ML20100B309
| ML20100B309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1984 |
| From: | Horin W BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| CON-#484-441 OL, NUDOCS 8412040286 | |
| Download: ML20100B309 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.. , NN N y
-i- RELATEC cc:3,gg,eCl4DENCE L AW OFFiCc5 or :
- BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK,-PURCELL & REYNOLDS i2oo sevcNrccNrw sincer, s.w. 'N .N EW vo R a g4gg WAS H I N GrO N, D. C. 2O O 3 6 USMC es swCP, u BCRM AN & COOM -
(202)857-9800 uss AvENut or TwE AuERicAs N EW YORM.N EW YORM iCC 36 7eecx . O 7.,~1c W u.
'o'-o ' o o 84 DEC -4 A9 :28 TELEK 222767 e' WR6TER*9 OIRECT DI AL CFFR E GQECifM.
cc.4Eitte .s :t- . I <2om>857-9837 December 3, 1984 Mrs. Juanita ElIis President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 Subj: Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2); Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446el,
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter Applicants transmitted to the boaff regarding Applicants' analysis of the steam generator upper lateral restraints. This letter responds to certain questions raised by the NRC Staff during the November 13, 1984, meeting with Applicants on that topic. Sincerely,
) I' f .
,h William A.V krin
. W Counsel for Applicants cc: w/o encl. Remainder of Service List 8412040286 841203 '
PDR ADOCK 05000445 g PDR D SO3.
.c
-TEXAS UTILil 3 GENElGTl:u , OJ.MIRNY
,, c sox . m rs m. ," "
DEC 021984 November' 21, 1984 Geary Mizuno,' Esquire
'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 10107 Bethesda, Maryland 29814 -
Subj: Texas Utilities Electric Company.(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2); Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446
Reference:
- 1) Gibbs & Hill letter GTN-69363 dated August 21, 1984
- 2) Transcript of Meeting of November 13, 1984 in Bethesda, Maryland between Applicants, the NRC and NRC Consultants On November 13, 1984 a meeting was held between the NRC and representatives of the Applicants, to discuss Applicants analyses employed in the justifi-cation of the adequacy'of the steam generator upper lateral support (see Applicants' Motion'for Summary Disposition Regarding Upper Lateral Restraint Beam and accompanying Affidavit of R. C. Iotti).
At the conclusion of the meeting Appligants were requested to provide written statements on several items as listed below: ,
- 1. A justification of the approach taken in the analyses of the upper lateral restraint beam proper and the concrete to which it is attached,
- 2. A configuratinn of the maximum calculated MSLB temperature and of the temperature used in the, Affidavit analyses,
- 3. A confirmation of waich of the load cases examined JLn the Affidavit analyses is addressed by the calculations shown on page 60 of Reference 1, ;
4, A clarification and nodification of the statement appearing as item 5.b(3) on page 4 of the minutes of the meeting transmitted by Reference 1, ;
- 5. A clarification and m<dification of item 6C on page 5 of the same minutes,
- 6. A clarification of how shear loads and stresses are handled at the fixed boundary chosen for the structural model executed for the case of the
-concrete tensile strengtn equal to zero, and
- 7. A confirmation that the NASTRAN program employed in the Affidavit analyses has been used exclusively for these analyses, and has not been used in any other analysis or design at Comanche Peak.
Accordingly we provide the follewing: .
- a. Applicants used a dual approach to determine the adequacy of the upper lateral restraint beam proper and of the concrete to which it is attached.
The dual approach consists of two beundine analyses. As stated in the Affidavit at 4, the first analysis provides the upperbound on the physical
.,.n.....s....u.e,,.,,,,,,,.e.,,,.....,.s,
o Tage - G. Mizuno effects on concrete walls (i.e., wall deformation and cracking). For this analysis no credit is given to the tensile capacity of concrete. This analysis overestimates cracking in the concrete but underestimates its real restraining effects on the upper (and lower) lateral restraint beam thermal cxpansion, since the lesser the extent of cracking is, the stiffer is the concrete wall.
~
As such, this analysis underestimates the real loads that would occur in the lateral restraints when they thermally expand. To assess and bound the maximum load on the beam and stresses in rein-forcement, the second analysis assumed that the concrete would have a tensile capacity of 450 psi (see Affidavit at 5). The extent of cracking, its distribution, and therefore, the capacity of the concrete to resist applied loads, including the beams' thermal expansion j loads for accident conditions, as predicted by the NASTRAN program with the i concrete tensile strength at 450 psi, has been questioned by the NRC and its consultants, because the program does not reproduce experimental results at high applied loads. ' Experimental results discussed in the meetings refer to tests of simple concrete beams loaded in the center. The NASTRAN program would predict failure of the beams at higher loads than experiments have shown, where high tensile strength is employed. However, it predicts results similar to experiments when low tensile strengths, i.e., below 120 psi, are used. Consequently, the extent of cracking as predicted by the NASTRAN program is less than that which actually takes place. The effect of this underprediction is to overestimate the concrete resis-tance (stiffness) to an applied load. In terms of the analyses performed . 8 for the upper (and ' lower) lateral restraint beams, the overprediction of the concrete stiffness would lead to a conservative evaluation of the loads ex-perienced by the beams themselves, i.e., the NASTRAN program would predict higher loads for the beams than would actually occur. ~
- To ascertain the possible conservatism inherent in the analytical predic-tions stemming from the NASTRAN program, Applicants have determined the finite -
elements in which the in-plane shear loads would be sufficiently large that the program may incorrectly predict no crack formation. In plane shears in excess of 120 psi accompanied by principal tensile stresses of comparable magnitude are indicative of conditions where experimental data suggests cracking might initiate and likewise where NASTRAN does not predict cracking if the concrete = tensile strength is assumed to be 450 psi. Applicants found that relatively few elements in the vicinity of the beam embedments fall in this category. Had the NASTRAN program predicted that these elements cracked more exten-sively, the resistance of the concrete would have been lower and the beams' load would have been less than reported in Tables 1 and 2 of the Affidavit under the columns labelled " Concrete Tensile Strength = 450 psi". - Applicants therefore conclude that the dual approach taken to examine the worst conditien for concrete (zero tensile strength) and the worst loading for the upper la eral restraint (made even worse by the overprediction of concrete resistance by NASTRAN) provide assurance that the upper lateral restraint and the concrete are adequately designed for the loading condit ions examined.
1 ' Iage13
- G. Mizuno 4
'. iThere is some confus' ion as to the values calculated or used for'the Affi .
. b-davit analyses of the Main Steam Line Break accident consequences on the 3 lateral restraints and concrete. Part of the confusion stems from the fact 5
. that Applicants utilized 'a conservative peak figure of. 3700F in said analy- if-sis (see Affidavit at 10 and Appendix I Figure 2) rather than the peak il values actually calculated for the uppersand lower lateral restraint from the RELAP 4, HEATING 5 analyses (thermo-hydraulic and heat transfer, respectively) have,been reported in the Affidavit.as being approxima'tely. .
3550F at approximately 300 seconds (Affidavit at 10). In addition, on p
~
page 6 of-the. Minutes of the Meeting attached to Reference 1, temperature values calculated for the upper and lower. lateral restraint have been re- - ported as 3400F and 3500F respectively at 324 seconds. ,
.5 The reason for the apparently conflicting information is the lack' of a ~
clarifying explanation on these latter values on page 6 of the minutes of the meeting. Whereas 3550F represents the approximate average of the maximum temperature of both beams-(and 370 F was actually used in the analy-ses), the temperatures quoted of 3400F and 3500F are the temperatures of the two beams at'the time when the largest difference in temperature exists between the two. .They are not the maximum calculated beam temperatures. These temperatures were used to respond to the NRC question which requested an assessment of the effects on the walls of using actual simultaneous beam temperatures rather than maximum temperatures used in the Af fidavit analyses. The maximum effect on walls from differences in temperatures between the two-beams obviously results where the difference is maximum, and this is why those two temperatures were used. ,
- c. The load case analyzed on page 60 of the calculations attached to Reference 1, is the load combination of nominal differential pressure across the com-
.partment walls of 1 psi, plus peak temperature in the beams ~which repre-sents-the worst condition for the case of the Main Steam Line Break. It ~
corresponds to the case reported under the column labelled "Concret'e Ten-
-- sile Strength - 450 psi" of the Main Steam at 324 seconds. .
To further clarify this, we are including a modified sheet No. 60 and a , page of pertinent computer output as Exhibit 1. One can verify the corre-
"- ;" - sponden~ce-of'the case with Table 1 attached, where the axial stress is -
; _ reported as 13.3 ksi.
- d. The statement appearing as Item 5.b(3) on page 4 of the minutes of the meeting transmitted by Reference 1 could be misleading. Accordingly, the
'following statement should be substituted.
"The NRC pointed out'during the audit that the boundary condition used by Gibbs & Hill in the analyses along the z-direction is' incorrect in thr.t it .
does not: reflect the freedom of the structure to move. Gibbs & Hill acknow-ledged that strictly speaking this is true. However, use of a fixed boundary condition in the z-direction permitted a considerable simplifica-tion ~1n the analysis by allowing use of a symmetric model, and based on - the fact that the' seismic stress in the compartment walls obtained from the' previous analysis using a' full model is relatively small, Gibbs & Hill concluded that the boundary condition used in the analysis has little effect on'the result. NRC concurred that the results would be acceptable provided. E= _ , - . . _ .__ .-
c:
~'.g
- i. 1 4a
.G.'Mizuno that Gibbs & Hill calculations demonstrated that the seismic loads were -
only a small_ fraction of the total load. Gibbs & Hill is to submit calculations." Gibbs & Hill has submitted such calculations in Reference 1, calculation set SRB-4C3, Set 2-16 sheets,
- e. The statement made in the minutes of the meeting attached to Reference 1 3 on page 5, Item C, requires'some clarification.
In the ASLB Hearings, the only case discussed was the LOCA case. The MSLB case has been introduced by Applicants in their Affidavit. Conse-quently, the LOCA case had been the only case which had received attention and for which loads had been computed under the assumption that- the com-partment waM s are infinitely rigid. -In the minutes of the meetings Gibbs & Hill repeated the same calculations and stated that the beam stresses computed from these calculations (page 55 of calculations attached to Reference 1) are below the yield point. In fact, they would be below 0.9 Fy = 45 ksi since they are 39.36 ksi. The Gibbs & Hill calculations, however, do not address the case of the Main Steam Line Break. For this case, if one were to consider the unrealistic condition that the walls are infinitely rigid, one would compute a beam stress equal to 55.8 ksi, which is in excess of the yield point. , Both calculations, however, are extremely ' conservative, and not representa-tive of the real stresses resulting in the beams. Nevertheless for the J purposes of accuracy, the statement on page 5 Item C is revised as follows:
"c. Calculations were developed and reviewed for the LOCA case, based on the assumption that the beam restraints (compartment walls) are ,
infinitely rigid. These showed beam stresses below the yield point. Gibbs & Hill stated that this upper bound case, although unrealistic because the structure is not rigid, had also been discussed during - the 1983 ASLB hearings. An equivalent calculation for the MSLB has not been" performed, as that case had not been discussed in the hearings, and would have no merit, considering the detailed analysis
~
that has been perfor.ned. In fact, the LOCA case was done because -
'W Cibbs & Hill felt it had been requested by t.he NRC. Had the calcu- _ ;
lation with infinitely rigid walls been performed for the MSLB, stresses computed in the beam would be above yicid."
- f. 'To clarify how shear loads (and stresses) are handled at the fixed boundary of the base of the structural model used in the analyses, the result for one of the finite elements at the base of the model, together with explana-tion sheets is indicated as an example in Exhibit 2. A similat table is l available ror each finite element at the base. The particiilar plate being 1 exemplified by sheet 89 is element 861, which is at the base of S.G.
compartment 1, and which can be seen-in Figure 3 of Appendix IV of the Affidavit.
- g. Applicants have used the NASTRAN program with the cracking concrete feature
- only in two instances for Comanene Peak. The one instance is the analyses of the load distribution and cracking pattern in the concrete walls and lateral heams performed to provide the inf ormation supt lied in the Appli-cants' Af fidavit regarding the L'pper Lateral Restraint Beam, k'e twe i l
Page 5' G. Mizuno subsequently identified another instance where use was made of the
-cracked concrete versionLof NASTRAN; 1his instance was for the analyses Lof 'a similar steel beam expansion between two concrete beams, which also utilized the boundary cases of 0 and 450 psi tensile strength. This later analysis was employed for evaluation of the loads on concrete beams from support FW-1-097-018-C62R expanding between concrete beams B-13 and B-14 at Elevation 885'-6" in the containment Building. Its results, however, have not been directly used in preparation of the Affidavit and Motion regarding 'bif ferential Displacements of Large-Framed, Wall-To-Wall and Floor-To-Ceiling Pipe Supports", which include this support but have been used to verify the adequacy of design of the concrete beams.
It is to be noted thct in this latter case, in-plane shear stresses for all the elements are well below 100 psi. Hence, the NASTRAN predictions even at the higher tensile strengths are expected-to be accurate.
'Briefly discussed during the meeting was also the appropriateness of a heading used in the minutes of the meeting of. Reference 1, on page 6, wherein a designa-tion "As Designed" was used. A better term would be "As Analyzed" since those values refer to the temperatures employed in the analyses performed for the Affidavit.
We trust to have provided all information that we agreed to provide during the 11/13/84 meetings. Please call if you liave any questions. Very truly yours, TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY El [#[ J . B. George / , Vice-President / Project General Manager JBC/RCI/cp [
~
cc: W. Ilorin R. C. Iotti
= J. Eichler M. Reich S. Burwell
- m. .
.: a- .
~
- i-- -- .- -, -
he: 17: C.: ~ T '_ . : , ( CE h'im SuW }<6
- I - h: < ,ts.% s fyc CaldaSon Nurnber SR (2,- i G 7f sc ? _2_:, S m tt4a. G o
- o. % oo % 0. % ou am w o.:. %.
X X X L[ \ X X . fimw su r1TEiM : own me E/;, If4 , t Caa . e I car > pmc.s siv o is rna w <n u m : Vthe<> WoM t. o A o C,A-s e GIi7stdatWa3Ai sijta '$ 0 u6 370 Ff 49o pgj pse, 4.,4_, : 5
, g4 MAy (S = awd ' Shns = (3,774 ksi ses-11c) @
b = o,77 vsi %
/
f'y # 2e'l 96 3 =. 1. 7 4 ks [ Atf. 'scaw4%sr s e^+ be e r>
. o, sos (coqua<e caf,g h/b __ 13.774 4 5, o o FRota cL 1, G I Q., ( Als e, MAnu At e y met c.stTp> jct) ,
d yr"
- c& <lo (p O \g y f caA,, am . gf (l FaI r-t m i p'Y J '
o 65Y'97 c.65x l 74 4_. 13,714. j'_ _/ 13 774 yo.9yso 4 -- 4G.oo (i ius,c sL4 sg ('1 is,TM i,v9 m Ildt WK 51/ r,r e 0,3 6 ci o v _ ,..
==) 0 , 30 G + . o t S +<o33 g
#.g"
. ' .* .e Co u ct.O sloN ! T gt- su M E cT R ESTRAIN T GEAM 15
~.. -
a ADEG.v ATE To WiTH STAND ALL Tne LOAD)N G IN Tite MOST S EVERE CON DITl0 tf 5, F.166, 7- 82 M*9 '.ieM # ? . f.';m;.yggy_y. . ~...n.....,m.,....,..
~, ,e - , .n;,,
rN ' 1 O 9 ' haS7220 5 #31 '82 PAGE 269 lu">. - ptsE100 Cult 01*G la1Eshat $7mottunt Ms7 16e aves . TEtPrgatuer cpl 7; FAIN P.TEse PKEAR IM CC PP A R IMEDI 1 .... SUUCASE 1 COPS 11ED Le3s - U = D e L . 11
- A A + 1. SPA, C) s't R'E 5 5 E s Iw nAR ELEmEN 7 5 t C aA R 1 SA-mat SE-MIN 4.5.-1 (LERCa7 s al *a2 ,,. Sa3 5A4 AstAL
- 10. 331 Sh2 Su3 506 S1RES$ SB-max se-M1m M.S.-C 1395f S.P 0.0 ,q f.c 4.0 1 996300E-99 1.3963000-c4 1 09630 0E-8 4 4 1E*03 C.C 0.J ,,s 0.3 9.0 1. 0 96 30 0 E- 2 4 1 09 630 0E-t e
' kr 3.90 13 10941 C.9 3.3 5.0 p.e 1 165403E-09 1.165 9 03 C-0 9 1.165003E-04 C.0 G.c 0.0 c.s 1.165403E-79 1.165001E-04 ,l (7 18130 P.S 5.9 0.e 0.5 -9.9 03161E-03 -4.963161E-03 -9.9 0 3161 E- 0 3 D.8 0.0 0.G S.0 -9.993161E-03 -9.3031b1E-C3 t (? 11J11 2.t16217E-01 2 593926C-3) -2.P 16217C-01 -2 549926E-el -3 373944E.eD '1 491823C+00 -1 655066E.s0 2 49206at 3. 3C9 4 RSE -41 -2 192 0 6 8E-01 3 309459E-01 -1 042956E+00 -1.703933E*to l (? 11092 2 992C69E-01 -3.384RS9E-31 -?.992060E-Oi 3.304889E-et -1 373999E*40 *1 042956E+00 - 3. 70 3933E* 00 1.12143?C-01 -3.722715C-01 - 1. 720 9 3 2E- 81 8.702715E-01 -5. 031729E -01 -2.243716E*00
; C) 11333 1.729432E-01 -e.Fe2715E-si -1.720432E-01 8 792715E-81 -1.373e94t*00 -5 031729E-01 -2.293716E*40 5.813G7&E-32 -1 3653C5t*44 -5 0130760-92 1.365305E980 -0 139051E-03 -2 738750E.00 lcs . .
1.~3653 3 R E* 0 9 -1 373937E*08 -E.119130E-B3 -2 738755C+00 1.20 32 11814 S.014319E-02 -1.56535tE*30 -5.519314E-D2
-3 189538E+0e
-1.1693090-01 -1 616101E*00 3 169599E-91 1. A15101E
- 09 4.926639E-33 i
! () -4 98314SE-03 -4.903148C-03 -9.9 0 319 8E-0 3 , 11P35 0.9 E.0 0.9 9.9 - ! 0.8 00 0.0 S.9 ~4.943198E-03 ~4.9031480-33
- G .
9.9 -4.917557E-02 -4.917557E-52 -4.917557E-s2 1101A C.e 00 0.9 . G.0 0.t D.C t.5 -9.91755 7E -0 2 -4.917557E-92
, (r
' 7.131773C-01 1 799bn1EeB0 7 131773E-01 -1 37746aE*st -1 293060E+01 -1 551936E*01 11097 1. 74 9 641 E *b t -
-1 959469E.81 7.699569E-01 -5 1269810-93 7.6915 69 E-91 5.196091E-91 -1.384973E*01
, lo .
-1.300489E*01 11904 7.696361E-v1 -5.1C56700-01 -7.698361E-31 5. hts 678E-01 -1.377467E*01 -1.954451C+01
-1 693291E-01 -3.56 79 71E-01 1 693291E-01 3 567971E-el *1.341746E.61
- -1.413197E*01
-3.569179E-41 1 642308E-91 3 569179C-81 -1,377469E+0! gl.34177GC+81 -1 91316eE*03 11029 -n.692 sane-01
-1.es9906E*00 -2.439556E-si 1.e4990eE*ee 2.9 3 9556 E-e t -1.27252eE*e1 -1 962489E*01
(/ e 1131c -1.ce9527E*0. -2.438353C-01 3 84752FE*94 2 435353E-01 -3 377967E*t1 61 2725150 01 -1 462920E*03
-1.A99199E*JC -1 796125E-en 1 894149E*te 1.7?6125E-91 196053E+01 -1 566802E+01
(> - 4.91756 3E- 5 2 18311 0.4 0.0 c.0 0.0 -4.917563E-82 ~4.917563E-92 ' C.8 0.4 P.0 6.0 -4.927565E-02 -9.917563C-02 , le -3.38517FC-04 11612 09 9.C , 0.0 9.9 -3 180177E-09 '3.190177E-39 0.5 ?.4 f.S 0.0 380177E-0+ -3 180177E-04 g f) 11011 -9.592342E=e2 3.963655E-91 9.592342C-02 -3 99 9655C-J1 -3 691573E-01 3.R50s35E-92 -7.591226E-61 1 4E+03 2.6043ehE .1 -1.590392E-31 -2 689380E-91 1.599302E-01 -9.971053E=e2 -6 285957E-81 b, (/ r
- * ~ ' J z;a .-
-gge., .. .j June 14,.1984 EQUIVALENCY OF IDADS & STRESSES LISTED IN TABLES 1 AMD 2' Note: +.= compression' UPPER LATERAL BEAM - = tension Concrete Tensile Strength = 0 psi Concrete Tensile Strength = 450 psi ~!
Max. Axial Bending Max. Max. i Axial- Bending- Maxf Item Thrust Str.ss Stress Stress Thrust Stress Stress i Stress (kips) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (kips) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) M si 0.5 Seconds
.E ~ comb. Pl+T2+Sl+M1
-2138* -6.0 -12.4 -18.4** - - - -
-**o.a Nas. 2a,2b,3 and 6
[ t 216 Seconds I t
.u. coa.b . P2+Tl+S2+MO +1591* +4.5 +0.8 +5.3 I +1178 +3.3 +3.8 +7.l** +3892* +10.9 +2.1 + 13 . 0 " -
in Nos. la,1b,5 and 8 l L U 4 216 Seconds Y
+7 l' +13.0
~'?ont.'P2+T1+S3+MO
+9.75 - - -
+ 9.75
' +16,.85** _
+22.75**
- - - - +3414* +9.6 +6.7 +16.3**
I e$ 216 Seconds --
/'
comb. P2+Tl+Sl+MO : tyg. , Mi y ?
. v P.< '. 3 i vi_ygJf 1 ,,'gty d ,* ,;3raint ', b 81 ! ..o No. 10 mi s .- i 4: . h . ;' , * '
cc e e/.ih n .i.n.poo P . :n- ! , ::n
~
[ :qi: Art 0 324 Seconds g emab. P2+Tl+SO+MO +2178* +6.1 +2.3 +8.4** +4918* +13.8 +1.9 +15.7** ll l-un Nos. 4,7 and 9 iy
- Tables 1&2 in Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti Regarding Upper Lateral Restraint Beam, May 20, 1984
- Values listed in Table 1, ** Values listed in Table 2,6***See Calculation:Sook No. SRB-4C3,. Set 1
.-------------_--,==---= --------------------------------------=----------------------------~~------------------
LEGEND - IDAD COMBINATIONS . P1 = Peak Pressure M1 = Peak mechanical loads - o? - Nominal (1 psi) pressure SO = No Seismic loads vt u Peak Temperature S1 = Maximum Seismic (incl. primary system seismic) T2 = Associated Temperature at given time S2 = Maximum Seismic (w/o primary system seismic) MO = No mechanical' loads S3 = Maximum Seismic (incl. primary a stem seismic added separately)
. n.. .m... . ; . ,,. _. - , . . _ .
. . .;) ,_.
- ~ _ - .
!,, Cab;!ator..Juma $2$ bol_c,_St:J 3 %.No. by _ Da's Bw. Da'a P s. 0.e Fbv. Dre 9W Da e Re.,wan T X X X X . b"1_ We. av ~S5e. crww mus XM li3 111s . 84 Q 0
?vR905E .
~ ~ ~ ~ - IN Resp 0NSE To NaC /BNL Pc80c5T (iI-13-84 if cefetc) .
Fou oWirdri, CAL CO L. ATI ON S ARE- PERFORMED n; EVALGATE TH5' SHEAla. STREsscs AT Ti4C- BASE OF S.G WALLS DURlf4G'2C PS) CONCRETE TENilLE. STRENGTH " CASES, DiSCVsstoN THE. 5. G , NALLS ARE PROV\DE.O WITH 5 HEAR. i Es1NFORCE*dlTFbR TWe FsTies AREA of: WA{ t q . 00T PUT ItvDicATEC S V: ALL. [ CoMPOTER AYl AL.- T6-N C I O N . As SPEclPIED iN Act 318 ~11 CL 11,4 'THE AucWABLE 3 l SHEAP. STRE55C5 (by Af.E- REDVCEb MPENDING ON THE i TENstLE F0flCEC 6%ISTitWs IN THE PLATCS , THE RESULTS ARE TAOULATED ON FoLLoWING silee.Ts ( sH 89 T3Ru lis) r CONC.LD Cl O tJ @.._ c ., l
= T}tE .SilEAR. STRESCES A P' E WELL. (3CLOW GC
.JLLOWABLE.S ( R E D y.C E D W HerJ Tcs.stoN ic;..
. PRCst t4T') Fog. THE. C'0HCRETE ITSELF. ADD) TION AL MARGid
~
l
~ 15 AyAtLA8ts WHEM COM81NtED CAPACIT'( OF TWE:
cogcRETE AND SHEAR. REINFoRc5 MEENT IS US$ b . - !O .. ChecWng Metnod # ; c r a' % ~ . ,.. F 166,7 52 t "a:l=2n.% n, ~,-
l Si t;ixt K o~ l- AN.u m : yox. _ ' Cakulation Number 5,gB-1G]C XE 4GcnEvi T3 TU i P_ (C GA CKED M@a.) S5-4, No. 8_7_ wu ~: u. m u. w a a u, ~ n. Prepror I. W ti l(-J(. W W X X H __ Yh
]
Je:kar ~ MM tt. lt , f4 ~
~
Ey PLANATiotd 0F DATA USED IN FoLLOWINt FAGes, __ N y , Ny = f ry PLANE Avt AL Fo2CES IN Z J Y DIRECTIONS RetPEC.Tl \lELY ( )c./'8 ) Co M PRES!!ON .
+ Te'.NGt 0 N
\/g , V y = O UT OF PLAN E SHEAft. FoR e a s Iw y AN.o 4.
M DIRE cTioN% R ES PECTIVELY ( k/ ")
.s ;
Vct Y -- S tE 5 H B B . ; j Uc. y ) vCAP y CAP M -{ , Vf - INolCATES SOM cF A8(oLUT& VALUES 1N KIP / tNcH/lN c.H REFERENctE 5 I3CPTF0F O PCATE --!C 4-H DWG N O - -
.' ]
~
S1-0519 R/4 , 0 5 22 ft/.3 os 2s R/5 icsv 8 R/ 3 i 5HeH! ReiNpResMcNT - si-os39 R/5.
~
51-o541 R/5 1 ChWN Mobcd # jER .* F 166, 7-82
.m..-.~---...
i
,m.- p
- s y
.n - w. -. . .. l .; i _p )
l . Subject kYl AN/*LYUG FCR bc'c i3EtiT ' TEMP.b'U.ci EO MoDELl ~ s .CabtatonNumber sRG- ' lac. 5ET 3_ Stes' No. 8 8 7 Aw.bn Y Dale M Date ~Rw Daw Rev. Diete re. Oa.e ! R
~
- i ha W, g34,- qU-6-8 X >< x j p
w uut u.s e
.a
~
+
FeoM Ac i 3i 6-71 . . i j M em s e 19 courgesw N Ve = 2 ( 1 -t '00o5 g E hh' d-G, ;
; A8 #
(cL1143} j M cM8es. w TemioN Ne, = 1(t- @o2.N M g , 1
, (cL tl.4 4) A; j .
% x. 4Uw Aes nim IN A. codcRETs Silcap. 572L=st IN
! x 4N tlRECTI095 RESPECTIKELY
' 'Q -
Vchp (sresQ . _ m-A o = - ( p .- b d aaS
. 1 e.oM cc. 11 G. I 11 - 1 3 -
3y ' ov As fu Ai u 2 b e. + bw s, W V 5 b.
-=. (0 8sd)%. =:. OMd y ( Oc,+ bw5 .
CAPgg i
~ '
. i.
~
.. _c-k*(steet_)::. o,86M gg '
3 ANO - nie, 6'd (Dcd b t .g-Y*
'~~ '~
e 1( v bw s
$NOTE ~.. %(rom.).
l.
- . 9R MEMfteR. W CaMPRCs$10N / Uc, WILL 6e O -
ra gan as o. i ze xsi conscuerivsty
@9$iS.7 M9M # ; c;*tO'0. m m . F 166. 7.sp l
! '""* M EI '"E . _ _- __ _ ._.----. _ ._ .- _._. _ .- _ . _ . _ _ _ _
e
~
l ; L C' [fx . .. .-; - rkc IOS uT T:M P. (c N cKEQ M co&-) _ (-[:5.__9_$N_ _bNE. .$__8bI__l410
$@l3_.MYN --
N
.wm t c , Dam Rw De Rev Das Fw Dra %
~
Dam
~
X R~ 12fl1 I
,Itfralf4
>X X X i bzaw M ais .
cw*s Mt k ir.is-g4 e
._....'. . IL MIE- lD l
~
80I . i CcNC . TENitLE STit.ENGT H ==. O ,0 /Se* .. COM PARTMENT hlO ; I . . OVERALL DEPTH =48 im,k j E.FFEC.T(Vs bePTH= 44
$ HEAR. RC)MORCF-fdENT= # 7 G 2 d " 5.c4>.
7 .- Y Y D Ct UC,1 C #^P Sh Ch'"1 .(Kl"2 .(M/"_)--(k/"h.WL,ks0___ hM'cx)/"hl f @AP @h 10- -2.53 -0 OcG - 11.2 4 -0 197 0 12 G ,o.12 4 - D* 2M 3.S7 12 14 _( 8 8). 16
-0 3G5 -o 0 23G ~4 02 0 0344 L i o .0 55 e s ;
(86) .'
- 20. -1 69 ~c \76 -12 77 2 499 2 674
_ _ULQ)_. - 2b -0 05I c.3l7 -4. G 7 1 61 2.I22 (eS}
. W 3 -!. 3 0 , -o , ldS - f t. G4 2,19 y 2 965
~
go) e v 9 3' y' t!
-b 94 -0 004 -d'aG ,
- o. 2e73 o .12 t, o .12C c.20 3,37 .12.H t . . . . ... .
g .... . .. . . .
.. . # . . . O'1H, .3NeAn . Of 2e45S.. .
unelut.. l.ae4. .f @ fros3 m
. . . . . -- .'/f C oin c oden./ . }e.mf. (}k SSS csjt cemsbh.....3 'er1, . . . ..
C h t i:r.; M e 5 x # j n:.'; fr.%,, m., p.166, 7-82
; N'!MLT.; f, %,-o.-
_ _ _ _ . _-}}