-y pressise strengths chas are nos abme 35H0 poi (?t6 kgf/sm') than is alien 4* oheaened ihnmeh the are of arg syliniters. In IW Tawio6" reported the dnelopment of a tess in m hkh .a w.nulard n. ail.1.37 in. (31 mm) long and 0.16 in. (4 mm) in diameter, ]l is shiven imo a contiene unIse using a gun. Ten min. after driving. tir u.ailis extrated, the swrewarv pulloni force ining nwasuaisi on a manometer. Correlation curm h. ave tren establiJmt heikeen the compremve suength of M ni. (?t:3 nun) cuin amt the gmilout fuese. I t ii N
4. RECENT STUDIES IN NORTH AMERICA l After a tape of abous 30 years, the pullout tests have again smne inen vogue amt a number of parents h.ne Iscen saLers in g g c sasioen toimaries ist seemection with time tests. In North 4 4 3 Anweis.a. Iti<hardW h.n tren advocating these seses on sinutusal run. d } crete members. Alathotram* has abo reporteil the me of alme tests - I in C.m. eda. In uudies reported by blalhotra."* limenone coewrete \\ d f sovering a tenupepire seiength range from 2010 so STM psi (141 to j V g 422 Lpl sin ) as 2R davs was investigared. The pulhms awembly con-p = sised al a high4 rength saart dufs n.75 in. (19 mm) in dianwter amt T*****d saan - g j L2% in. (107 unn) losig. eugether with a 2.25in. (57.mm) diameter aml g.s e n e - / a 1/M-in. (2.M-mm) thi(L washer as the conheskleil heal. The awembl 3 s f w as heht in punition in 2 x 2 s 2-ft (fi10 m tilo x 6Ithmm) muoileni mokls '\\ / / h imis ami wadiers as diown in Fig. Lt. The critical dimendons were 3 8 ** * 878""3 8 the diameter of the washer that was to act as the emhnkleil head and ,y 4:=a.25. Is7==l I the dissarwe letween the top of this washer amt the indde of the n. esa tsa s==l j formwork. This distaswe was kept comsant at 2.0H in. (55 mm). The - de - steel shaft aml the embenhled head were gudled out of the hardened e, concrete by means of a hollow semien ram exerting pressure through a sacel rir.g learing plate with an imide di.ameter of 5 0 in. (126.fi mm) ami a thickness of 0.5 in. (12.7 mm). The tumle diameter of the hear. ,;, ( 3 4.,.g,,,,,,,,g,,,,,g., ,,,;,,,,,,,,,%,,,,,,e.I the t w b. .., pt. ..aih..mb.dd.dh d.ce,.m s.f.34.) N.e. 1: Esperienc. Ind.cos.s that the obov. dim.nsions .r. m.st s svu.bl I 7 l* b I Nos. 2: T.tel ar.e "A".I conven surfec. of a frustrum.I e righe 4 il 4, cirsvfar cone is eqwel s. l f A = elld.. + d.,.) .h.r. lq { j g 3 $ = vh'+ sd.,- ds hs,.- g..r d.,d .I l A = 2s.40 in.' (181.8 cm') 3 i e,===._- .m ~~ ~ 1 (- e" 4 ing pl. ate the outside diameter of tha embedded he=I. and the distance l letmeen them controlled the sire aml the apex angle of the concrete j ,4 - hnerum to be pulled out (Fig. 4.2). A wooden mohl with pullous I - j aumblin inualled is shown in Fig. 4.3. The various stages of a pull. l out inn icing performed as the Can.nlian hiines Branch aie shown in i e Fins (M8. i T pical test results for the pullout tests are shown in Table l 3 1.1. ami the correlations betwecia comptessive and pullout strengths ll are dumn in Fig. 09. } 1 F.o..m1-A p llove enembly wwh 0.75-m. I19.mm6 pay = d fer, e.geeh., The concluuons rearlu,I b3 AlaII*otra'a were along the lines 4 ....s d.d. w e.gh the d e.# eh. ihr d.d she#,.e o 75 e j m.(19 m me. (From ael. 54.5 regn.iini in Tremper except than the pullous teses were cigu.dl3 ag> ld hmen I a .a 4 .,,2.,
\\
- .. p y y y n. n. ; ;.
- 3.j..; ; _ y ; ;,. y%,.,
) a. 4 : s s,. ,( yy : .. ;* ;,_*,g :c. ::: ~.. : :
- ; G.:. 6 v.
o- } >.., .',.m.- ..k
- f. '-
j *t's Stir &;-* Wr.. 44&l-l,.l l -_ _ = = _ - 4 ' ', ' ..e - '.2. s 4; t W..... . y> ' y' %. d. - e a ,r 9 'i i s .3 m + 'Q> W, f a y-f.sl-Y.f. ? , ' ' ;, t gi ( i 13 _1 a ,,I : ' ig ',)) [5 { 'd,' , c, l;.'k A
- ..i ':,
'$5 L jr ajj {jl 1 i i %.. u. i:l i s i2 is ) ~i ~ dS
- u 1
l M =:~::==.= . =%
',?,.},*'.':-[ [. Ne --e .. X W '.: . .g- %.. '.y, ; ,l*'_ ~ ;l : ? :' & 4 . J. : '1 f, ' - O a c. .t 4..a., ., g e.. -rp a*=1er % eut, H - w.r- +. -, s i --... q :,an, 64 '... 3 '. ' '. ' p ~'.4 4-h, - .h'A.";-.- s mm .T. w c 1 T". " - ---===~ - =- = _. - =,-.e-,.. e synsee esmie semqpal sp ps meeig 4 ispa.ee sm.as seus ye.*Nes ssg, ipg py .s e ne.g h3 E~I e1 9C 16 (n 5 39 &^t 508 til
- agus, t
9E Il 3 ts is w31 E0 CE TE tu, el en* I 64 69 WE il Elf neu US he III ta#E
- P.ht b
61 IE 58 13 e4 taisi EO EE we t'A
- hh C
l ll B IC hij e.ht t'rrt i ase.inwl inutal ,ema/;W1 p.! 3 e ,*pNeo es> seig sen ee t -, men / 33 __ mel emental gase/g nel 3 ,m ej 3 1, ,eI ,,,,,n.p 4.,ge s,,,,g,g, 3 5h* '"lusies ce ps , emit sre se s e gernq, ,qsaw eep p.,g.,,g
- qisismen sag ag er g pe
..se piepuegg .sar s egg-sigy pesqgent tu.ss mpar3 ogseg sp.no um*lp,g asymys (was nog 4 261) 84 ;l 1 9 weseas w w ul.or; synsas assa Aap g6 go vetsopen je suoptgeen puo maisspep paspuess epseq-uppm-L*P 315V1 3 h)gGhys,?x #d.I,.fs,5?p. j g : g n,. e. ., fp. e,. g L W .v w 2 e ...e v '. -: n. s ~ A . r ' peg, p 4-4 4 L. :-.,. ;;. g l n 3,,.< ~ 2 j _(- 4 Nf h... q.)
- 5. h 'i I
1. 4 I .o -,f. $v.64r %y. -s,.a j g. - y-- , " ' y~" T~^ ", t; f1
- a..i l'
.u \\ ,. p.. ~.,.,. ~J
- p. o. ;
a.- +.. i
- .,s
.T.- 4-* -8 ,:I = . a, r _ A..a 9 p. A A,. q', f. y *.. . 4 - .4 4 =,; e g s 7 <.s. y-I 9..#, e t, 5 t. g. n, g i r..v<.:,;.p ,3 1; . g.- + q, w 1 s. 7. Ae w.@fi,; IIO' 7[{. l k ,1 !,.,!. r .u s as Q':,' [ . s4~,', ; e:*. - q...
- W, r./. Ag
- i *I
+ ? .. a.. a. . p ,i ..+ r ' s> .- et dY *.2, t 4 s, n. pl e ) Nyrer=.v,.,- e. m..- r u.. _,.,, s,yt. ,.., -.,,,w . p..,,,,,,,Q,.,., rr+ i** ' e w S. e m. as - -
r se cuarrre e rouous vasts se a seguigmwns is Wmpic to amul.h aimi ota1 ate. The poimipal pani r' re is w as m er E ut she equigment. than is, the hollow tendois rans amt the lunut. }* l l l oposaved hylraubc pump, are emnmerciallt available; the peripheral I a } !.m %w k.[ ur{ d gures unh as the s!<cres. mashers, aint sacel plates ran le nunulacourest I h= ally. The eucal sou uf alw equi snent is leu ilun Mou. 'The espiip. l Ti 0 I. l mens is safe armi the gewing can le done in sie heht in a m.rtier of c i f f,
- ~ = =. - =
===n
punutes. } j ** su ; The acus are repalucibic with an acceptahic elegree of 7 i I s f .insurais ami elo roirelaic with compiewre strength of coruiene.' l l ' The inaj.w elis.mtvantage of the pidione acus is that the l l l 5*" ~ l 7 e ae' h el.emage to she coeurcie uerfare mme he sepaireil. Ilomever. hLe the 4 l l r5 Wirulsor polw. these ecsts are secentestenuaise in slut the structural y + j C x,. ' _.,_J. ,,, E " nwmlers oced nos le diwardal. Furthermore. il a given minimmu l 3 I r k.ui.rorce is apphed. ihen is releasnl immedioely, aiul ile z ge a [ uentle legins to fall luck, it can be animied that a minimum f j 2"o e suength lus leen reached in the in-situ concrete. In this way t!.e j soncrete has not been d.miaged Ircame the pullout aswmbly has nos e j I I j heces surn one of it. ( 9 3
- soo
- j The pullous seses slo not meausrc strength in she inte ior of
.ao soo eao soo soo ,oo ,oan ..ao j j j runour svarasv=. ese nuw tuexrete lecame the pullout awembly aloes not cuemt moie than I q ? F.e 4.9-e.s.ewho bee n c p, uw. a p.sg, u, ,en gy,,,,,,, 3 in. p mnQ into is. In iMr ]*csent fonn. dse puHout sests luse to [ Se i le plammed a,n ailsanwe amt pdloin amnbhes s,mewporated m, io fewm. 1 s moeL friore soncreting. This resuless elem minh Icw comeniten alun 4 cither the relannut hammer or the Wimbor prole; hometer. pullous i s FIELD USE neses aie unesior to she aiher iso iests became of the greater depth l The ideal wa; so me gm!!out ecsts in the f.iki s.ouhl Ic so ami sedume of unwrete tened. d k noirnposaec pullous awmbhrs in the faenem.=L for trisical i urus emal nwmtwes. These spsimens sonM alwn in acual
- '9" '""*uw 09 t=1r.
a umas.t e6-.h,.-inp.m.na at a. umt.ud l 3 de mill elining the sonsinintion genial. Aruniner was so use the ps!!. g
- ma ecsas su ehe inhl utmkl le to casa one or suo large blos Ls of son I
3 antle. smosp=ating penIhms awembhes, as the aime of coursening the g disiul urmamal nemiers. The pdlous acus coukt elsens le prr. i.emsst.luimg eensu us si.m. It is, of sourir awimini slut alw bloats { seu l.., alw gmtkuse seus woukl be reasosutdy large anal wonM seseise
- muguesume.umi euring idesuital so that sencisnt by the actual stain.
g ...d w.l.r. e. Z ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS g 'lle seuus.mtsasst.sges of etw pulkmet tru. are elus afws eh. [ uw.esme slie strength of surwrese in a uimsure. the nwasmed usength trang she ehreea dee.ar utrngth ot snewscie. Ile ta s~
e N$ tee APPtseDeCES e
- l g
Permesee see %see,n ibeer p1 meas r ., s Lebcasse tuntr egrare secoct... ser= >m awp.see pereer (\\ ese).. -. -- 9 A07 Lap espe.see sam h shee. . kobwraan beve esgeuse erneamersat flat sure. 1e ll l penseed beeresspease kwee. ..hebqgrano lueer engesme mereet (Lgt ene3 4 N12 gasseems beer.inessane bag. .. eure me, peaer eseesse 4% me,...... 17 na e
- - l penesol besse -igen.ese sieh 4 peen.., L brese besee.=paer reeeasonasei dge gue o.. s e7018 l 4 peess8 S eer opeare esoth sPees
. serweeme=peaec norms (\\,an's. Esre o '.. = 1 t i h e.. 9 Ih m! Net 4eues at see lcesper i 4 j'** enesh passent bear ..peren Lebgtesen beve tus Lgf) e 81852 ~ l q;e een h pussent bore ..se m ense em1ss s\\mp.... A lite y 3g g g g,g , 3,, ,4 g bem paesel leerr. .. enresi & ecan be<e #ne Lgil e 1181 p, ,,,,,y,,,3c,,,,,,g,,,,g,,g,,,,,,,,,y,,g,.,,g,,p has poensel beste. . earmmese-messat (Nues. 3.3% g .,l ,,, p,,,,[, g,y, ,g g g menen Lebwann leere. .serssem aermi (\\m). 9 907. I , g,, .meereese S lebgpufung um ,j, y g,, ,,^e II 1.ee seses duleeran brisagrk' &#emdeed Coefr DIN 4240. No, teOatnues baueuuasce i 4 l bee Reseeineenig beecreer. Pad. pp. 313-389. 9 y,
- 3.
- Ball ice fear Dlisetas beerrese (Keegelvklagpreefseng snee 6ae nnel g***
%ihamminemen.' Israfa 0 4r ed Peasane (Jane tv$5s. Jieses med Mehlbrse=6es f 1 1 e:N e===e num saue, .. giam tgl... n 33 (th eh-L s. w. w S. Aug In3.fp. =4-2n. I r I em eenesser,tasdpl. . heingiasse (tas. e 4536
- 4. wdhamme, J. F A urtawal fur slee Ensiunasem ed (nonpreenise j
pend mum . Lehwasee (Lge. IsuusE %entingste ed Omerseer he elec Fu4d." The wesertmeef Engenrer glassenhesig V. le, h i j mee edwes. Lies llene. ..Lehigsasse (Lgp. aut7 2
- 7. jests 8916 pp. 371-325.
L e j [ ;e
- 5. neassetasi. B. G assal Exeluloisenas. M. D et.e *beepist Urthsels ni g
i %meh,siesenne tross ad Ce securer see f amiermimme mal %eenessmal %ueW Rif.& U i e y '0 path seen iraesse. Nr= hasers V 38 Mas. I'teh. pp.18'M01. i e j' Men pet % =lensee ek
- f. ante, kwet. *lBAE lempart icone*sil fee Ossererer glhe kugal rblag.
lei. Ih essis hes Aenwlnene fue %4hile-eses. Ikilm. pesout anen s esem bem. . Esbysse seeless seentes q&g um p possesus,,som um esme. malfrs= %e ) resent sena= e sseosa seed.... . Lebeseen saber essaisy skg me t,. leierf ggg, 9 g p3g e s e33
- 7. g me Petr. *ttneheer ed the lassenes Peneelelisers ed %eewirtaseer.
e pesimi neam gAbe #1' % st. ..Lehvaso ausses mores Ag sm-). 319 8 pnapesah ed the Amet,wo.',,g g,arrdsmgs. Pa n y,, g,,,,,,3 3,g,,, g,,,,,, y gy. peal uma-gAbe eben nt. . Lebwame seehog mw ni (tg sh,,
- ie 7e g,,,,,g,4 y,,,3 9,,
g,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,p,,,,,,,y,,3,,,,,,,,, ,I %. 2 RILE M. Pmes 19%8. pp list.1Hh-a s m e,saeasa. H t amt Iks.ni. Peakade. -%embweemaisc 418mals ce O rgma bee rror.' Nesere l'rpees PR : 61sessee Re,ranin amesene ed Imtu. I '*P'*"'* " % = thh Ihs. P4e9. Il4 pp. " '3 4.u tas. " Rail 1rie." Prerrnhags. Imenesaenest %mpaense see Au Ce+ essa 40 .Lehen(ks.
- s. = sar 4 2*1896
%enksesuause 'le,seng ed %B4eresals asal %seureuses t : R411 1. Pass 8%5. pp eks talesomeense ale keit een the....
- 4. = es, + e ven7,il 3 e
3'9'-128 l I. de z 9alusiehe et i4s eks 4 4 hem, (O. .. e. = (a, _ 32)fl 8 l' le Repee ed ehr Rtt Eu making f.eemp ease she % eestresserine Tres-I. new ed i enmee$r." Jiff EM Aedirfem (Paene. \\rw %=1ers % 77. Jesar P84. lie-821- ^ m ,r 1 Il %4wer. V T.. -Peupises ed Haedseru in Metain seul maresals." Pre. l J..
- Ilos,e tau enes e=enne esser miseg. e
..e., ecooleseg noe ae sele.1 aseel eens twir alw sesve+ esadesees 1% i se. W. al.199 8, pp. 711-71se. t mais.eaar seeenemen.
- 1. seestres a dee.none en seinp eatasse feaue Dahernbru Agen's to 12 % hene h. f reen. -'I hc Demeew lege Haennen (ths lis enes Psulhaen-I s heen en ko hese eb gnw ele.mer les I e. eels. 6 e. 4 s hasesF heen Te ese as 9 erpse ires a swie.' % hwe ru= he Bourneseg t/wreshL %. 68. %e. "9. Juh 85. 89i8. p.178 e h.mgr as to p ele g og to 4 m 10 4. abi les enereret 434 en 43 D s, a l *e
, 32 11 ge heeseh. ben =s. ~lmerosasasses arish eine Arw E eenrerer f ree Hames'tes be t eamemueg eler I,heahn ed tonee scer 4%esseerhr mee siste sessern Beteen Paulhans. nea r sese c hsaheas deiseeswomeer 4 5 lie-sesse) " % hownre A rr her for==ge r armedte g 08 eserewher's useed Tavhwe4 f %sinsbesens. W. II. be. A 19'el. pp. li'*-lit Ia % hoesh. 9 e es.e. ihe a.een w % h anrue. r-.rede es han=# easse I smegemewone ese %eseb,esuasnr Ineweg ease klaeronals aml %eeemeesees V 2 RIE E \\1 *ases 1%8 pp.18e-119 B ~e. Itaiseg i. -intessecatweses mette eler Nem f emerern Trg Hausneer lee t.amemme een-e nualue ce 8 aan nw d ousahr sewe A no serurn Ih me Pinfhasessere." i % kne en deshese im esegre arender el sewmie dente and Jrtheset (%4eheessee, %. 17. %e "s 1%8. pp t il-l ean 147 I 1 I 4 J
!Eil!jsilITjfUl Y d}I,;['s$$}$ d N b F !! '$ 1 8 ggi c14 Jg I is i4
- T ja ya i" 2
. EI -s tp s. =,h. s e 5. al t* '- } {!il $8 g-J45 $ t I c Oi 3f 2-l'RfD [ tu A 4 g,i -f l vn f !5 ".g{a183 '! l.'s yi F { i
- E ihdi" e o 1 73...-a ca pt:
E E 5 N h*Eh I ! 'p;ii 21 li 2} $ 3 ,s i l j I i I I I a g ,= g .; =. ; 11 3 c-A l IJ l '. 5bD J4a n I s t !=t!t' 5 eFA H F f !! U {i N! i#ld Si II5 IP,i1*h r { I "u d i 'Is..: it* Ij,=.115 i. - M f,i ',1 etiG 2*x !E Jg i a - s I t< c 'k:I , TI *t, "a r ,I','!nke!h!!jisl5gyalo;)ti5}.'(3583Ne e e "J =5$pzli E s! g li j't th!j "Y
- I'g 2 3
!l y T' !55! T al i 2 isi dr P: = sj=3 *4. l' I'I]2I! -c4i a l j [ "L. =- ni '"! ! v, e . f ],t J.
== m j k I !* *j * -2,s t i c = I)E.I"I!1.,%).r.2" e t E 1 Ej3gdejit{lftlIllh'jt",t i 8 U2 i"E g N" L flfi n E 2 'i t ri " $5 h2 Elgtff"Ej$gf.%y i'jE *E 1N,5"il5j2: i I' 5-3 L 7elat 'tttjliill'd!'d i! *a {r V[3d fjf:f.'p!#isql*'2elibdf.?,!dIldb.dh 1, fe -, v4 il !i-i21 -jj u-@i,,il d u -4 l!!* 5 !*]icT I 's '.. as# t dI" d 3 i i 4' d'~iO2 a. II"hf/il! ,g! jd;ljigdg ijgjp'jjs 'b g i'3= n[ Ast-e 1 = 2=lin gdgl=}2lti gge.Eg*[ *$2{tg[1'h :~y /04 Pi "3jd { 1 J \\~ 78 z,l 23 s ag gl sj1 !* gjs-ji Q< ysj 2; a g I.1 .=p,, - ,g =( c m - i y 1 1 i il 1*g gi .e I 3, ,k U r, ]: 2 a '.s 5 g'g c y1 E [7 f 3, k; a! ) I EN 9 I IN I i ! ? 's 'd'a C H si lt (3 ' - 21 4ie ! g '! l 4 !' i ,' si hp h =l i$i divii 41l l "!fs T ir i 3E l k l ' ? l !s cGj i P 5.' ' ! i .: n i t f4 ~ 5 21,a f f i. d rf J. ' '-.tv2 < ti.js j ~i i i! 18-gI t g =l 4 *. ti. -lg3 I t g z. si a.a s g; E y, g. 3 ,- i - -r D 1, 4 ', ' a, 1,, i;. i ~< i i,3 ! e 3 's =ci i.s 4-jl = b=t =i,l cet *J !! il 5 Il lli
- j. w.l..;.
2 5 :[ J11
- i it il 4,
- jisess1-l2.f=t
'dg.,S l;t ! i i cf t ze zg j r s< 2 = 's,1*..f.(h,Ng 6. I [1 3$,)l -ll wl aj 3 2,, ) =, Eif j! h It Ts 'i s J' i 1,*gjl - u c g., g=g" Y-1,.j8,sji ditsis 'i ].N t 3, v " r ", t' j J.4 m 2 ,=
- 2..
m 2 g 3l gm,g fl - .= 2 3 j s. a=g.= .,- !<* ftb,,."tiy= +,gjj jjyez,3g.,;e ] i 1,; i-sl:ia z c j,g 1jgy=!;g 4y*.3.=a . E s p. e>< i d, g J i g f E g....tmy;Mj,=(c!! ge-sij-[g Eit l =,v,1 'i. ] .r i. 53 T! 21 il Pg d ts tz f
- g 9
- i
-6 l$ h 1l, 5 ?#d a b 11 NdNE -1~4l*d- 'l %gl,"i a 3th ?l i l. ol'NE}'.a.ii"d!!eJil'rbY.EEb']Ef '.1. d s,3 4* ib i'a 4 i_id "i t ilj,,ti.=3s3* i li I==t jt
- =
c' , [ ti t J -a r I t J a- .ijf'j. J~='5i"85h}]!ljl } f '!"1Q!=[hl ItJ 3 a y4; siGe!'ha-jlfl"h{ld h 3]t e il l5 yp i i* jr J is',it T1 !I tl a c hi,n .nj n r.] 1 n # I J t}n g lr,#!. R ic ,, O r {.!; t. 7 bss ip t, 1 e r, c. -
- 2. &4 n
- W - a z
i s -4 ti - 4 e i a t it Lt =I l} 22'. c.-Th=il =l jti, ili is il *!2il w,I 'l j-- 4 jj i I! t y" L-14 Y'I I 5 i s [: it z. 45 Jic =
- ;
- .:::;. :.m:-
r- ! :: : :.:n, :: : *: : _.... e: s.wommene r ~m. ~ev_e* e.__ nm.- s ...u
- x., ~
_L gy,y.y=yf p;~Qg g y4,j%+m,v y
- i. 2 %p* !. +,*,,M' f ; >y" **,
4- , h $ 'Y N
- N.
&= id.),,d,42, ~*; 4 CASE EXHIBIT 7I8,,]g.r, = %g64YQt]% wn. c =. A.. t x' - ACI 349 80 $ i hM-,. 9 ACI 349R-80 .N ..i u .c, s. ca ame $$@@}NM$$.@ c,9 mm e-pa.s ' i. Y.f r- ~: r- }? Code Requirements forggp[E! .,M.... Nuc.1 ear Safety Relat.ed..sq.
- i
- Concrete Structures (ph/,ACI 349.-8.0 i
' " ' ' f.P[* 5 ' '
- g.'? Y,j-... *,.;, N.:...f.
(,( 'r hC;bi7 I
- j.C
. g, I d.%ph h[' 8'i- %. M.f.R "~ A ~) v $k, .&.Comm$ 3.; i ! I e tar CIC349R-8 412 t 4,:- y.$k;t'n . p. 74g: y,~ w ".* i k IN f 'F i.M Q.:.EA,{.n;S).p$- T Thg. trk . qry c;f. !! e45 j E' g.g#,qg$r? t 9 .e...g'MS. .I. ),I-
- y... -
a..S g, .4h;j1. h,f.,/' ', * ' ' '..Mgd ~4 ' [.{ Wi 3 f r, ,y .e4-g,. w . j k' ' '5.,., ,h;c;' E$4 -,.:.e " 1. - C.S-: . w,.y,y N L.,,3,,,,.4.t>.,. t: 4,. 1 :, :.. 't pr,, ' swp- -r . a. : i,;. - american concrete.2nstitute N' __alS% 'f-[f,.;,I-l 9&M I T."pDETROIT. MICHIGANox'191SO.'REDFbRd wpp h V482 . [,g-..' '
- h' [& (.,:,ig.;[, fl 5W y
"' a v.g j f ,3 k!MkM# S . eg ;,s c n-_ m.-
NUCLEAR SAFETY STRUCiunts CooE 34s 4 5 (c) All concurrent loads.,as specified in Section 9.2. A.4 - Concrete temperatures are considered. A.4.1 -The following temperature limitations are for (d) The coefEcient of thermal expansion may be normal operation or any other long term period. The taken as 3.3 x 10 per des F unless other values are temperatures shall not exceed ISO F escept for local substantiated by " tests,, areas. such as around penetrations, which are allow ed A.3.4 - When thermal stress is combined with the to have increased tempera'ures not to exceed 200 F. stress due to other loads to determine a design stress, the magnitude of the design stress must not be less than A.4.2 -The following temperature limitations are for the magnitude of the stress due to otherloadings alone accident or any other short term period. The tempera. t unless the foDowing are considered: tures shau not exceed 350 F for the surface. However. C local areas are allowed to reach 650 F from steam or 2 (a) The effect of cracking in the tensile zone of waterjets in the event of a pipe failure. nemural members on reduction of the 11emural rigidity and on the redistribution of stress. A.4.3-Higher temperatures than those given in Sec. tions A.4.1 and A.4.2 above may be a!! owed for con. (b) The reduction of long term stresses due to creep, crete if tests are provided to evaluate the reduction in strength and this reduction is, applied'io design (c) Stress combinations that reduce the magnitude of allowables. Also, evidence shall be provided which the stress due to other loads utilizing actual tem-verifies that the increased temperatures do not cause peratures and temperature distributions which act deterioration of the concrete either with or without concurrently with the other loads. load. J APPENDIX B - STEEL EMBEDMENTS 8.0 - Notation B.I - Scope = dimension, on.t to out of bearing edges (see B.1.1 - This appendis provides minimum require. a Fig. U.4 2). in. ments for design and anchorage of steel embedments A, = reduction in projected area, sq. in. used to transmit loads from attachments into reinforced A, = loaded area, sq. in, concrete structures by means of tension, bearin,s. A, = maximum area of the portion of the support. shear, friction, or any combination thereof. ing surface that is geometrically similar to and Twpical embedment details and concepts as teferenced n this appendia are shown in Fig. B.I.I and B.I.2. b =d en o, tt out of e n e ses (see Fig. B.4-2). in. In addition to meeting these requirements considera. D = major thread diameter of threaded anchor or tion shall be given to the effect of the forces applied to nominal diameter of anchor, in, the embedment on the behavior of the overall structure, f,. = specified compressive strength of concrete, psi B.I.2 - The requirements for the attachment to the f., = minimum specified tensile strength of anchor embedment shall be in accordance with applicable steel, psi codes and are beyond the scope of this appendix. f, = minimum specified yield strength of embed. ment steel, psi 18.1J - Design limits less conservative than those h = overall thickness of member,in. specified in this appendis may be used by the Engineer L, = embedment depth for tensile anchorage if substantiated by experimental or detailed analytical measured from anchorage bearing surface to investigation. concrete surface,in. m = minimum side cover distance from the cender B.2 - Definitions o an a or to the edge of the concrete.(see Aachar Acad-A nut, washer, plate, stud. or bolt head a = number of threads per in. or other steel component used to transnut anchor loads t the concrets by Wng. P, = design pullout strength ofconcretein tension, th AnarAmear -The attachment is that structure enternal U
- s eituired strengt h. to resist factosed io.nis. lh to the suifaces of the embedment which ts ansmais inaJs 4
- strength reduction factos. Jame wionless in the embedment.
v.%.... ..:y.n' y:':. w.:f.M.,~.w.v S w -ecw w, at m ee,n w
or, ,,,, g m y. p 38476 AQ STANo;sto j (um.->>,u,,i,,,m.r,;-....) r n. .2 a 4 5 s ^ v .{ m y)' e ~..,n., 5W hi 8 5 .1 e,.e s 3 r a m(f- .i r. ,5
- 4 z
i 3: y*'? mi i 't .E. ] *- 3 t. 'h?, _b_i I < v 1_ ~- s jp t a . w --._4 /:,, - -(. i I e J ,'j.,, -
- 2..,.
=.. y = > y.._. t r 5 .n.Mi. [
- c. ai.
%:)hi -l . Nlh) h i i y 9 = st y .t. N.. tLs M S .)
- a. a I
s 2 s -Li jid ? w! -m .g-8 i = k .f I-T U l 5 8 m 1< ):,g 8 c s s. s r, g e. .t o 3 N 4 s I I ..l ; i,-- g--J '..'.)i Y i) e i x1h n. i. >x v m p+ m. s (. '1 ,y ye p$g w .t ~ (' x.,; 1 u 3
- e..
i s 3 2 8, t s os i. g. t 3 L c. , ~e. a, 3 4 .LT m R C p" F >I .I f'i ild t ' - } .I ei 1 's i 3 l oi _t. n nJ ; g 1,o c i .; oi s.d, d 9 e. I 4
- O 0.l 1
e..... -,,..,~,,.) i ..m....e.L. *J.J.A.j aI %,$ .].: i
- ~
....n
- O':C..
'..:.). '. Ct *; * * '. **
- A.*t,n g
.,s + y'ep w,,.cp,,,,,,,s,,s.w,y a J
seUCLaan saatry senUCTungsf ODE f mArderar-The tmbedment is that steelcomponent B.d - Desig:rt req 1Irements for concrete in contact with the concrete or grout used to transmit applied loads toshe concrete structure.The embedment B.4.1 - The design provisions of this appendia are-N may be fabricated of plates. shapes. bolts. reinforcing based on the strength design method.The assumptions, 1 i bars, shear connectors, espansion anchors, inserts or principles, and requirements of the Code are applicable any combination thereof. - for allload combinations except as modified hereis. Espension anchor-A component installed in hardened B.4.2 - Tension concrete for the transfer ofloads into structural compo-The design strength of concrete P, for any anchorage ments by direct bearing and/or friction. shall be based on a uniform tensile stress of dev/,* Gronicaf Embr4ments - An embedment located in a actins on an efIcctive stress area m hich is defined by the formed or drilled hole in hardened concrete utilizing a pmjected area of stress cones radiating toward the at. e grout to provide loats transfer from the embedment to tachment from the bearing edge of the anchors. The i the concrete. effective area is limited by overlapping stress cones, by the intersection of the cones w ith concrete surfaces. by inmes - Commercially available, predesigned, and the oraring area of anchor heads, and by the overau prefabricated embedments installed prior to concrete thickness of the concrete (see Fig, B.41 and B.4 2). placement which are specifically designed for attach-The inclination angle for calculating projected areas ment of bolted connections. shall be 45 deg.The d factor shall be taken as 0.65 for an B.3 - General requirements and loeding embedded anchor head unless the anchor head is be-I combinations yond the far face reinforce me nt. In such cases a (factor i of 0.85 may be used. l M.3.1 - The embedment and surrounding concrete or B.4.3 - Shear i grout shaU be designed for transmitting to the concrete I structure au loads used in the design of the attachment. The design shear strength of anchors subject to shear R.3.2 - Reactions on the embedment due to individual shall satisfy the requirements of Sections B.S.I.2 and I# '2' loads such as dead, live (including vibratory loads). thermal. seismic. and accident loads shall be consid. B.4.4 - Reinforcement jg cred. T_he loading combinations for embedment design If the requirements of Section B.$ are not satisfied. sgbe in accordance with Section 9.2 of this Code. H.3.3 - Material and testing
- requirements for embed-strength. Reinforcement requirements shall be in ac.
ment steel shall bq compatible with the material and cordance with applicable sections of this Code and testing requirements for the attachment. placed to prevent failure of the concrete in tension. R.3.4 - The design strength of embedment materials B.4.5 - Bearing may be increased in accordance with Appendix C for embedments subject to impactsve and impulsive loads. B.4.5.1 -The bearing restrictions of Sections 10.16 or gg gg l B.3.5 -The strength of embedrnents as affected by the under the anchor head for all supporting surfaces where size and grade of steel, spacing. and depth of embed. VA/A,is equal to or less than 2. ment and any concrete dimensions which limit or re. strict the transfer ofloads from steel to concrete shall be B.4.5.2 - Anchor heads other than those specified in considered as defined in Sections B.4. B.S. and B.6. Section B.4.5.1 shall meet the requirements of Section B.S. I. l(a). B.3.6 - Plastic deformation of the embedment is per. mis ted for impactive and impulsive loading provided the B.5 - Anchorage requirements j strength of the embedtnent is controlled by the strength of the embedment steel as specified in Section B.S. For B.5.1 - Anchorage design shaU bc controlled by the these condition.s a maximum ductility ratio of 3 may be strength of embedment steel unless otherwise specified considered. The definition of ductihty raise shall be as (defined in Appendia C. B.$.l.1 - Tension R.3.7-Shear lugs that meet the requirements of Sec. Steel strength controls w hen the design strength of the lion B.$.I.2(b) shall be considered effective only a hen concrete P, as determined in Section B.4.2 esceeds the located in a concrete compression zone developed be. minimum specified tensile stren,,th of the tensile stress fg tween the embedment and the concrete and transverse component of the embedment steel and fullload trans.. to the direction of the shear force for a given load fer is accomplished from steel to concrete within the combination. depth of the anchorage by one of the fo!!oming methods: R.3.8 - A combination of hearing and shear friction (a) A mechanical anchor at the base of the tensile mechanisms shall not be used to develop the required stress components having a minimum gross area of l shear strength defined in accordance with Section 9.2. anchor head (including area of the tensile stress com-b f 'b*n... .:;.c7.w.':.v~,mf,a. m M w m.a.,m, g m m, 1
. s. Ao stawoano zwe i [ 2 .,r, 7 3 V w.g = r .e I Uf4 t. V. e. ) w N 80 p N e i .\\ p o 3 %/ a -g ,!.s i a. 1 4 .yf )' ,/ .a b }. L lw .o - b
- .E.
c .a ~ 1 -
- 4
.3 2 >w w 5 3 :: 2 4 8 6 , {'
- 5. 1 s'
'c m a c n 'f c 1 m I, t 2 A .p., [ fi .o - l.l.P,: e mf
==h Fe 1 5 :2 .0 ". N ( 3'.1 r, i s a s s. 2 e i 4,, O is l C. I s C 'y I ? 2. S /'B O 1==) .2 4 7 .'g r .g., y e t s-p' 6 t j o v N. ( s m 1. O ' }, 'O -d' ' c* d it C 4 'J, Yo, s o \\'.,'. m 'i .s 0 s, a )<' .? ~ ..a EET ( W b g.t e, ,s Y (. o. e. g l. -- 8 <,.y .s v. w
- .4 gm p,
i. h . =g ' 4 -.- g ..s s r a' ( e-,L.- .i sv L
- v s
1 -4 E y ~ x 1 e w e ( 1 f s r a A T, B ~ 4 y,t 3 u a e. 4 , d" 4 1 .... y 4 'g t a. -~I n s; m hb c g r%. o; 9,O ^ s .t -t./ p'=- 't-- i. 5 m . A(A._ o s 7 c. 4 pa ; l +.\\ ~ e $.i A-s D j , )' e y e a a y e: .==J3 - o 4) 4 -t, I,\\ ) k-' Ji
- c.,
+. 3..-+ 's yq. e,
- s.,,
y e e 5 e -e 8 i. + i e .'=ma.y.-ww ~~- g 'OM*... ...i,<.T',*.:.W.' '.',*; ** * "S :t284%+:'.dW.'r seswq v w...,s.., ws,eeeentmA. i
NucLtan sarETY sinuctunts. Coot sans s ponenti equal to r: ler.si 2.5 times the 11nsile stren sh111 not exceed 120.000 psi. The coefDcient of friction area of the embedment steel. To prevent failure due y shall be 0.9 for concrete or grout place i against as-to lateral bursting forces at an anchor head, the side rolled steel with the contact plane a fan plate thickness }h cover distance m shall not be less than: below the concrete or grout surface: 0.7 for concrete or m=D b'_, grout placed against as. rolled steel with contact plane coincidental with the concrete surface; 0.55 for grouted 56 vf,- conditions with the contact plane between grout and unless the requirements of Section B.4.4 are met. as-rolled steel exterior to the concrete surface. (b) Reinforcing bars with development lengths in ac-B 6.3 - Combined tension and shear cordance with the requirements of Chapter 12. for anchor steel composed of remforcement. B.6.3.1 - For structural shapes and fabricated steel B.5.1.2 - Shear flanges designed for the tension, compression. and 8' (a) For embedment steel of anchor bolts. studs or bars to control the design shear strength. the side B.6.3.2 - For bolts. studs, and bars the area of steel cover distance m for sheaf loading toward a free edge required for tension and shear shall be considered shall not be less than: additive. m=D / B.6.4 - The tensile stress area of a threaded anchor g/,3 sha!! be taken as: 7 unless the requirements of Section B.4.4 are met. ~' 0.7854 D OM (b) For shear lugs bearing in the direction of a free edge. the concrete design shear strength shall be de. where D is the major thread diameter and n is the termined based on a uniform tensile stress of deV[ number of threads per in, acting on an effective stress area defined by project. ing 45 des planes from the beanns edges of the shear B.6.5 -The tensile stress area of Section B.6.4 shall be lug to the free surface. Dearing area of the shear lug applied to all threaded anchnrs subject to direct tensile shall be excluded from the projected area. The 4 and shear stress. If the threads are encluded from the factor shall be taken as 0.85. shearing plane the gross area may be used for deter-mining the shear stress. 15.5.1.3 - For combined iension and shear. Ihe depth of embedment shah be in accordance with Section B.S.I.I B.7 -- Espansion anchors and the minimum edge distance in accordance with Section B.S.I.2(a). Th.s section provides minimum requirements for the
- design of typical capansion anchors used m nuclear B.S.I.4 - Side cover distance shall not be less than safety related concrete structures and does not restrict m/3. Under no conditions should the edge distance be less than the concrete cover requirements for rein-the use of other expansion anchors prosided the capan-sion ancflors are designed and tested in accordance with forcement in Section 7.7 the requirements of this section.
U.6 - Design requirements for ernbedmeng B.7.1 - Design requirements steel Expansion anchors shall be designed to assure that the all.6.I - Embedment material shall be defined by the design strength of concrete for a given expansion an-Engineer in specifications and design draw'ings. chor or group of espansion anchors is greater than the D.6.2 -The design strength U for embedments shall be strength of the anchor steel encept as permitted in See-based on a maximum steel stress of e f. The fol-lion B.7.2. This requirement shall be met by satisfying the requirements of Sections B.7.1.1 or D.7.1.2. lowing values for 4 shall be used; B.7.I.I-Design by anal) sis B.6.2.1 - Tension. compression. and bending (a) Tension: The derign pullout strength of concrete 4 = 0.9. I", shall be as defined in Section B.4.2 except that th'e 11.6.2.2 - Shear effective stress area shall be defined by the projecte.1 area of the stress cones radiating toward the concrete B.6.2.2.1 - Structural shapes and fahrleated steel see* surface from the innermost expansion contact sur. tions and shear lugs face betmeen the expansion anchor and the drilled 4 = 0.55. hole. Refer to Fig. B.71 for typical details.The de. sign pullout strength of concrete shall be equal to or it.6.2.2.2 - The slicar. friction provisions of Section greater than the minimum srecified tensile strength II.7(as herein modified) may be apphed to bolts, studs. or average tessile strength if a minimum is not de. and bars using a e of 0.85.The design yield strengthf, fined for the espansion anchor. The minimurn edge .__.m. 'M M -...
- '.Q. TiW.**.,7' Ml.'f. a4%,MY
- 2*tN+*% %; }.. s. %.o w.
( 9 g
- ,e.-
- 3444o AQ 5taNOAn3
\\ distance shall be twice the requirement of Section B.3.1. I(ah ~ B.7.3 - A single espansion anchor used to anchor an attachment shall be designed for one. half of the design (b) Shear: The design shear strength of expansion. strength defined herem. anchors subject to shear shall be in accordance with B.7.4 - Testing the requirements ofSection B.6.2.2 and the minimum a edge distance requirement of Section B.S.I.2ta) shall
- B.7.4.1 - Expansion anchors designed in accordance be satisGed.
with this appendis sha!! be tested to venfy anchorage strength or to determine the average test failure load. (c) For combined tension and shear, the depth of Tests shau be conducted by a testing agency other than embedment shall be in accordance with Section B.7.I.ita) and the minimum edge distance in accor. the anchor manufacturer and shau be certified by a dance with Section B.7.l.itb). Professional Engineer with fun description and details of the testing program. procedures.results. and conclu. sions. B.7.4.2 - The expansion mechanism of the anchor shall be tested for the installed condition by one of the following methods: V;.* . r .\\.s.
- A'
' TO (a) The mechanism shall be actuated and tested dur. ins installation by preloading the expansion adchor to 4g*
- a minimum value as specified by the Engineer.
,. - [{. Q* (b) A random selection of the installed anchors shall 4-
- Q.,
] be load tested to 100 percent of the required strength, s*. In The testing program shall be established by the n .t. 1.t;*A Engineer. f B.7.3 - Expansinn anchor selection ar-r a m 'f.'- The Engineer shall review the espansion anchor design features, failure modes. test results. and insta!!ation -.E.n.&o - procedures pricr to selecting a specific expansion an. ( chor for an application. Espansion anchors and an. lIl ch rage mechanisms shall be setected that compensate
- 3.,
)g,]%'M..' the eapansion anchors are installed in the tension zones for tension crack s and maintain required strength w hen ,, v.
- ], *s.'
,s. / of concrete members. ,'Ng \\ *,. /.. ..s B.8 - Inserts um wa Q,. " Concrete inserts shall be srecified in accordance with S n B 6.1 and tested in accordance with Section Fig. g.7.l-Typical deteils of espeasies anders B.S.l - Design requirements Design allowables shall be based on actual test Jata of B.7.1.2 - Desian by testing tests performed on inserts emteJJed in concrete. The tests shall coser the full range of possible loading con. Tests shall be conducted to verify th'at the concrete will develop the st:el strenett of the expansion anchor. t . B.g.2 - Strength reduction factor Design by test results shall be restricted to tests that are representative of the anchor spacing and load applica. A e factor of 0.3 shall be applied to the aserage test tion. 7 gg B.7.1.3-Strength reduction factors O' ~ "'"I* The requirements of Section B.6 shallapply eacept that B.9.I-Grouted embedments shall meet tne applicable the 4 factors for expansion anchors shall be u.9 times requamnents of Secdons E4. E3 and E6. the values specified in Section B.6.2. B.9.2 - For general grouting purpcses the material h (8 8.7.2-Alternathe design requirements requirements for cement gr ut should be m accordance For expansion anchors that do not meet the require. with Chapter 3 of this Code. Special grouts used to ment of Section B.7.1. the design strength shall be 0.33 achieve certain properties such as high strength. Iow I times the average test failure load. shnnkage, or espansion shall be the responsiblity of the Engmcer and trecMed in the spec 4 canons. ~ .taOsb.... .. <.TlF;"*.*,5 e * *'*G 8.re W.O**#*s**v5 G " W -Ne W **Meset=A*
.- e + 1s -V., J.4-e 4., . a 8.M, W a t soucLtan sarrty sinucTunts coct assai 15.10- Fabrication and hastallation t Welding of attachments to large embedments shall be in pansion of the embedment which could result in accordance with good practice to avoid excessive en. detrimental spalling or cracking of the concrete or ex. cessive stress in the embedment anchor. APPENDIX C - SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR Ih1PULSIVE AND IhlPACTIVE EFFECTS C.0 - Notation pendim.These load s must be combined mith other loads A, = area of core of spiraDy reinforced column measured to the outside diameter of the spi. appendis.'Impactive and impulsive effects are treated A = area of rectangular core of column measured "E*" out-to-out of hoop, sq in.
- as Msponu charactensucs d th saturd A,
= gross area of section. sq in. elements subjected to these loads. A, = area of tension reinforcement within the C.1.2-The provisions of this arpendix arply to those width b. sq in. structural elements directly affected b' the impactive A,. = arca ofcornpression reinforcement mithin the and impulsive loads and where failure of the structural y i midth b. sq in. elements must be precluded. A,, = area of transverse hoop bar fone les), sq in. C lJ - Applicable theoretical or experimental evi- = d s nce from ateme o ssive fiber to ,'"*,', h',I,, ', ' '9 ' " ' ' " neutral amis at chimate strength, s,n. nd. gd = c!Tective depth of section (distance from ex. C.l A - Impactive loads are time-dependent loads due treme compressive fiber to centroid of tensile to colhsion of masses which are associated with finite reinforcement), in. amounts of kinetic energy. Impactive loading may be f,. = specified compressive strength of concrete, defined in terms of time dependent force or pressure. psi f, = specified yield strength of nonprestressed Impactive loads to be considered shallinclude, but not be limited to, the folloaing types ofloading: , "fal1 th k g is of member. in. (a) Tornado generated missiles 1,, = moment of inertia of cracked section trans. (b) Whipping pipes f nned to cgncnte 1 = moment of enertia of gross concrete section (c) Aircraft missiles about centroidal amis, neglecting reinforce. (di Fuel cask drop I, = a mum unsupported length of rectangular e) er niunal an enternal mMn hoop enessured betmeen perpendicular legs of the hoop or supplementary crosstics,in. C.I.5 - Impulsive loads are time dependent loads r, = rotational capacity, radians which are not associated with colhsion of solid masses. R = resistance fi.e.. load capacity) Impulsive loads to be considered shallinclude, but not R. = maximum resistance k heed to N fo!!oming types ofloading: s, = center to-center spacing of hoops,in. (al Jet impingement se, = ductihty ratio. dimensionless X, - masimum acceptable displacement (b) Blast pressure X, - displacement at effective tictd point p = the reinforcement ratio = A,4d (c) Compartment pressuritation = the remforcement ratio = A,.44 (d) P pe-w hip restraint reactions p-p, = ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of core (out-to out of spirals) g_ g, g (.,g _ ge,g C.2.1 - Dynamic increase factors (DIF) appropriate C.I.l - Nuclear safety related concrete structures for the strain rates involved may be applied to atatic th. ell be designed for imimisive amt impactive loads material strengths of steel and ennerete for purposes of ming this Code amt the special peositions of this ap. strinmining sectrim strength but shall not escced the following: ~ T e e 4 +6 g .{ w., h
- e@....
'..> d W;"?,*:e & %D g=.w.Ov aw ew u,a.s.,s.. o i, s-
lgy 1 CASE ATTACHMENT I LAW orricES or SISHOR. LisERMAN. COOK. PURCELL & REYNOLDS t200 SEVENTEENTH STREET.N.W. IN NEW YORM WASHINOTON. D. C. 2 00 36 SISHOP, LIBERMAN & COOM (202) 857-9800 as enOAoway N EW YO R M NEwYOmm10004 TELEX 440574 INTLAW US (212)244-4900 TELEX 222747 July 11,.1984 Geary Mizuno, Esq. Staff
- Counsel U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735,01d.Georgetown Road, Room 10107 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
( Re: Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445 & 50-446
Dear Geary:
Enclosed are Applicants' responses to questions posed by the NRC Staff regarding the motions for summary disposition submitted as part of Applicants' Plan to Respond to the Board's December 28, 1983 Memorandum and order (Quality Assur,ance for Design). Additional information will be provided shortly. Sincerely, N A hl 0. $(fex William A. Horin Counsel for Applicants rem,,, Enclosures Hand Delivery cc: JuAnita Ellis - Overnight Delivery (with encs.) Remainder of Service List (w/o encs.) se e O p.. M t
.s ' larify margin of safety for Richmond inserts in a manner similar C q . to that employed for the Hilti bolts in the Affidavit for Caps. ~ l Two s(zes of Richmond inserts are used at CPSES: 1 inch and 1 1/2 inch inserts. In most instances the inserts employ SA-36 rods,but there are 47 inserts which utiliis'high strength bolts / rods. Of the 47 inserts which use high strength rods, 15 are 1 inch inserts. Of these 15,only 4 have bolt holes which are 1 1/8., inch in size. The remainder of the 1 inch inserts have bolt holes equaf.to 1 1/16 inch. All 1 1/2 inch inserts utilize bolt holes equal to 1 1/a" im size. This includes only those bolts with 1 1/8" holes loaded in shear. The remainder of the 1" inserts have bolt holes equal to 1 1/16" or are not loaded in shear. All 1 1/2" inserts utilize bolt holes equal to 1 1/8". ' The inargin to f ailure for the various Richmond inserts, computed in a manner similar "to that used for the Hilti bolts on pp. 8 and 11 of the Gap Affidavit is assessed in this answer. First we will address the inherent safety factor for the 1" inserts. There appears to be some misinterpretation of the 4-19-84 Richmond Insert Test Report'(Attachmnent B to the Af fidavity)regarding the load-deflection chart for shear on 1 inch inserts (bolts were A-490). In the curves there are two load de(leccion lines for each specimen: one represents the deflection immed-iately a*f ter load, and the other is the deflection two minutes af ter load. In the chart, point 16A for exa=ple is the deflection of specimen 16 at failure. Point
- 16B is the two minute deflection of specimen 16 one load level below the failu're 1oad. Thus the only points of interest when discussing ultimate deflec'tions are the A points.
In this light the ultimate deflection for the 1 inch Anserts with A-490 bolts in shear are: e Specimen Ultimate A Re= arks 16 0.22" 17 0.332" ' This is a 2 min defl. before uit. load, since defl. at uit. 18 0.40 was not recorded 19 0.270" 20 0.270" Thus the minimum deflection for all tests was 0.22" and the average deflection was 0.2984" l ~ l
^ s The allowable shear for a 1-inch insert with high strength bolt is 11.5 kips. The. test indicate that the corresponding deflections would range from 0.001" to 0.036" with the average'being 0.0186". A review of Unit 1 and Common supports that utilize 1-inch Richmonds with hid. strangth bolts yielded only 4 such supports where the bolt holes are 1 1/8 inch,' and the inserts are loaded in shear. None of these supports are in ContainQet. A worst case analysis of the abo've would indicate that the safety factor based on deflection would be 1.37. A more reasonable approach would,be to use the averages. Based on average deflections the safety factor is2[08. This would apply to 4 support only. The following is a summary of the situation as it applies to each of thses supports. L Bolt pattern is 4 Richmond inserts in a square pattern. Total shc.ar load of the joint is icw engough that two bolts can take all the shear and re:; pin below allowables
- 2. Bolt pattern resisting shear is 8 Richmond inserts (5-A36 and 3-A193).
It is not reasonable to assu=e that any one bolt will have to deflect 1/8" before another bolt begins to share the load. 3. Bolt pattern resisting shear consists of 14 Hiltis plus 4 Richmonds. Samec{clusionasin2above. 4. Bolt pattern resisting shear is 24 Richmond inserts (22 A36 and 2 A193). Samec@lusionasabove. It m,ust be stated that the Rich =ond insert tests were conducted is shear with,A-490 bolts. The high strength bolts actually used in the 1-inch inserts in the.fiIld are A-193 Grade B. This material is 14-25 % more ductile than A-490. Having'. defined the inherent safety factor for the limiting case of the Richmond inserts,' i.e the 1-inch inserts with high strenth bolts and 1 1/8 inch bolt hole's, it is appropriate for completeness to define the safety factors for the other Richmonds. The~re is no test data for the 1 inch inserts which utilize A-36 rods. However there is test data comparing the 1 1/2 inch insert behavior in shear'when employing high strench and A-36 rods. This data (see Att. A of R1,chmond Affidavit) shows that deflections of inserts using A-36 rods are approximately twice those experienced by the inserts with the high strench
l. l u bolts at the same load (this.is true whether one compares the stiffast connections or the averages). Assuming that a similar behavior would hold true for the 1-inch inserts, the safety factor computed on a-deflection basis for the 1-inch insert having a 1 1/8 inch bolt hole and an A-36 rod would be a minimum of 2.23 or an average of 3.68. For those 1-inch inserts utilizing i 1/16 inch bolt holes, the safety factors based on deflection would be,2.33 minimum and 3.68 average for high strength bolts and 3.27 minimum or 5.98 average for A-36 rods. In the same manner we can derive the deflection-based safety factors for the 'l 1/2 1nch inserts. For the 1 1/2-inch inserts, the ultimate deflections ~ in she'ar were the following (for high strenth bolts): Specimen Ultimate Defl. Remarks 1 0.510" Not Failed 2 0.770" 3 0.540" 4 0.550" 5 0.585" The inimum deflection for all tests was 0.510 and the average was 0.591". The allowable fshear for the 1 1/2-inch inse$ is 27 kips (when a low strength. rod is used the allowable shear load is determined by the rod and is equal to 17 kips). At t!".is' load (27 kips), the smallest deflection is 0.012", and the average ' deflection is 0.046". For the 1 1/2-inch inse rt utilizing high strength rod.s;'*the minimum safety factor on the basis of deflection would there=. fore be 2.32 and the average safety factor would.be 3.46. For the Richmond inserts using A-36 rods, shear deflections at failure are not available since the tests were not run to failure. However, if we use the deflection at the highest load utilized, and /nly the stiffest connection of thos's tested, we find that the factors of safety on a depection basis is 0.821"/ 0.125'+0.130') = 3.22. O eD 4, 8 M
q Verify tolerances for Richmond bolt'. holes. #erify material employed for the Richmond bolts. Verify whether Richmonds are used in a pattern either by themselves or jointly with Hiltis. The answers to these questions have been provided as part of the previous answer. e b 9 5 e 1 e O e a 1 I e' e e ,.O e e l l 3e e e I f. g . e-( -,w,--,-- p-y.,,,pp,.,,,.,,y ye-,- --,m,-m.a,w.,,.., -,,,-ww-ww ,.e,
s Q . Address the questtion of importance of rebar.in regard to.the safety factors of Richmonds via the method of ACI349.
- ACI 349 utilizes a factor, 9, equal to 0.85 in' the formula which computes ultimate tensile capacity of the insert (see affidavit p.8), for inserts s,
- ' embedded beyond the rebar layer, and a factor 9 = 0.65 for plain cor.-, -
trate (ie no reinforcement). If one makes the censarvative assumption that the influence of the reinforcement on Richmond insert performance is equal to that predicted by ACI 349, then the minimum factor of safety in tension produced by the Applicants' tests is 3.26 x 0.65/0.85 = 2.50. Although this answers the question posed by Mr. John Fair we do not see the direct relevance of the question to the issue of Richmonds' safety ? factors. The factor of safety recommended by the manufacturer, ie ,F.S = 3.0 was developed from tests which employed reinforced concrete. Ihe placement of inserts at. CPSES utilizes concrete which is reinforced. The rebar utilized in the latest series of, tests is the minimum type of surface reinforcement encountered in the field (#7 grade 60 bars at 10 inches on center in each direction near the surface) (see Affidavit at -p 14).
- .Thus there is no instance at CPSES where the insert would be embedded in unreinforced concrete.'
l' Applicants, derited the factor 9 = 0.84 from the manufacturer's test- . data., (see Affidavit at p. 8), rather than employing the 9 =.85 of ACI 349 for inserts embedded past reinforcement or 9 =.65 of ACI 349 l for unreinforced concrete. Thus Applicants recognized that presence 'of reinforcement has a significant effect '(or else we would have used ,j=.65). L r e W eeem e t l
'O ^ r ~ We think that perhaps our statement (and the Staff's) on p. 17 of the Affidavit. " The amount of rebar is not a significant factor." ~ ~ may have caused confusion and thus generated this question. What that statement is intended to address is the concern of CASE over differences in ' reinforcement. .,. It is not intended to imply that there is little difference between no reinforcement and reinforcement, but simply that there is little e Idifference between types of reinforcement, is 2 liyer vs 4 layer rebar size chosec, e = e 9 0 e e e e@+ e-pw-e- -e--,--y-y ,v---, y---w,.+,- y-w--y+ - -- -,, -g w, ,,,y,- ,-,.yw,--w-, ,m m y ,yy--v--+r-r-,,
s ~ Q Provide additional information on appropriateness of interaction formula and acceptance criterion for bending in the Richmond insert bolt, including consideration of fatigue. To address this question Applicants have derived the interaction formula by modelling the bolt as a solid bar having a diameter (h) square equal to four tines the effective ~ tensile area divided by , ie d.f'd.. w-the ASME Code, section NB 3232.2 permits the stress intensity of a bolttoequaltheyieldstress,g, Under the combined tension and bending loading, the principal stress 'S,in the direction of the applied tension is given by Y4 RM e1" pQ. ,y' ~ The Mohr circle indicates that the stress intensity, when shear is the only other applied load is given by S -S where S and S y 2 2 .are defined below
- / z
~S S # r z I Sa. * - }(f')DSl ,f / m 8 3/ a fQ 0 5 Z s' 2 Q}# + S, / "/ 4i. +4 4A. s, J Here S, = shear stress = )8 s where S is the shear load. e e M_ , _ _ - _ _ _.....,, _,, ~,.,,.. _,. _,, _.,,,
1 Thus.we write a7tg)% sl 0.9.
This case does not occur since high shear loads for the bolts and inserts is 'secompanied by high bending moments, and conversely, if the bending mo-ment'is small, it would not be considered explicitly, b6t would be coupled out as increased tension in the bolt, and this interaction formula would not be used.
Th'us the interaction' formula employed in the Affidav'it is indeed conservative for aP1 the cases in which it needs to be applied.
As a. further note it is germane. to state that the reason th% the ASME Code does not consider the combination of shear, tension and bending in bolts, except when the shear occurs as torsion in the bolt, is due to the fact that at the point where the moment stress is maximum, the real shear stress is zero, and viceversa, as long as the entire section remains elastic.
Inthe preceding Mohr circle analysis, we have assumed that the maximum shear stress occurst coincidentally with the maximum bending moment, and hence we have again been very conservative.
Since t;he Applicants have conservatively derived the interaction formula f.or ' shear, tension and bending in the insert bolt by allowing the outer fibers of the bolt to reach yield, a question was raised regarding low cycle f,atigue capability of the bolt.
On,ri'gid seismic supports and snubbers, the OBE and SSE loading conditions govern des'.gn, with normal operating conditions stresses being much,.much lower.
The alternating stress in the bolt is conservatively assured to be equal in magnitude to the yield stress.
(The worst conditions from a fatigue standpoint, would occur if all of the stress were alternating, i.e. the bolts were loaded in pure bending. This is not the. case, since the connections have combined shear, tension, and bending).
' Utilizing the fatigue analysis methods of ASME'NB-3222.4(e), with an alte~ nating stress equal to. the yield stress and a stress concentration r
i
-n------
l 9 - + g factor of 2.5 fro = reference 1, as permitted by.the ASME NB-3232.3(c), the total number of cycles is. computed to be in eacess of 1000. This number is larger that the combined number of cycles of SSE and OBE, vliich is 720 per FSAR Section 3.7B.3.2. Considering the conservatism of the assumptions made for the fatigue analysis App 1'icants conclude that employing the interaction formula given in the Affidavit provides' the necessary protection ag'ainst fatigue failure. 6 1. -" Design of Machine Elements", V. Faires, McMillan fr Co., New York, 1949. e m 9 e a 9 e se o O e 9 e = oeo l [ ~ ,-a-.. ew..-..
s g Q Provide Additional information on modelling of connection, i.e. appropriateness of,re, leasing M, and retaining M moments, for larger size tube steel, i.e. larger than 4'. We, ara providing the answer in two parts:
- 1. Larger tube steel size.
The rotation of a simply supported beam at'$he point of support is inversely proportionsi to the moment of inertia. Th&refore tube steel larger than 4x4x3/8 would have sma,ller end rotations. Th'e potential of the tube steel connection developing a prying force is directly dependent on the product of the end rotation times the tube steel size. Since the moment of inertia increases exponentially with respect to the tube steel sizes, the product of the rotation times the tube steel size would' decrease with increasing tube steel size. Therefore the 4x4x3/8 tube steel represents a worst case with' respect to potential prying. In addition, due to the increased bolt length and more flexible walls on lar-ger tube steel, the joint would deflect more under load and therefor a be'able to accomodate more end rotation before prying would develop. t-
- 2. Creater spans.
The finite element analysis was based on a 20" span between inserts. In some cases the inserts are spaced up to 24" apart. ~ ja To check this case Applicants calculated the increased rotation due to the I la'rger span and determined that the clearance between the tube steeel l l and,tMe washer is sufficient to accomodate the increased rotation. I "A survey of approximately 3000 supports has revealed that a few cases where the tube steel apans between two non-adjacent l inserts resulting in spans of 48". Utilizing 4x4x3/8 tube steel, the maximum load that the member r.an be designed for is 9.7 kips. If 9.7 kips are loaded at the point which produced the maximum and rotation, the end reaction would be 5.6 kips. l If o'ne considers only the flexibility of the tube steel, the bolt alon-l gation and the compressibility of the concrete, and assumes that the rotation produces prying, the 5.6 kips reaction would ' increase to 8.9 kips due to prying action. Since the 1 inch insert is capable of 12.1 kips, the
- Prying action would not overload the bolt (or insert).
D l
Q Provide explanation on possible. effects of. angularity of. Richmond inserts. ~ Figure 1 represents the most probable worst case condition of the misalignment of a itichmond insert bolt in the holes of the tube steel. Misalignment res-ultin,g in bolt inclination exceeding one in tSynty is not permitted without beve11ed washers, and even such misalignment is rare. For holes 1/8" large'r chari the bolt, it can be seen that before any shear can be transferred through the bottom flange, the bolt has to be deflected 1/8" at the top flange (0.2, inches for a one. in t'epty angularity). This situation is not unlike the'.situaticn involved in the distribution of shear to a mEltibolt connection. It.is well recognized in that situation that some bolts'in the connection, or some other part of the connection, may yield in order to bring al) bolts int o the shear reaction, so that ultimately all bolts share. The bolt shown in Figure' I has a misalignment that is within the normally accepted constru-crion tolerances. As the shear load on'the connection is increased, a bending moment will be induced in the bolt. At some point, however, the bottom flange vill be brought into contact with the bolt, and in the ultimate condition, the majority of. the shear force will be transferred through the botton flange, just as it would in a co.,nection with no misalignment. M Wy G %/ e I i l i n D,r'ada~ oE SL .c 4 e ~EE~ Y \\ 1 l g/, *, d ' 's ' o ',, ~
- 4. '
c, Cwk*b g., e ( I \\ L s The question which must be answered is whether the bolt has the flexibility to close the 1/8" gap before failing. Looking at Attachment A to Applicants' l f l l ~ i e ,ew ,,y ..---.-,--~-.-,,,w--- .,,.-.,..e. ..m
1 Richmond Insert Affidavit, one can see that these connections have typically quit,e ample flexibility. .The smallest ultimate deflection of any bolt in that series of tests was 0.56". It should be noted that these tests were conducted with a test piste only. The bolt deflection of interest would have, bee'n higher. These tests were for 1 1/2 inch. inserts. Similarresult/s were obtained from the 4/84 tests on Richmond inserts (Attachment B to the same Affidavit). For the 1 inch bolt in these tests, the' smallest. shear test deflection was 0.22". However, assuming that this was the deflection atthetopofthetestplate(1"fromtheco[ rete),thedeflectionat'thetop j flan'ge of Figure 1 (about 5" from the concrete) would be considerab1[ larger. These. tests confirm that the Richmond inserts, even when,used with high stre'ngth' bolts (all prior deflections were obtained for high strength bolts) have the flexibility necessary to. accomodate the misalignment of bolts ,. in the. field. An inspection of the results of Attachment F to Applicants' Richmond. Inserts Affidavit indicates clearly that the use of an A-36 rod with th'a Richmond insert (the most common practice at CPSES) will also allow quite ample flexibility to account for these construction tolerances. These effects ar e well recognized in the AISC Code. Pages 5-14 and 5-15 of the AISC, 8th Edition describe Type 2 construction (i.e pinned joints), which is the type of " simple framing" assumed in the design of the Richmond w insert-tube steel structures. ' pose pages state ',' Type 2 and 3 construction may necessitate some inelastic, but self-limiting, deformation of a structural steelpkrt. e e... e l-e a g te e o e i e, .m.
Q .' Address the Board's concern with adequacy of safety factors of Richmond inserts regarding cyclic loads. The,ade'quacy of the Richmond bolt regarding cyclic loads, i.e. fatigie, has been addressed conservatively in the answer to question 9(b). Here we provide the analogous answer with respect to the fatigue capacity of the -insert proper. Unlike the bolt,.for which we could assume that at the maximum load, the max-imu's alternatin stresses could be no larger than the yield stress, thence analytically derive the number of cycles which the bolt,can accept at such maximum' load, the insert is not smenable to similar analyses, since the state of stress in the insert proper and the concrete is tot precisely known. However, examination of the load deflection data collected by Applicants (see Affidavit, Attachment B) shows that generally at the i rated ' loads of the inserts (11.5 kips in shear and tension for 1 inch inserts, and-27. kips and 31.3 kips in shear and tensica respectively for 1 1/2 inch inserts) there is no significant departure from linear beha-vior: This indicates essentially elastic behavior of the insert below rated loads. This behavior is shown particularly vividly in the load-defle-crion curves of the combined shear-tension tests, and the. tension tests. Shear load deflection curves are not as clear. In fact for the 1 inch insert, some shear-load-deflection curves seem to indicate departure from linear behavior at about 5 kips. However the combined shear-tension 7 l load deflection tests do not confirm this behavior. One,.can* than assume that if there was a proportional limit for the inserts, l i't would be above the rated load. Hence any cyclic load alternating between the rated loads, would elicit elastic b[ehavior of the insert. Alternating loads at the full rated capacity of the inserts would only occur for SSE and OBE' events. The number of cfeles of these events is 720.'.'By analogy to the bolt case, we would expect that elastic cycling of ' he. inserts would also cause no fatigue failure at this number of cycles. t O ene E e- .~~ - -. ~. .. _ _.__:m._.--. _. -, - -
l l CASE ATTACHMENT J Adru.df-D/STE/Bu r/oM' a 46 gy p,y,yp. ggyggy., -- + 2-.. T. . _..__f:T __ / 5y. _--gLs.__. pruuars O / %g. e OMa4x O a.sressanoa 4 / l a /0 / / / V / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 n e l. A r/ V s : Ptsrsada pasa OEM752 04 Yt<8E' t I l' l l =
. ~ ~ * * ~ * ~
- TP :..:> l... ~ e CASE ATTACIMENT K l 8.., 8 1......4.. q........!:.L l
r . iNr 1 ., Jy 4,c 1,(d. <i,j..O '. C.... ):. %., u ' R. ' ;nn... . JCS.NO'.iRef. 5 l 'l i. i y r ,... m...
- ce tog,.-
q i maris 5. w. % .,c, . n r.. ~..u...,.. cr..,...... w e m....r.r u.. yc CHK 0.[,$Q,,,, QQM *.N. Q.. 1 -W L i sus:gcr. -' s 3 rav5Tc f Clr CN'FR ' ATUC".,. g*fT t:TT"# ECCTNTRICT'T .j,j* } a. p.,,,.h,. ;%;gr.. . i l'os r.!:~-.. .... gg ;;.g.y.gm . f....;.. " f "., ** .a i. .,...p.. l. w..! &.. *....
- l. - g,3ggg
,7 , p .g* s,,4 J.y , { A;.. e.. -:. e. - +.. ~* 6 J.. e t. . a.9 4.4.. g 4
- 3...
.. J.bj ;..y 2.g g s .! 4 4 *, .ns -.. * .. I' - r-r a i* i ,4 4 h E;4.,ti ?.i .l.. g. , i.;;;d,+plih i.- l .. r4". ): I .W us.are - -.. g-
- (.: : N, i j.: /:
y yJq* '; t., 4 y y %g p d.,. 5, .c .i 8: .i .g q'. .. 9,; y il H.: Eff di f recancrici:7 "a" - i 'l1 b/1 j. b/t . ~ 8" h,,.. i r I! I7., e : o.# aue co.a..Inserr Jffsee in: field. - . L ":t J. 27 F 1 ,J.; e. .6 .?.F f$.:E Tsl't' g** l'.az. Zee. = 12, ': r. j'i 1 i f.).D f4j.y'I M e $.I.z.c, J..E[ iI. .[i n. -w-r- L, dl . : +. ;.,.u nt :, l.... r. ..,e :- . : :,. t.
- u.,,...
.t 4 -wSe,. p .aT,..b.. +. H; f:,}, ;,....' t ! !.'.: ..ri, ;..:r-
- i.
m.p i G. ,. ~ -[. gOg
- .. :Ii..
.; j: c., .s bijd... a..ii i.):fii i* t .i a r
- , 'l.iE.NcD;5?T88== ph= b95ct W 6. ".%
/ // i -i i // / L - - ha puu !, ni 2 h 9, .k m.. :0.. L 6 :.
- a.. v. ;
2.' pf [.. u '.4 w : s .t,(7ptf.{;.h..Tubabzbzc, /\\fI . y.. } } f. t ';. *..;.;. X i f *d*... [".
- i. :
- rp;h;
.;*y'C Alt *f. l e,f *si,.; ganhar Placa h z b z eL .r tn 1.j.. : 5+
- t t.
~. s I 'sp _ I s.: f [ ,.? s -. j.5 . *Y. ' ', HJ e.. r.. *. I! ,l ... o.. r. 1
- W s
i . / ;-. i.b' s. 'i: 4 /% .is r.'.Mi < 4!*.* v s.. (% j ;, h.* f t, y'- y)
- , G.. e i
l. f *. : ; '- g t . t '. v. ..ph d s fora l*!.'. i l .. :1. igt c.sh o-- 8.e -* .t- -@iNa,r,w.c uus . ieu:% u.'lv': H.*p ( NL i ae b. I '# M : i # ^d n a WM 4 s m.2... n.... m.n...,.. "M...r.e%. ~.). P~. f.. e.* ~ P. a'" " a d. n . + - v..pg.:. n. l3 m,3 1 t:,> ,u. m.... u.:- .sr udaueu. .r. a. m tc.o... ae,uu a4:bo. uu .I[d; hiW
- vhich have the same,vidth,',es cha'.
c - u. b/1 b/t.
- }
-J.;;*: c.be and the hole is.che,cantar c,@$ h.i -.:.M of*plata:(See Tig.) f,;,St. caz ,.q. .... +.
- y..-
!p.. _;?: I ?.~i ..,. ' t..*
- ca5cs* 14 c a ch e f orc e s P, an.d !f a t P o i== "0".
l . :,i,.
- W 3.
Uie the procedurs given is i= car-office ma=2 (Feb. 11, 1981) "Desigs ..of. Upper u n e w.m:" for the symac ical case (vi:hou: ecc e==:ici:-r). x. g r p i. i
- j
,.g* 6. L, 1., 4
- e. y:
4f-' f.*t. % :I .s eA. 's )*. .l: ',7 4 .. r.1., .ys e i:
- 1.
L} 9 , W g i.. - iq, .. ) cer -. c.,..L6 i -. i > sr.. .J....e.( ' }.*.
- lkk.
y ....__r,_._ ,._,,-.,,.e.-,..,.,.,,,_...,.,,..-y..,,,
-~ ers. ,m. = b w.. e u.m i - T . * %* s ar n 6 I l3 x q, dV g. y wv 1 g-m a x m g 3 .x s. a v r y .e -a c r .o =
- 1-D, E
5 5 5 a v e s g 28l .'l E pMe ..r am,;. g_35 l 3 .l J ci4 g l I l a .s . :. r g @i1 = - v ;, . @7- !! =gi a w 5 2 -- i. 8s E- [ $U 5 n i-Eg $$$!, ! E llk g 5 8 3' hk k II h ~ 5 9 g 5 t bgl #s t a m n A. - x,% c .....am a q g o w q, ear..,r j g g g 3 R.d" a. -c n, g. 7 5 8 a tM = = e .og w = 4 ,5 2 e >a v o de s...P n. m c c pto e. e Q=%.ttp r = 1d s. i-a r o
- l. Qcb,1
. u. 9 3, e a 4 t b,d -= t==I a no %e ;e g a m.. e p a _ Q=n. (. g .a 7 :: :.
==w< u,,, v = - c m %g as c v = s $.4
1-g 2 w
w l P' =;. id z e, = C s., E f 4.r. w,ge.=q c .3 e: 4, c-- .S u.J. r g i g'isn-3.cTc5I Im.i s ..; u. % g- .gggl w 6# M:ra ~,'a I 3 3l-b n. 8 2 33tgi lMe M M7c= Y.9-W.-g s t L u ~--a = = -xs O, *D M 63 ' iMM l W..M -. =.- a__Q1 4 f,= u 3'-pff' 4 h2 M5e43W5 1MlqE4.Ti$il E M ,# $! i .~.Qiis-J C
- *.E i'd
' ailfLO!?@j I- -4> *IIT._i+G 5 P 'd4 Li 4LLLM s M4. M ' 4 w 1 .... d. Eds, ms!5 -l =i:Prmi I rnme r 2 '.e.u== t. 7.. ,3g-...m -u.. 4 =:;; M4! t4:4l N gg; ).n;.% g--as v. w.- fit Lt.ast l g r .. ~ y_, 2 1 u- = A 7 -[=J Q y p,. p s;g go::: s 1
- 6
) \\) .We. ~ 8 cc:: u ! . %-I y z? 9 ,3 2 ._f ~ -- - I *B 2 o ~$ . _.7 u n s. u: C"""q _. ..g%. -], @ 5., i ol e m- -! =_,,g,s-=a r v! C.D n.<
- - :- : g-
- g. y.g a m E,,
y ag g y g g', e. &- u k :q - n\\ f g ;o s
- =
al a e = b,, 4; 3 g \\ _q, p a:.g ,, z g-2 n. 2 m-e =g v 4 e.d s 2 o ,w Q p kp@ @mi '.[-vi i Ew e i , E ,to set f 'i -0 =0 3 Q- /7. '# %j l . Wg i
- n w
) f, g ~.,. s a ala [ >J., )$) t. y=:,h
- i,
I.
- '1 e s
he w,. s 4 l t S< ,a _w1 I .J w o { j ( i,J,E/'Ih ' ; g4. b. 0 ,4
- 4C
.I = ) l3$ r s ,4 - s ~. *% ;r- ~3 g J== g.) mj<a a -qs
- ),x WI r
ai y lY /s l k,'h .a ) e, ai h,o _ _ _ _ _,/ R,., '4 ' _<f j m l _ - _ _ _I 1 t I A_ g } _./_/ 2 m2 = 1= PY s n.: e"* fr )E>sE D@ j*# .g. ~- f i LEI.: i b i m.a 3 x g iin W~g g~ = e 2 _c m.uu .s = . -_ j\\ z, + . y (. ~.,,,.
- '"*""-r'"N-#eae-ws.e,w,,g,,_,,. _,,,,,.
t i . ~, '. si .. u... y a g ,a d 4 p.jyl. . 7.j p gi a. ; l s. . !. :.z i g g,._. p .: i S-~ og u g 4._. 3. Hg
- 8 9
.y- ,y,,, ?,i ks.. e m= m e-2/ wl.s gJ o 3 2 I. ti 8 s a s e. g g l l 4 8 ! Eg ! ? y + 4 s l /. B yg,a. t w, g d $.3 r-e...,,.. = e-: = =. u< o o .I. r w . =: - w il 55 n < *,. 4 w - ' ** Eg 6. w ; m esammai 4 1 4* y ca.suris e '~. y es * 'T p 'I l j E ?. Is I - U.,,, l g 1't p. g w,. gui g .f;. 5 u- . 'yv e.rrs k t r m' l C' Ys .vs .c s.+G { g-k; 'c* 7 at O g 1 A. ces e e u + r t a. $ *, k i!'g h.3. w u .e Q k
- e...,,.
O E*I3 q% d i- ~ssra t g ' . !P.;i p ! a( i r s tM m is f. rFa = .C.... $N g$!Q ( h0 p~.> !r_l:$ 'm!? U O ui : s*Iya.'3 e m . = e. 4 ""'..y'qi '\\ q, % d O.,63
- w. s, a, y ;f
)M.t:.4 i g ap-.. a-9 p a u
- ~!.,'
?... - '~~ g . W 4 y u .s 3 w l*- 'Y' ,f g p 1, 1--! '.6 7 N.3lnj~-i i lI!,C 'd! 5 $ I j!@ $ i li.N i4!3I.# (E ..- s. g -- .j m o e t iu C 4:4 l 3 , G. (2, g gg i / N / i e Y y ' g :s s a l We >W g e1 .J N I I EU @3 6 E I I E* I 5 g )i $b .s o a E l 5 .i < <J O C. o-l - l a 3 N l s kW@ h k l l l o s i ' ,i a I r g e- = i Z IES I ) ' O l, OC / I i E d I =:c t.:J I C/') / l I l LLJ C 'j l I I C)cU a i L,i ~ w' c-x m I C _:l* ~ Q W w 2'/ Z LA.J I ,,i, Cf.s Z j a, s ; C - D O. 9% b ) w ~=n; J',d y = 5__'L. 3 v --.-,_..........___..__.-.___.,._,.,__....__.m..__,-_
FORM DHE-5 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES D4C. COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S. n M~3!"'b Agent For Fihas Caer g g _f of 7 DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY 53""
- cm my TEXAS POWER & UGHT COMPANY onwmy G & H km. No.
. A F--I-oca1 -03_f-- Y 33 It mg.m i'i! i I i I i i I lj WGVIsw ; s u~r~ere Ao_-ngN ' QnA 'T'/C/V MA/M ' JQ-/P-A *i l i i ? 5 f ! i ii* 4# ' AsC~ /"7 /7Artu decal ' ! t 5 i : i i i i -l C 4 1 4 % - O' M,Y8 i i i i ! i i i i i i i i gg I I i 1 i i
- e i
ii i l i i g /-)_f,,,vMtG t=- 40 4/Y MT /> u 's / o gl=.fA n1i_c. a m q A A i PAGE'..... . OF F A Ll?.S...].N TM m d.,A t 1 5 - . JC TE T MA T-.._.TM 5 4dc.M 5/.V.7~ /S. 3N.0 >N ^ $?b /M. fM/.5 /3... k& $Y."N fh'j C e bOl $O}$l/5 Y. /.I./ E 8. $l).$ $. T H 6 / b '. /.S.- . /)$TU .- j i /~/ 5 0 / $ '/ ) }/ J A # YC
- ~/~~/'l 5 L
l ... _ A / A t. L. /N c .O/S 2'M A!G G' ~7~c 7H G~ F:A G s',. I l [_S TNS Tl//$S * $ TS&G.,,._gd/ ~7'& Te'0 ' YNW &ff 0
- AJ'3 L) f.,,,O N&lC~
MAC"MN i e t I i i i i Alfit2._.,4Lso. r*H G 25 3 7 f f n n =- M.' e i i l 4 lND. s.., fl] WrO3 &2&S l_A3 & i O s - dr f _b g j
- . 4 LA/s =, zi8.w,Lz.1 = /4. w4 pr 1
1 ,m 2 2&M is i.sduswu t.mi h i w ; A-% : vi i i i i i : 1 i./, i i .... ~..
~ l) h FCEM DHL5 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.- M-DALLAS POWE LIG CG PANY Fuias Cede 4,KQ TEXAS ELECTRIC S9RVICE COMPANY A g M Na N TEXAS POWER & LWHT COMPANY C* h c=w w = 4 A k o. =.6 g Ar t-col-oss-1saw.'d sz-.019 ces-s1x ^.S au'ET' i i R4.. 75 G x 4.x'4 F55 " ~ ' M m = 853 5 x 9. 625. = 82, I30 Gw% bL u p.87 d. ~ 4 ~ = 4.59 k,, I, = I 1. 7 L, S S .. M u. M M Sovess, 82,/30 2532 ~ 5.8 7......+_ 4.5 psd p'(.ox.) Sec.E. = I4,543 < So,6co Rev.3 SA m h =/o,957 4.59 x 0.5 (cr ) Sec. E = 4,77A PQ 20,400 r.:.. rs 3x 34 2 s 32 x / 6 = 4.S,5 7G " # f M %= l A - 2. 59 12, S = 2. I L~' M ou. N'.e w,,.,2 5 #. e3 46.G76 = 2.f 2I,70 3 0'.g.50,5 COP (cd = S % /Ztuo 2632 = .2.5*) /. o.S. 1,9 5 5 x 20,Jco (OK) = \\ i WELDS (i) r3edW& TS G s 4 x !. TS 3 x38'4 4 M = 2532 (15 4.25) = 34,815 " ~# 'k .5w = 5 n3 + = 12.0 .L~2 L = 12. W k _ 34,81S a9o; "fz. r /2. l -, - - -.. -,.,, - - - -..,, -.. ~,,. - - - - -,.---n,.
CASE ATTACIMENT M-k e k k w ( -,9 }I g) g) _g s s 5 -~; fg) s, Z= f AD - f/YSY+ G?O.S7+ t?)( S +ft)(-Aff-5 .S = S//,5 =.s.ss Figure 1 - re: Moment of Inertia 1 l s 1. l f l l t_}}