ML20105C761
| ML20105C761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1984 |
| From: | Con V, Le A FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Nilesh Chokshi NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16152A418 | List: |
| References | |
| 42904, 42905, 42906, IEB-80-11, TER-C5506-232, NUDOCS 8402070447 | |
| Download: ML20105C761 (61) | |
Text
-
ATTACHMENT 1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4
i '
MASONRY WALL DESIGN
- DUKE POWER COMPANY
- OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 NRC DOCKET NO. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 42904, 42905, 42906 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 i NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC43-81 180 FRC TASK 232 i
Prepared by Franklin Research Center Author: V. N. Con, A. K. Le-20th and Race Streets j Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con -
y Prepared for 1
Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: N. Chokshi 1
l February 2, 1984 I
i This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of tne United States
. Government. Neitner the United States Government nor any agency tnereof. or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or irnplied, or assumes any legal lisoility or .
responsability for any third party's use, or tne results of sucn use. of any information, aMa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infnnge pnvately owned ngnts.
i a l
1 I
! O lj00. Franklin Research Center
'1 A Division of The Franklin Institute The W Fransen Pennsey. Phda. Pt 19103 (21S> 448 8000 8tjo W 7 0 N T M 8
blPP _ _ _ .
e TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT MASONRY WALL DESIGN .
DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 NRC DOCKET NO. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 FRC PROJECT C5606 NRC TAC NO. 42904, 42905, 42906 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC 0341 180 FRC TASK 232 Preparedby '
Franklin Research Center Author: V. N. Con, A. K. Le 20th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con Prepared for Nucieer Ragulatory Commission .
Washington, D.C. 20555 Land NRC Engineer: N. Chokshi February 2, 1984
. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
, Govemment. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof. or any of their employees, makeJ any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsability for any third party's use. er the results of such use of any information. appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third perty would not infringe privately owned rights.
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:
- v. we ca, s. k. & .A/LL, Principal Author Department OlMtors/
Date- 7-2-74 Date: 4-A- M Date: 2 V4 1
[O.h JL Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute l
The Benenen Fransen Penresy. Phde.. Pa. 19103 (21S) des 1000 l
^
,b
. . . . . . .. . -. . .~. -
- 1 1
i N R-C5506-232 :
i i
CONN NTS Section Title y,ag,e,e 1 Imm000CTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Issue Background . . . . . . . ., . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 1 2 REVIEW CRINRIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 NCENICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 5
~
3.1 Evaluation of Licen5ee's Criteria . . . .' . . . 5 3.2 Evaluation of Licennee's Approach to Wall Jeodifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4 COICLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5 MPERNCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 APRMIX A - SSB CRIMRIA FOR SAPETY-RELAND MASONRY WALL EVALUATION (DEVEIDMD BY TE STRUCTURAL AND SORCBNICAL ENGIMERING BRANCE [SGEB] OF TE NBC)
APMNDIX B - TYPICAL ARRANGEMNT OF MASONRY MP LLS
~
APR NDIX C - TYPICAL NALL W TAILS
, APMNDIX D - SCEMATIC EPREENTATION OF MALL MODIFICATIONS APR NDIX E - MASONRY WALL DATA SIR 94ARY I
l l
iii 4n-b l 1
3dJ FrankNn Research Center . a Allbauen af The Pseuen buemme l
-- - - - _. . . _ _ . . - - . . .=--- : a - - -
^%
TER-C5506-232 i
FORENORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of Nac operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the IntC.
l I
4N # _'
~ 2b1] Franidin Resean:h Ce6ter A Oduman of The Piusman asemano I
' ~
~
.,.:~
_ __ ,_. - . _ . - . . . - . - . ~ ._- - _ -. . - -
a l.
N R-C5506-232
- 1. INTRLDUCTION i
1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW l i '
Re purpose of this review is to provide technical evaluations of l j
t licersee responses to II Eulletin 80-11* (1) with respect to compliance with '
the maclear Regulatory Chamission (NRC) masonry wall criteria. In addition, if a licensee has planned repair wek on ansonry walls, the planned methods and procedures are to be reviewed for acceptability.
1.2 WNERIC ISSUE EACEGROUND In the course of conducting inspections at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, Portland General Electric Company determined that some conc, rete masonry walls did not have adequate structural strength. Further investigation indicated I that the problem resulted from errors in engineering judgment, a lack of
, established procedures and procedural details, and inadequate design criteria. Because of the implication of simitar deficiencies at other operating plants, the NRC issued IE Bulletin 80-11 on Nay 8,1980.
IE Bulletin 80-11 required licensees to identify plant masonry walls and their intended functions. Licensees were also required to present reevaluation criteria for the masonry walls with the analyses to justify those criteria.
If modifications were proposed, licensees were to state the methods and y schedules for the modifications.
i 1.3 FIANT-SPECIFIC BACIGROUND In response to IE Eulletin 80-11, Oconee Nuclear Station provided the NRC I
with letters and attachments describing the status of masonry walls at Oconee I maclear Station (2, 3, 4] . On the basis of information supplied by the Licensee, the status of the masonry walls at this plant was reviewed. As a '
result of this review, a list of questions was sent to the Licensee (5), to which the Licensee has responded (6] .
i
- Numbers in brackets indicate references, wipich are cited in Section 5.
- A. -
- L Frankun
% .# n r Research
.. Ce.nter
~
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. . - - .~ L. - - = - - = = =
. . _ . - _ _ , _ . . r, _ - . . ., _ _ ,-- --- , ,
J l
l TER-C5506-232 h i:otal of 299 ansonry walls have been identified as safety-related walls at Oconee Raclear Power Station [6] . S e functions of the masonry walls are listed below:
- 1. partitions
- 2. in-fill panels
~
- 5. radiation barriers.
So walls are single- and multigthe (974 are single-wythe) and are constructed of bollow or grouted concrete blocks. All masonry walls are nonstructural. Typical arrangements of these walls are shown in Appendix B.
Appendix C outlines the construction details.
Materials used in construction are as follows:
1 Concrete Blocks AS1M C-90, fe' = 1000 psi Mortar AS1M C-270, no = 750 psi Joint Reinforcement ASTM A-42, fy = 70,000 psi.
A total of 82 walls have been qualified using the a-ching theory (further discussion of this theory is provided in Response 7 of Section 3.1) . The remaining walls have been qualified by the working stress design method.
, Se Licensee reported that no modification was recnized. Bowever, some modifications were instituted only to provide an added margin of safety for I
- .several walls that are generally taller than normal and/or experience greater seismic acceleration than other walls in the plant.
Se Licensee has relied upon the arching action technique to qualify some masonry walls. NBC, FRC, and FRC's consultants (Drs. E. Barris and A. Basid of Drexel IRtiversity) have conducted an exhaustive review of this subject j based os submittals provided by the Licensee and published literature and have concluded that the available data in the literature do not give enough insight for understanding the mechanics and performance of unreinforced masonry walls under cyclic, fully reversed dynamic loading. As a result, a meeting with representatives of the affected piants was held at the NRC on November 3,1982 so that the NRC and FRC's staff and consultants could explain why the glJ.uu p Frankhn
" Research Center A Chaman af The Peuman musene "
- . _ . . , . , - - ,--,,,,,,,,.n-.. -
_ 'i .- . _ i l
l TER-C5506-232 I
applicability of arching theory of masonry walls in nuclear power plants is questionable [7]. In a subsequent meeting on January 20, 1983, consultants of utility compnies presented their rebuttals [8] and requested that they be treated on a plant-by-plant basis.
In accordance with the above request, NBC, FRC, and consultants visited Coonee Nuclear Fower station on May 25-27, 1983 to examine the field conditions of unreinforced masonry walls in the plant and to gain first-hand knowledge of how arching theory is applied to actual walls. Estensive review and discussion took place during this visit, with particular emphasis on the arching theory. Further discussion on this subject is provided in Section 3.1. As a result of this audit meeting, a list of action items was sent to the Licensee (9], to which the,, Licensee has responded [10,11] .
l 4.. '
n iluUJ Frankun Research Center 4 m. n r==s. m a
.g...
M R-C5506-232
- 2. IRVIEW CRIN RIA me basic documenta used for guidance in this review were the criteria developed by the Structural and Geote::hnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) of the WRC (include ( as Appendix A to this report), the Uniform Building Code [12],
and ACI 531-79 [13].
Se materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the SGER criteria.
Per operating plants, the loads and load combinations for qualifying the masonry walls should conform to the appropriate specifications in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the plant. Allowable stresses are specified in Reference 13, and the appropriate increase factors for abnormal and extreme environmental loads are given in the SGEB criteria (Appendix A) .
I l
l M FranWin awwwRes, ear.ch. Ce.n'er
~ . . - _ _ . _ . . _ _ , - . - . . _ . . . _ . - . _ . _ - , . - - - .. . . , _ . - - - -_- - . _ . - _ . . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . ---
1 TER-C5506-232 4
l
- 3. TECENICAL EVALUATION 4
This technical evaluation is based on the Licensee's earlier submittalt.
j [2, 3, 4], and subsequent responses [6,10,11] to the Mac requests for additional information [5, 9). The Licensee's criteria were evaluated with I
regard'to design and analysis methods, loads and load combinations, allowable l stresses, construction specifications, materials, and any relevant test data.
3.1 EVALCATION OF LICENSEI'S CRITERIA The Licensee has evaluated the masonry walls using the following criteria: ,
o Allowable stresses were based on ACI 531-79 (13].
+
o Both the working stress design method ar.d arching theory were used to qualify the walls. Of 299 safety-related walls, 82 have been qualified by arching theory.
o Loads and load ceinations were those specified in the plant FSAR.
o A critical damping value of 24 was used for both operating basis
- earthquake (CEE) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSR) .
i o A test program was conducted to verify the assumed values used for ansonry and nortar strength.
, o The typical analytical procedure is summarised below:
- Determine wall boundary conditions.
- Calculate the wall's fundamental frequency using either a one-way or two-way action assumption.
~
- obtain inertial loading from the floor response spectra.
- Compare computed stresses with the allowable values in ACI 531-79.
i l De Licensee's criteria [3] and responses [6,10,111 have been reviewed by Fac and its consultants. In addition, an audit visit was conducted by NRC, Fac, and Fac's consultants on May 25-27, 1983 to gain first-hand knowledge about the actual halls' conditions in the plant and how their conditions are f
reflected in the analysis. During this audit, each ites of the Licensee's l
responses dated June 15, 1982 (6) was reviewed. The applicability of arching n = 5-
'J' U' Frenidn Research Center
. A Chuman af The Psaluan humane "
w , . , - - - - - ~ ,,-y-------- -v w. - - - - - --- ryrvy eg-
l TER-C5506-232 theory was discussed. Several key calculations were also reviewed. As a
! result of this audit a list of action items was sent to the Licensee [9] to which the Licensee has responded [10, 111.
Following is the review of the Licensee's responses [6,10,11]. [ Notes questions arising from the audit meeting on May 25-27, 1983 [9] will be identified.]
Question 1 In Reference 3, the Licensee states that the final reevaluation report will include the detailed justification for the criteria used. Provide this detailed justification for review.
i Resnonse 1 .. ,
It should be noted that in Reference 3, the Licensee only briefly stated i
the design criteria without providing detailed justification for each ites in the design criteria. In this response, the Licensee provided the appropriate i detailed justification for the criteria used, which is summarized below:
Governine Code: ACI 531-79 was selected as the governing code.
i Loads and Load combinetions: Design loadings for ansonry walls at the 1
Oconee plant are those specified in the Oconee Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 5.7.
Materials: The properties of the mortar were assumed to be the lowest grade nortar permitted under the governing code. In addition, a test program was conducted to verify the assigned values for material
, - - properties. Further discussion of the test results is give,n in Response S.
Ana1Ysis and Design: Steps taken in the analysis of the Sasonry walls l are briefly described below: l
- Appropriate BMW*y conditions are chosen dependent upon the wall f configuration.
- The natural frequency of the wall is determined by considering i either one-way or two-way action.
)
Inertial loading is specified from the floor response spectrum.
l 4JGU Franklin Research Center l
. A Chamus of The Muuan summe m l
=.
, , , . - . . ._ . . - - - ---+
. - - - - - - ~ - * = * - - ' ~
- TER-C5506-232 Seismic inertial and at*=eh= ant loads are applied to the wau and the resulting distribution of shear and bending soment is calculated and checked against the code allowables.
Se Licensee's justification for the design criteria is technically adequate and satisfactory.
Question 2 Provide a table showing the actual stresses and the allowable stresses of analysed wans.
Response 2 Se Licensee provided a table (see Appendix I) inustrating the resultant stresses along with the appropriate code anowebles for all safety-related masonry walls. According to this table, 41 wous have been' qualified relying on an increase factor greater than 1.3 for tension normal to bed joint (varies between 1.47 and 1.67) . Further discussion of the increase factor will be given in Response 10.
Other than the increase factor for tension normal to the bed joint, all stresses are found to be satisfactory and in compliance with SGES criteria.
Question 3 with reference to Section 5.1.2 of anference 3, justify the assumed 12 poi anowable shear stress in collar joints. Also provide any existing
. test data and discuss the applicability to the Oconee masonry walls.
Response 3 The Licensee stated that the couar joint shear stress allowables are not addressed in the governing code and that 12 psi is considered to be a conservative estimate. During an audit meeting on May 25-27, 1983, several calculations were checked, and the resulting collar joint shear stress was much less than 12 psi. (It can be seen from Appendix E that the maximum calculated shear stress is 2.25 pai.) Furthermore, as specified by other plants, the test results obtained from a number of 3/8-in collar joints at l
. L. Frankun Research Center -
1 A(hamma af The huumdse anmamme
~ - - . . _ . , ,
g.
i s 1BR-C5506-232
, the Trojan Nuclear Plant indicated that 12 poi is an appropriate value. In view of this, the Licensee's response is satisfactory and in compliance with the SGER criteria.
Question 4 (Audit meeting, May 25-27, 1983, Reference 9)
, with reference to Section 6.1.4 of Reference 3, provide justification for
! the boundary conditions and indicate whether adequate shear transfer nochanisms exist at supported boundaries. [Fote: the concern is whether the mortar joint alone at the 5%ey is able to transfer shear.]
Responsej i h Licensee stated that masonry walls were surveyed and the boundary conditions were determined. The selected boundary conditions are typically simple and/or free. Furthermore, as a result of the audit meeting on May 25-27, 1983, the Licensee provided the computation of the boundary shear stress in Beforence n. The worst-case maximum shear stress is 23.7 psi as compared to the 58.1 psi an owable. Typically, the calculated shear stress is less than 15 pai. It should be noted that the boundary shear stress was calculated based on an assumed value of f,' of 1000 poi, which is l considerably smaller than that obtained on the basis of a test of masonry samples removed from the Oconee plant (see Response 8 for further details) .
In addition, the assumed thickness for the face shell was 1 1/4 in, which results in a conservative area for the fire-rated blocks which have a minimum face shell thickness of 13/4 in.
l
~
Eased on the information provided by the Licensee, it is judged that the Licensee's response is technically adequate and in compliance with the SGER criteria.
Question 5 With reference to Section 6.1.2 of Reference 3, indicate the number of modes considered and provide detailed modal anlysis.
g4 ,
A;U Franklin a w w Resea.rch w r. yCenter _
_ - _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:-=-_.- - , - -
i TER-C5506-232 l
Resoonse 5 i
with regard to the effects of higher modes of vibration, the Licensee provided a typical calculation illustrating the negligible contribution of t
higher modes to the response of the wall. S e awamiand wall is 18 ft long and 14 ft tall, simply supported on all sides. A modal analysis was performed l using STRERI. DrlmL program. Se results of the first three modes extracted j
from the solution indicated that the first mode of vibration contributed close I
to 100% of the total response.
For all practical purposes, the first mode should adequately cover the _
total responses of the walls. It has been found, in many cases of other plants, that the first mode usually contributes 954 or more to the total responses. Berefore, it can.be concluded that the Licensee's approach is satisfactory and in compliance with the SGIB criteria.
Question 6 (Audit meeting, May 25-27, 1983, Reference 9)
Ifith reference.to page 5 of Reference 4, justify the use of average floor spectra instead of the envelope for seismic analysis.
t Response 6 Te justify the use of average response spectra between the floors, the Licensee indicated that a value of 24 critical damping used for both OBE and SSE should compensate for unanamervative estimates of acceleration based on the average response spectra.
l Se Licensee has reviewed all applicable spectra, and the results show that, for 24 critical damping, the typical reduction in peak acceleration is between 12% to 150 when average spectra are used and the maximum reduction was
, 264. Bowever, a review of response spectra for Se damping (note that SGES l criteria allow up to 74, but the coonee plant does not have response spectra higher than 54) shows that increasing the damping value from 2% to 54 reduces ;
l the peak acceleration by approminately 354 in all cases. If response spectra for 7% damping were available, further reduction in peak acceleration would be expected. Since low damping was used in the analysis and based on the results
- duuu Frankan Research Camer
~
A Dammen af The Fm bunnse
. , . _ . -. . . . _ ~-_.-_. .
- + - - -,,w- --w--g,---e.,e,wr-- --- ,,,-gm--- v--, . , - - _ , - , , - - , ---gw w- y-- --iw,,,vw-- -,-.r-w
TER-C5506-232 given by the Licensee, it is concluded the Licensee's assessment is technically adequate and meets the intent of the SGER criteria.
Question 7 (Audit meeting, May 25-27, 1943, Reference 9)
In Reference 3, ths Licensee indicates that the arching theory has been used to qualify some masonry walls. Se Nac, at present, does not accept the application of this ta=%ue to ansonry walls in nuclear power plants in the absence of conclusive evidence to justify this application. S e Licensee is requested to indicate the number of walls l , which have been analysed by this technique and to provide resulting stresses and disp 1memments.
l I S e following areas need technical verification before any conclusion can be made about the arching theory o Esplain how the arching theory handles cyclic loading, especially when the load is reversed.
o Provide justification and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of the arching theory to the ansonry structures at i
Coonee Nuclear Power Station, with particular emphasis on the
! following areas:
- a. nature of the load,
- b. toundary conditions,
- c. material strength, and
- d. size of the test wall.
l o If hinges are formed in the walls, the capehility of the structures to resist in-plane shear force would be diminished, and shear failure might take place. h is in-plane shear force would also reduce the out-of-plane stiffness.' Explain how the effect of this phenomenon can be accurately determined.
1
- Resoonse 7 l S e Licensee indicated that arching analysis was employed for walls well
! confined in a relatively stiff reinforced concrete frame. With regard to technical verification, the Licensee referred to tests performed by Gulkan '
et al. [14, 15,,16] (usually referred to as the Berkeley tests) and McDowell et al. [17] and claimed that the loading types in [14,15,16) are very similar '
)
to actual seismic loading. Se Licensee also stated that, in the Berkeley i
- tests, it was observed that arching action did occur in some test panels. ,
renkun
~.,Research. A
.- Center l
_ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _-_ . uu. 1 - _ _ = _ _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _ ; _ .= - . _ - _ _. . - - - - - -
[.
TER-C5506-232 NRC stal'f, FRC, and FRC's consultants have conducted an exhaustive review of available information on this subject and of licensees' responses to determine the technical adequacy of the methodology. In addition, the results of the audit meeting with Oconee personnel on May 25-27, 1983 indicated that there are no test data available which are directly applicable to the walls in the plant.
According to Attachment 1 ef Reference 6 the following walls have been qualified by arching actions
- 0457 0463 0464 0481 0507 0005 0006 0019 0020 0041 0049 0050 0062 0063 0064 0079 0080 0001 0091 0093 0094 0104 0108 0109 0123 1001 1004 1005 l 1201 1205 1211 1216 1400 1414 1231 1232 1233 1236 1237 1238 1239 1243
.1245 1248 1255 1261127012971303130613151317F 1321F 0001F 0002F 0202 0223 0224 0228 0232 0269 1100 1101 1159 0600 0615 0628 0809 0811 0836 0838 0848F 0719 0061 0062.
In addition, aeference 10 indicated that wall 1215 was reanalysed by arching action and six more unidentified walls were also reenalyzed by arching action. In all, 82 walls have been qualified by arching action.
FRC and its consultants have issued their evaluation and assessment of the use of arching action in ansonry walls (7,18]. The Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (8GER) has issued a position statement regarding this subject which will be addressed in their Safety Evaluation
. moport.
Question 8 Reference 3 indicated that a test program was conducted to determine the prise strength and nortar strength and that test results confirmed the chosen values. The Licensee is requested to submit the test results (i.e., test procedures, results of individual block strength, and prism
,. strength).
Response 8 _.
The test program was conducted by the Licensee to confirm ansonry and mortar strength. The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM C140 for i
I j
. tenhNn Reneerch Center ~
A human af The Piuman muunne
' )
\
TER-C5506-232 the masonry units and ASTM E447 for the masonry prisms. Samples were removed l from the walls for testing. Test results are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Test results in Table 2 show that block type I has the lowest strength with a minimum compressive strength of 1450 psi and a maximum of 2040 pai.
Based on Section 2404 of the Uniform Building Oode [12), the compressive strength can be deduced from the test results and could be 1812 pai (125% of the minimum test value), which is significantly higher than the assumed value of f,' = 1000 psi used in the analysis. With' respect to the mortar strength, the results of the individual block tests shown in Table 1 and of the prism tests shown in Table 2 evidently indicate that the mortar strength is likely to be higher than the assumed value of 750 psi. Based on this information, it can be concluded that the assumed values for masonry and mortar strength used in the analysis are conservative and in compliance with the SGEB criteria.
Question 9 With reference to Se= tion 5.2.1(b) of Reference 3, indicate whether the 54 damping is applied to the operating basis earthquake (OBE) as well as the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) . If 5% damping is applied to the OBE, justify this deviation from the SGEB criteria which specify 4% damping for the OBE.
Resoonse 9 Se Licensee stated that a 5% damping value was not applied to OBE. A 2%
-damping value was used for both OBE and SSE. Further details on, this subject were given in Response 6.
He response is technically adequate and in compliance with the SGEB criteria.
Question 10 With reference to Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.S of Reference 3, justify the proposed 67% increase in allowable stresses for the SSE, thermal effects, and displacement loads. For factored loads, the SGER criteria suggest 50% increase in allowable stresses for the reinforcement shear and masonry tension parallel to the bed joint and 30% increase in allowable stresses for masonry shean and tension normal to the bed joint.
' 4Wh Frarddin Research Center . A Onamen af The Feepuen meanse _
e- -ss o . a.
TER-C5506-232 Table 1. Results of Individual Block yests Compressive St'rength Net' Area Block Tvoe* (osi)
I 2900 I 3110 1 2930 1 2280 I 2730 I 3740 I 3630 I 3060 1 3070 I 3820 II 3420 II --
3640 III 2510 III 3290 III 3120 III 3230 IV 5590 IV 5020 IV 4150 IV 4480 IV 4500 IV 3980 IV 4250 4
~
IV 4600 IV 4470
- Block types are as follows:
Type I Non-fire-rated Block Type II: Fire-rated Block Type III: Fire-rated Block Type IV: Fire-rated Block N ,
r e e=r.sm-
u.. : .. -.. ?- .- -. .- , .:_ -. - - - ~. - - - - . - - - - -
TER-C5506-232 l
1 Table 2. Results of Frisa Tests l
compressive Strength Net Area Block Type * (osi)
I 2040 1 1930 I 2030 I 1450 II 1540 III 2000 III 1800 IV 2910 IV 2900 IV 2440
- Slack types are as follows:
Type Is Non-fire-rated Block Type II: Fire-rated Block Type III: Fire-rated Block Type IV: Fire-rated Block i
e I
I l
A 0mumme of The Pm numane
' ^ ' ' ~
, . _ _? _ . . _ - . . - ._-.~...___,.-_......__,.,_-___-_.-__,. ._.?,-.
\
l 1
l
'm R-C5506-232 Response 10 1 j
Review of Appendix E indicated that the only increase factor greater than the SGEB factor is tension normal to bed joint. As previously discussed in Ansponse 2, for tension normal to the bed joint, an increase factor which varies between 1.47 and 1.67 (as opposed to 1.3 by the SGEB criteria) has been used to qualify 41 masonry walls. Bowever, the Licensee stated that the test results illustrated that the chosen values for the mortar and prism strength are conservative. Information regarding the test results was given in Response 8. By correlating the in-place properties determined by tests with the chosen values, the actual increase in allowable stresses is much less than the 1.67 assumed increase factor. In fact, if the test values were used, the actual increase factor would be in compliance with the SGEB criteria. In addition, a critical damping of 2% (as opposed to 7% as specified in the SGEB criteria) was used, which should result in a conservative estimate for stretas calculation. Because of this, it is concluded that the Licensee's assumption meets the intent of the SGEB criteria.
Question 11 with reference to Section 5.1.3 of neference 3, justify the formula used for allowable stress in grout core tension. [ Note: in Reference 3 the Licensee specified 2.5 % as the allowable stress in grout core tension).
Response 11 with respect to the formula 2.5 /f'c used for allowable strest in grout core tension, the Licensee referred to a value of 7.5 /f'c for the modulus of rupture of concrete given in ACI 318-71, and a factor of safety of 3 is applied to obtain 2.5 /f'c. Because the formula is for plain concrete, it is judged that the value used by the Licensee is adequate and satisfactory, i
Question 12 _
l Provide details of proposed wall modifications with sample drawings and explain, using sample calculations, how these modifications will rectify the wall deficiencies. Also, provide a status report for the proposed wall modifications.
(.id, J Frenidin Research Center
~
4o e n. r -.
i M R-C5506-232 Rosconse 12
~
l ne Licensee's response indicated that the modifications have been i instituted to provide an added margin of safety for several of the walls that j ' are generally taller than normal and/or experience greater seismic acceler-l ation and that there are no modifications to bring the walls' responses within j the Licensee's acceptance criteria.
S e Licensee has provided a typical modification in which steel beams have been placed horisontally to reduce the vertical span and hence reduce the bending acaent of the well. (See Appendix D for a schematic representation of van modification.)
Since no actual modification was needed to bring the wall within the design allowable, it is concluded that the concern has been resolved satisfactorily.
I i
" Question 13 (Audit aseting, May 25-27, 1983, Reference 9) 1 I
Assess the influence of hairline cracks observed in two wall panels
(-0633, -1215) on the wall qualification calculations.
Rosconse 13
- - A vertical crack in wall 0633 was observed at the boundary of the
) concrete column and masonry wall. 21s wall was previously qualified by (
two-way flexure. Subsequent to the original qualification, a cable tray support attachment was removed from the wall. A reanalysis of the wall considering one-way vertical span was done, and the calculated stress level l
was within the 83 5 acceptance criteria.
Diagonal hairline cracks were observed in wall 1215. 21s wall was I
originally qualified by two-way flexure. So wall has been reanalyzed and i qualified by arching action. Discussion on arching action was given in Response 7.
S e Licensee's response is considered adequate and satisfactory.
Bowever, with regard to arching action, it can be seen from Response 7 that wall 1215 is not acceptable. 21s issue will be addressed by the NBC in their Safety Evaluation Report.
4.Juu Franklin Research Center %16-
. a m- e n. r m . ---
I t - , . - . ..
, ..,.m., -no- '""O -
TER-C5506-232 Question 14 (Audit meeting, May 25-27, 1983, Reference 9)
Conduct a field surveillance of safety-related masonry walls at Oconee to identify existing cracks so that their influence can be assessed.
Response 14 S e Licensee conducted the requested field surveillance to assess the influence of cracks on the ==-ey wans. Bere are 62 wans with hairline cracks (including the two walls in Response 13) . Se 62 wans were originally qualified as fonows:
21 walls qualified by onway flexure 26 wous qualified by two-way flexure
- .15 walls qualified by arching action. .
To assess the influence of cracks, the cracked area was considered ineffective in resisting tension in the reanalysis. He results of the reevaluation showed that four walls previously qualified by two-way flexure are now qualified by arching action and one wall previously qualified by one-way flexure is now qualified by arching action. Se remaining walls were qualified
- by the same techniques previously used. He results are summarized below
21 valla qualified by one-way flexure 20 walls qualified by two-way flexure l
__ 21 wans qualified by arching action.
Other than walls qualified by arching action (see further discussion in M 7), the remaining wans are considered to be structural 11 adequate -
and in compliance with the SGES criteria.
i Question 15 (Audit meeting, May 25-27, 1983, aeference 9) l l
Justify neglecting out-of-plane drift for a generic panel by using a j sample calculation.
j Response 15 with respect to the'effect of out-of-plane drift effect, the Licensee provided a sample calculation to justify neglecting its effect. A generic N
~ d, d Franken Research Center ._,
A Ehuman af The Poeman humane
, - s ,- .-
+ w- , . . . .w.m,n,- ,e -,,-<m--- , - -, , - - ,, , , _,- ---e,o e-- , - --
_ , , ., ~,_--..y ,>.
j .
i-l TER-C5506-232 panel was selected for this investigation. Both simple-support and fixed-end conditions were assumed, and the results illustrated that the tensile stress in the pinned walls is greater than in the fixed-end wall. (S e maximum i
bending stress la the fixed-end case is 10.3 psi, as compared to 11.25 pai for ;
1 l the pinned-end case.) l prom the information above, it is judged that the Licensee is justified in neglecting the out-of-plane drift effect.
Question 16 (Audit meeting, Fay 25-27, 1983, Esference 9)
Check walls qualified on the basis of dur-o-wall joint reinforcing to determine if allowable sasonry stresses are satisfied neglecting such joint reinforeing. .
I j Ressorise 16 l Se Licensee stated that, in the process of upgrading certain ansonry walls to achieve added margin of safety, seven ansonry walls wa 3 replaced.
Se new walls were constructed of hollow core masonry with M t wetar.
C1015.3 channels were anchored to the concrete solumss and W1 beams were installed vertically between the supporting concrete fraser 3, iheavy duty joint reinforcement was placed in every horisontal bed joint.
A reanalysis was performed for these walls neglecting the effects of the joint reinforcement. Se first of these procedures assumes that the wall spans horisontally between the steel members. All ammaary walls were found to be acceptable by the SGES criteria for horisontal bending stresses when the Dur-o-wal joint reinforcement is neglected.
~
In the second method, the wall was modeled by the finite element schere.
This method includes the effect of vertical span bending being induced in the wall by the deflection of the steel beams. Again, the results showed that, when neglecting the effect of the Dur-Meal joint reinforcement, both horizontal and vertical bending stresses satisfied the SGER criteria. >
Therefore, it is concluded that these walls are structurally adequate and in compliance with the SGIB criteria.
. J Frenidn Research Center =-.
A Ohmmma af The Psusuem tumisse
-*-e=w~* * ----e p__ _g4g w
,n - _ ,
- , _ _ , . . , _ _ , _ . ,,7_, , , , . , , _ _ . , ,
i i
[ W R-C5506-232 i
Ouestion 17 (Audit meeting, May 25-27, 1983, Eeference 9)
Provide a detailed discussion with regard to the adequacy of the masonry missile shield in the reactor building as discussed in the May 27 meeting.
EnSIE>tS91.7
{ m'ith respect to missile impact, the Licensee identified two walls as being subject to possible missile strike. Se Licensee also provided five types of missiles with highest calculated penetration, as follows:
Missile 1: Core flood line, missile class III,14-in cv bonnet and assembly
- Missile 2
- Core flood line, missile class III,14-in 70 valve bonnet and
, assembly 1
l Missile 3: RV outlet line to LP system, missile class III,10-in EMO valve bonnet and assembly Missile 4: Primary pump seal water return to EP system, missile class l III, 3-in EMO valve bonnet and assembly
- Missile 5: Letdown cooler inlet and outlet lines, missile class III, !
1-1/2-in EMD valve bonnet and assembly.
i All of the missiles are from piping systems. Se analysis for missile impact follows the method presented in the Oconee FSAR (Section 3.5, Missile i
Protection). According to this method, the maxiana penetration calculated for Missile 1 above is 1.38 ft and for Missiles 2 through 5 is between 1.28 ft and 1.37 ft. mence, they do not fully penetrate the missile shields, whose
- thickness is about 5 ft.
Since the block wall in this case is solid and only 3.4 ft high and the thickness of the missile shield is much greater than the penetration depth, the Licensee's response is considered to be adequate and satisfactory.
3.2 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S APPROACH TO ISLL MODIFICATIONS As previously indicated in Section 3.1, all walls have been qualified either by the working stress design method or by arching action. No actual
~
ranidin Research Ceiner A h of The Psenaan kuunne .
,--,,-,,w- w, - - - . , - - - - , - , , . , , , . - . - , , , - - , , , - . - - - - . ----r ,,-. - - - , - --n ..n-, .-, .- -- ,- , ,-
- m . - <
.~ .. --
p . .--
.= :. . .. ;-_...
O TER-C5505-232 l
modification was required. However, the Licensee instituted some modifications to provide an added margin of safety for several walls that are generally taller than normal and/or experience greater seismic acceleration.
l l
i I
x, s I l
l i
I 1
I
-20 P()'~~
sS ) FranWin Research Center AOsmenenofTheF m %
- .. h e
- 4. CONCLUSIONS
- A detailed study was conducted to provide a technical evaluation of the masonry walls at the Oconee Nucigar Power Station. Based on the SGER criteria, the Licensee's submittals and additional information provided by the Licensee have been reviewed and the following conclusions have been reached.
The Licensee's criteria have been found technically adequate and in compliance with the SGER criteria except for the following areas o Bigher stress increase factors were used for tension normal to the bed
, joint (1.67 as opposed to 1.3 by the SGEB criteria) to qualify 41 i ansonry walls (see Response 10 for further details) . However, a test program was conducted, and the test results illustrated that, if the masonry and nortar strength based on the test results were used, the
- actum1 increase factos.would 'oe in compliance with the SGEB criteria.
In addition, a critical damping of 24 (as opposed to 74 as specified in the SGER criteria) was used, which should result in a conservative estimate for st.ress calculation. Therefore, it can be concluded that
! the Licensee's increase factors are technically adequate and meet the intent of the SGER criteria.
o with regard to arching theory, the following walls are affected: l 0457, 0463, 0464, 0481, 0507, 0005, 0006, 0019, 0020, 0041, 0049, '
0050, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0079, 0080, 0081, 0091, 0093, 0094, 0104, ;
0108, 0109, 0123, 1001., 1004, 1005, 1201, 1205, 1211, 1216, 1400, l 1414, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1236, 1237, 1238,-1239, 1243, 1245, 1248, 1255,1261,1270,1297,130 3,1306,1315,1317F,1321F, 0001F, 0002F, l 0202, 0223, 0224, 0228, 0232, 0269, 1100, 1101, 1159, 0600, 0615, 0628, 0809, 0811, 0836, 0838, 0848F, 0719, 0061, 0062,1215, and six i unidentified wcils mentioned in Response 7. As previously discuccod in Response 7, the NRC does not accept the use of arching action in qualifying the walls, and this issue will be addressed in its Safety l
, Evaluation Report. i
- 1 l
l I
- , 4 '
- -h Frar%n
% e n. rResearc.h
===nn. Center _
_s e a_ #~ % t k 4, - - - - - - --,4 , -r. , . - . - - - , . . , . . - - - - . .e - -- - _ . - , - e- --,y. -
, 1, . ,
. . _ . . - _- 4_.... _r< c- - - - - ,-
, . . . - ... . . ~ , .
i l
TER-C5506-232
- 5. REFERENCES ,
- 1. II Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Wall Design NRC May 8, 1980
- 2. W. O. Parker Letter to J. P. O'Reilly, MRC
Subject:
Response to II Buu etin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design Oconee nuclear Station July 7, 1380
- 3. W. O. Parker
- Letter to E. R. Denton, NMll Sunject
- Response to IB Bu H etin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design Oconee Nuclear Station December 29, 1581
,4. W. C. Parker l Letter to 5. R. Denton, NN:
l
Subject:
Response to II Buuetin 80-11, Masonry Wah Design i oconee Nuclear Station July 13, 1981
- 5. J. F. Stolz (NBC)
Letter to W. C. Parker (Oconee Nuclear Station)
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Regarding Masonry Wall Design (IE Buuetin 80-11) i March 15, 1982
- 6. W. O. Parker ; e Letter to R. R. Denton (NBC)
Subject:
Submittal of Information Regarding Masonry Wall Design (IE Bunetin 80-M), Oconee Nuclear Station June 15,1982
- 7. R. G. Harris and A. A. Easid, " Applicability of Arching Theory to Unreinforced Block Masonry walls Under Earthquake Loading," Department of Civil Engineering, Drexel University, August 1982
- 8. Computsch Engineering Services, Inc., URS/Blume and Associaten, and Bechtel Power Cor',eration, " Rebuttal to ' Applicability of Arching Theory to Unreinforced Block Masonry Waus Under Earthquake Loading' by Barris and Hamid,' January 1983 ranklin Re h
. a w w n. sear.c.. r Center
+-e.w- -e w -
TER-C5506-232
- 9. J. F. Stols (ERC)
Letter to E. 5. Tucker (Oconee Nuclear Station)
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Regarding ===aary Wall Design (IE Bulletin 80-11)
July 20, 1983
- 10. E. 3. Tucker
, Letter to E. R. Denton (NRC)
Subjects Submittal of Information negarding Masonry wall Design (II Bulletin 80-11) ooonee Nuclear Station, September 7, 1983
- 11. E. 5. Tucker Letter to E. R. Douton (MIC)
Subject:
Submittal of Information Bogarding Masonry Wall Design (IE Bulletin 80-11)
Oconee Nuclear Station, October 20, 1983
- 12. ' Uniform Building code "
International Conference of Building officials,1979
- 13. ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 Building Code Requirements for concrete Masonry Structures American Concrete Institute, 1979
- 14. P. Gulkan, R. L. Mayes, and R. W. Clough, " Shaking Table Study of Single Story Masonry Houses, Volume 1 - Test Structures 3 and 4,* EERC Report No. 79-22, 1979
- 15. P. Gulkan, R. L. Mayes, and R. W. Clough, " Shaking Table Study of Single Story Masonry Houses, Volume 2 - Test Structures 3 and 4," EERC Report Mo. 79-23, 1979
- 16. R. W. Clough, R. L. Mayes, and P. Gulkan, " Shaking Table Study of Single Story Masonry Mouses, Volane 3 - Summary Conclusions and '
Recommendations," EERC Report No. 79-24, 1979
- 17. E. L. McDowell, K. E. McKee, and E. Sevin, " Arching Action Theory of Masonry Walls," Paper No. 915, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, ST2, March 1956 l
- 18. A. A. Esaid, E. G. Barris, and V. Con, " Evaluation of Arching Theory in 1
Unreinforced Masonry Walls in Nuclear Power Plants," Franklin Research Center, June 1983 l
l rankNn Research Center A Ohunun gf The Psuman buname 7 '
\
m 4
)
APPENDIX A l
1 SGEB CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-REIATED MASOIOt! IGLLL EVALUATION (DEVELOPED BY TER STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH (SGEB] OF THE NRC)
July 1981 e
l
. . .$. Franklin Research Center l A Division of The Franklin Institute The W Frarmen Pennmey. PMe Pe 19103 (215:444 1000 l _
I
)
i TEIN:5506-232 COWrMarTS Section 31ge Page 1 GENERAL REQUIEEVANTS . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 2 MNiG Als LORD COMBI 1GLTIONS.
. . . . . . . . . A-1
- a. Service Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . A-1
- b. Entreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 3 kr ar* STRESSES . " . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 4
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS COIISIDERATIOIIS . . . . . . . . A-3 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 m
4
)
rarddin Research Corner ~
A Chuman of The Psamen humane
. _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ . - - . , . _ _ _ _ - . . ._ _.m _ _m .. __ . ___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
TER-C5506-232
- 1. General Requirements The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection related to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the applicable requirements contained in Uniform Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise, by the provisions in this criteria.
The use of other senadaras or codes, such as ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is also acceptable. Bowever, when the provisions of these codes are less conservative than the corresponding provisions of the criteria, their use should be justified on a case-by-case basis.
In new construction, no unreinforced masonry walls will be permitted. For operating plants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by the provisions of these criteria. Plants which are applying for an operating license and which have already built unreinforced masonry walls will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
- 2. Loads and Load Combinations The loads 'and load combinations shall include consideration of normal loads, severe environmental loads, extreme environmental loads, and abnormal loads. Specifically, for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the plant's FSAR shall govern. For operating license applications, the following load combinations shall apply (for definition of load terms, see SRP Section 3.8.4II-3).
(a) Service Load Conditions (1) D+L
._ (2) D+L+E (3) D+L+W If thermal stresses due to T oand R, are present, they s'isould be ~~
included in the above combinations as follows:
(la) D + L + To + Ro (2a) D+L+To+Ro+E (3a) D + L + To+Ro+W Check 10ad combination for controlling condition for maximum 'L' and for no 'L'.
A-1 l -
@Ul!UU Franklin ResearchCenter A Dumman af The Psamen humane
. _ _ . s . _ _ _ _.
__e . . , _- =_.=;._ _
.-a
~
l TER-C5506-232 (b) Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions (4) D + L + To + Ro + E (5) D + L + To + % + Ng (6) D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.5 Pa (7) D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.25 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Tj + Ym) + 1.25 E (8) D+L+Ta+Es + 1.0 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Tj + Im) + 1.0 E' In combinations (6), (7), and (8) the maximum values of Pa ' T ae Ra, Tj, Yr, and Ya, including an appropriate dynamic load factor, should be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to justify otherwise. Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural acceptance criteria should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Yee Tje and Y, in (7) and (8) . When considering these loads, local section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related system.
Both cases of L having its full value or being completely absent should be checked.
- 3. Allowable Stresses Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following modifications / exceptions, shall apply.
(a) When wind or seismic loads (caE) are considered in the loading combinations, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted.
(b) Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection category shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with the inspection requirements of the SEB criteria.
(c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loading conditions. For reinforced masonry walls, all the tensile stresses will be resisted by reinforcement.
(d) For load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal,
! abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme environmental conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the factors shown in the following table:
~
ranksn Research Center A Onimen of the Feman osanne
?
4 TER-C5506-232 1
Tvoe of stress
- Factor Asial or Flexural Compression 1 2.5 Bearing 2.5 Reinforcement stress amoept shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy sheer reinforcement and/or bolts i
1.5 Masonry tension rarallel to bed joint 1.5 Shear carried by ansonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint for reinforced masonry 0 ,
for unreinforced ansonry2 t,3 M
i (1) When anober bolts are used, design should prevent facial spelling of masonry unit.
l (2) see 3(c).
- 4. Desien and Analysis considerations (a) Se analysis should follow established principles of engineering i mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices. !
- (b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper
} ,
considerations to haaaadary conditions, oracting of sections, if any, and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls.
(c) Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis shall be those for j reinforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
i (d) In general, for operating plants, the seismic analysis and Category I t
structural requirements of PsAR shall apply. por other plants, oorresponding sar requirements shall apply. S e seismic analysis
! shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, 1
I asterials, and other pertinent parameters used.
! (e) The analysis should consider both in-plane and out-of-plane loads.
l l (f) Interstory drift effects should be considered.
i .
8Uuuu Frankun Reneerch Ceneer A-3 AOsmammaaf De humanDuuman
_, __ _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '
!.- _ _ l l
j
( TER-C5506-232 (g) i In new construction, grout in concrete ansonry walls, whenever used, shall be compacted by vibration.
(h) For ansonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of i
ACI-531 shall apply.
i (i) special constructions (e.g., multiwythe, composite) or other items not ouvered by the code ah=11 be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their amoeptance.
(j) Licensees or applicants shall submit QA/QC information, if available, for staff's review.
In the event QA/gc information is not available, a field survey and a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented l
- to ascertain the conformance of ansonry construction to design t
drawings and specifications (e.g., rebar and grouting) .
(k) For assenry walls requiring protection from spalling and scabbing due i
to accident pipe reaction (Yr), jet impingement (Y3 ), and missile i
impact (Y ), the requirements similar to those of SRP 3.5.3 shall apply. Bowever, actual review will be conducted on a case-by-case l basis.
- 5. References
, (a) Oniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.
1 i
(b) Building code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures ACI-531-79 and Cossentary ACI-5312-79.
j (c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for l.
Buildings - Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06.
(d) Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry - NCMA August, 1979.
i i
(e) Trojan Nuclear Plant Conorete Masonry Design Criterla Safety Evaluation Report Supplement - November,1940 l
l M..
WW FranWin Reneerch Corner g, A-4 4 mumm. e ne r==== =====
. . =
-,----...-,~nnn,-,-,n,----n-.- -~,p--, --- , ,.. , _ ,.--~, ,.~,.n .,,._.-_--,,.~n..--,---n-,-.
i J
APPENDIX 3 TYPICAL AARANGEMENT OF MASOletY MAILS i
i i
I i
I 1
a%
.00. Franklin Research Center ,
A DMsion of The Franklin Insttute ,
i i
The Sen,orma Frenann Perm.ey. PMe Pe 19103 (215e 4441000 i
. ~
i i
.. _ . . ._4
. Ed-d A M vil.f PAMEl.
qm ...
I _
a .I
, ' (a s a MA6ONRY WAW f s
I TU 5 ( i
\
3 Iql I COWCEETE
! CowMN (7Ye)
J 1
i su .
y l lI III I IIIIII l l
\ .
i
.C l
srAims g i i '
thvATOR v l. ,
hsAsowAv E "
l WALL 7 -- 4 =
! " 9P; ,
.E aw,. a ;
l il 1
i
.I i .
l i
- MA&oNI YW l '
I STotA&E AREA l '
.I i STAIRS l 1
y . s p ,
- (;,;; ,,
r l i Il '
I, i i.
i
' Loll l l t
I
.f. ..
i i
+.h4 U..
+
i t
- bl
. n . -
i j 1.L aww=r Frenien Reneer.ch . . C.en.ter
. - - - . _ _ _ , , . . , - . , , _ . , _ . , . - - - . _ , _ - . , - - . - , , , , - . . , - _ - , , , _ , _ _ , - - - . , - - - , - . . . - - - . , . _ ,,,.vn___...i,.. l*,, c,. LJ ,
l l
l l
, APPENDIX C TYPICAL 1GLLL DETAIIA l
l l .
i 1
1 l
I l
1 l
j l
4[0
. . F ranklin Research Center
' A DMsion of The Frankhn insutute The Senserma Frenen Port ey Phde Pe 19103 (21 b 444100C
. . ~
e
_------m___mm .----w<mw-, --------v-----we- yn---wm.-yvy. - - - - -,ywe. - %,,%...-,--y-, y------e .w-, yv--w-e--- ,m,ge-,--
_._m._
q
- ijd 35 35 y 1
's J i die 5 i .C! {4. s aw
/w$531 ej l l .I IIl' det 5&i Q3 i
j Ij, 'l l l l lIII ?! d l
- 5: .r y a,) # y t d T" d 3h 5
! qa .yq j
U5 NI 7sd"a}e"W*
u c3 I d5 *It'4jKM h IIl d h h5 k $ , ! A,.!E. y~dilind4 ?! l
~
e p .., -
""W!N@{-
.r .
,hooge c g l
- ( I .tP S17lV I/~ l '.' '.. D 1 *4 Q,i 'W 44 m
g .. Lg - i
*E $je 8 s'.
l M6 6 -
@ 02.i!91 <,vm
,mw..u %'d ? f 4
n nn.,"'I
, , , , .hT @
wty 9 4 Ija.s. s: I a G: g i
.by N 398 di 0 .% 4
- 3
! l $ N!dN1 l .e 1 1...
- > t?
m2 .a t F f.%==.. = = - . . g ... g n.s - , .n -a ( 2 *u - ..... *5 [fl[-,"*; i a E a W.t*;p? s.,.o. .n.., M (:
,,, C .u u ,
0j ! gag 3 $ *"' 3 i C-L MkY, b ' _ _ - _ _ _ _ ___ =_
w.- . . _. - - - . . - - %eI , ~ . . - - - -* f l l i l APM NDIX D SCBMATIC MPMMlffATION OF NRLL MODIFICATIONS I e* 4 1 l .el l
.. 0. Franklin Research Center
' A Division of The Franidin Institute The W Freassa Per==ey Phde Pe 19103 (21b 4481000
a l l
),.a
/
e fg . 4- NY Phsil
).
\ ,, y/ , ..
$ edheri:
R
$ o w.
f Argit_2________* ,.
\s '
- t. j' \
. \
N
\
-______ - - -=
. y%H wide flarup./ \
'.. (l' channel w.de flanas i
\
\
\
',, A l
' \
i \ N s EL. 838.0 N
, N
/.
g-
. y. ... .
s 1 F1_ NATin M MMioM A-A e Cknogf ' ! wy (___.-_- ____________; We// M\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l
.f ri / 1 4 ,
- '. I werde p'/cyc
- Sinors of bol+1 O etc,' m . '
l l l PLAhl I l . : ( . .. o.t - l . r i 4'db
- t. FrerMn Research A h af The Pesman we enter C,ase
6' t , i I APPEttDIX E Mhsolstr lmLL DATA SCBGGut! Note: The allowable stresses given in this Appendix are based on the Licensee's design criteria. sh '
. 0. Franklin Research Center .
l A DMslon of The Franklin Institute
, ,. The See Frenahn Parensey, PNie Pe 19:03#2: 0 444 1000 _l
.5
- +- ~ "m- .a ,, n.,
. l kki i ikk i 111ga== ===is, =s=g:eji 1
=- - s saa- a- .= -
- EE.e=,=,=, = = = = =, e = = x E .e .e 222*** n gggyE 2g;222 5 2
.E 444tilii IIIII ell _e_e_e
-~~ ~~~~~ -~~ _e n :::: tus!!! ! :
E55.33... sn)) 3 33333. 1E.3.EEE .5 l anaillii E!!EE allssa a.
!ws: -
s
$4NE d
- g8
.w -- -
Il~s.N=_gs-ss N a- a m as . m ssig ,,e de ---
- .~ ,
ma [ mas s. E sg. =* -
-- _3gC
~
; sl
. E.v3 un .
= gs=_ .
gs
.:*Ew m_ " == = " =
-e w_
a 8=-
==g ::
E- 2% --%2
- u. -
!am_ w h3 -
*lms -
- is: .
Es x Ems ha
.g. ==
1E] ssas -c==n T asssas =unes* IREzz ::a =i8= m ==== ==== -- Je C C 5 fitEn :6 6 6 6 6
~
n E-1 ' hJ Franhan Research Center - A h of The Frauen m
, _ . - _ . - . . . _ _ . - . - _ . _ . _ - . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ - . . . . _, _..__._,_.-._,__,_..i__._*
4 I . 1 l
- ATTAOeEmi 1 .
OCOIEE talCLEA8 STAitou, Iallis 1. 2 AND 3 t1 IfB 30-11 MASONRY Matt ORIA 5tsetASV 2"
~i g MLOW. ALLOW. SUPPORT ALLOW. CELAS . j r A80s. INILL NOAII. Isotil. W RTICAL WRilCAL STASILITY SieEAS 5. $NEAS Jolui .
SIM55 enAulus SElluf E E STRESS STAE55 STK55 FACIOR W 51AE55 STK55 SNEAS 1:n Insissa lasIBER (PSil (PSI) (PSI) (Pst) SMEiv (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) E05885 *4 0-303G 1444 31.0 45.1 . . 7.7 58.1 f 45.1 7.7 58.1
- 1447 31.0
- q i
1448 31.0 45.1 7.7 58.1 i 1449 31.8 45.1 7.7 58.1 4 0 l 1458 31.8 45.1 7.7 58.1 ' 1451 31.0 45.1 . 7.7 58.1 .
. 1454 31.0 45.1 7.7 58.1 -
e w e-304A M62 29.51, 9.0 58.1 ; i 0404 13.6 23,4 9.1, 58.1. ; 4 e406 4.1 45.1, 14 4, 23.4 9.6 58.1 i 6407 7.8 45.1, 17 3, 23,4 9.2 58.1 v Ji ! e413 4,1, 23,4 1.4.4 58.1. t este 11.64 16.2 58.1 ., ; j i e4:5 2.83 6.8 58.i. y , 0416 12.7 18.3 58.1 - i e418 9.3 45.1 *. 13.5 23.4 25.8 58.1 - I 8419 13.9 45.1 18.7* *23.4 31.8 58.1 ,t 58.1 o i 0429 8.6 45.1 10.8 21.4 22.4 , M25 4.5 45.1 3.5 23.4 17.1 $4.1 l l e422 12.6 45.1 12.4 23.4 35.1 58.1 j e423 6.3 15.9 58.1
- I l ~
i e424 3.71 47.0 58.1 . l 0425 20.7 . 45.1 10.5 58.1 , j j J 11.0 fA.1 i 0426 13.5 23.4
. 0427 1.83 40.9 58.1 0431 6.25 24.8 58.1 at54 3.8 P*I" #*I*IIY I'i 0455 9.5 23.4 58:1 1
l < f.1
, Y
- i
+
t. t u
. ATIADeEst 1 ,
. KSIEE mitLEAR STATies. Unlis 1. 2 Am 3 p, IES 38-14 seam ustt gagg siegenaf 7"
ALLeif. ALL8m. SWPGBT ALL W. Cm a am
# 2006. lleLL 18R12. NAAll. W N ICAL W SIICAL 51ASILIIV SIEAR 5. M ae JSisE
- i'
,.g Samulus SEllutaCE 51RE55 SIM55 518E55 51AE55 FAClet GF 51AE55 STRESS 5NEAR Inseets ansesta (PSI) (PSI) (Psil (P5t) 5METY (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) ***aElmaES 4 0-3MA M56 4.4 23.4 1.9 M.I M57 M.M 12.7 M.1
- 0054 9.3 23.4 3.7 58.1 se59 4.8 M.1 3.7 23.4 12.8* M.1
- 846s 14.1 23.4 3.9 54.1 emi 15:1 u.1 ri.5 23.4 , is.s Sa.i SM2 14.4 45.1 18.6 23.4 37.5 54.1
" e463 11.6 16.5 54.1 0464 19.8 18.3 58.1 -
" 0472 23.4 23.4. 7.9 M.I east 6.82 32.6 58.1 ees? 17.1 45.1 22.9 23.4 21.9 58.1 3e33 3.7 6.1 2.1 23.4 20.6 54.1 -
esse 38.8 M.I 22.9 23.4 25.7 54.1 3e87 3.1 45.1 1a.5 23.4 M.3 54.1 __ 8582 20.3 23.4 - 31.4 55.1 8505 , 1.8 23.4 8.6 54.1 0547 . 3.2 33.6 54.1 0509 2.7 45.1 14.3 23.4 20.8 54.1 85l1 18.2 23.4 ~ 3.3 54.1 i 0515 2.6 23.4 8.9 54.1 . 8516 3.8 6.1 2.8 23.4 16.8 54.1 6-30e8 ese5 4.44 29.6 58.1 eM6 3.82 30.4 54.1 ese7 14.6 45.1 18.5 23.4- 7.7 54.1 eelt 25.9 7.7 54.1 e ; esae 29.e 7.i Sa.i i esai 15.65 2.7 60.6 0642 3.8 68.1 4.8 44.8 2.7 60.6 M 5tnsctural Franswert Supportlag Mal i 0049 15.05 14.6 58.1 I'
~
I i
U . n, ATTAQstei 1 SCSIEE ISELEAR STAlles. estIS 1. 2 AaB 3 dgm Its 8011 somsener mit talA 54eethey I XteW. AL L W. SI W eel ALL W. COLLAR
.la* seCn. MALL Neal2. Neal2. WeilCAL WATICAL STAstt1TV SAEAR 5. 5NEAR .361W .
(Jtv. stag 5testuCE STSE55 STSE55 STRESS 51eE55 FAtlet 0F 51eE55 semeft aestefa (PSI) STRESS SIIEAR ...- (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) 5AFElv .(PSI) (PSI) (PSI). M# Rests
. se50 9.m 2e.i Se.i se52 13.6 45.1 20.1 23.4 8.4 54.1 .
se53 18.3 45.1 15.9 23.4 11.4 5s.1 , se56 12.8 45.1 16.8 23.4 7.8 58.1 . . 3862 . 2.99 42.4 5s.1 , , 0863 2.56 43.1 M.) . se64 .
- 3.65 35.1 58.1 '.*
se65 2.2 45.1 5.2 23.4- 31.4 54.1 -- 7 es7, 4.7 26.4 54.1 esas . 7.64 15.3 58.I east 9.72 20.3 54.1 sege structural framewerk Sgporttag len11 egel 14.H - 13.6 58.1 . ; a033 14.H 13.6 54.1 ' eseg 14.H 13.6 54.1 eget 3.31 33.2 54.1 eles. Sleg *
. 3.31 33.2 54.1 8123 , 15.64 12.8 54.1 3- 3 54 Dess 16.7 45.1 23.8 23.4 22.e 58.1 .
lest 9.40 22.3 58.1 ; 1882 18.4 45.1 17.3 23.4 45.2 54.1 I 1883 9.2 45.1 19.3 23.4 34.2 54.1 last 4.92 47.2 54.1 Itm25 4.74 24.0 54.1 , 1806 10.2 45.1 12.3 23.4 28.8 58.1 ' les7 17.8 45.1 22.8 23.4 14.1 54.1
- less 8.7 23.4 1.5 58.1 1818 11.5 45.1 6.5 23.4 11.0 54.1 1812 11.1 64.1 11.2 44.8 7.8 f,0.6 1013 4.6 45.1 3.2 23.4 35.9 54.1 l 1817 3.3 45.1 -8.9 23.4 19.0 58.1 i s
I
4 j - g . :: ) i . l . t l . I j . . 4 ._- E l-
. elTADeEst 1
~
l Ig KME WELEM SIATM. WII51. 2 Am 3 IEe B-il ammamy ignet mga saggingy C . MLW. ALW. SWrei Mtm. Catae ! i Aect. ML ISII. IMII. W W ICAL WEeIICE SIMIllif SaEAR 5. sasran Jegg
- t
] :r semens seeEEEE SIEESS SIGES$ - SteE55 53eE55 FAEM S OF 5 tee 55 SIEE55 SIEAS * *
- 4 anaES meeES fr51) _tr58) fr51) _Sattiv
, frill fris) _ fr51) tris) s massi i
4 l e-3ssa tele lett
'll.9 22.4 n.4 n.4 4.e
- 5.e es.1 58.1 late 19.3 es.1 27.5 44.8 7.1 68.6 -l
} te25 14.s 44.8 1.6 48.6
- less -
22.4 23.4 - 5.s 58.1 1 i tore 8.6 45.1 te.e n.4 9.4 Es.1 ' i 1829 29.7 23.4 3.2 58.1 tem 9.6 n.4 3.s 5s.1 es M3l 12.8 23.4 4.e 58.1 '
& MN 99.2 23.4 9.9 58.1 M33. MM 1.7 23.4 1.3 58.1 MM 97.5 45.1 15.5 23.4 9.6 Es.1 MM 7.2 M.1 7.6 23.4
- M.4 Se.1 '
M39 N.2 23.4 6.1 58.1 i 9000 6.1 45.1 5.8 23.4 4.4 Se.1
- 1881,1894 7.1 45.1 ,
9.7 23.4 5.2 Se.1 . e-3058 DNe 7.44 45.1 13.63 23.4 9.9 58.1 ! IMI 13.93 15.3 58.1 f 1382 7.44 45.1 13.63 23.4 9.e 58.1 i 13e3 7.53 45.1 12.98 23.4 13.6 Es.1 ; 1285 a.9 21.0 5s.1 lan6 3.6 45.1 6.2 n.4 13.s [- se.1 - Smi S.3 45.1 12.3 23.4 12.5 5s.1 :. ING M.2 45.1 14.8 23.4 14.2 58.1 f~ lace 9.9 23.4 3.s 58.1 . i' 120e 7.M 60.1 15.05 44.8 3.8 68.6
; 12H 13.93 7.9 68.6 j 11.9 Es.)
till 18.9 44.8 4.7 6e.6 1213 7.M 68.1 14.6 44.8 3.s 64.6 ' 1284 s.86 45.1 13.4 23.4 15.9 58.1 1215 7.44 45.1 13.6 23.4 S.4 54.1 l i h I _ l
I I w [ - ATTAOSENT 1 OC0KE seKLEAR stall 0N. MulT51. 2 AaB 3 .
!. u IES 80-11 M450 mat WALL MTA SteetAav '
f* ; ALLSf. ALLinf. SMPPGAT AttlRf. CE LAR ' i AACN. MALL NRRll. MARil. WRTICAL MAllCAL STASILITY SNEAR 5. SIEAR JBINT
- i arAulus SEQUENCE STRESS STRESS sine 55 STRESS FAciOR OF 510ESS SihE55 SMEAR ****
] n asents sesseEn (P5tl (P5tl (PSI) fr511 SAFETY (PSIl - (751) (PSI) apenas$
I' 0-305a 1216 16.64 13.7 58'.1 1 1217 7.44 45.1 13.6 23.4 12.4 54.1 1218 10.9 45.1 13.7 23.4 14.7 54.1 1219 2.44 45.1 4.1 23.4 a.1 58.1 1220 15.1 23.4 9.3 sa.1 1 1222 18.s 45.1 1a.1 23.4 17.1 58.1 f 1224 15.9 23.4 5.1 5s.1 , 1225 45 45.1 10.6 23.4 14.5 54.1 j Y M.1 1226 9.8 17.8 44.8 4.8 60.6 '
- 12.7 M.1 19.7 44.3 2.8 1227 60.6 l 1228 9.7 M.1 17.9 44.8 3.7 60.6 -
12d 9./2 68.1 17.81 44.8 , 3.8 60.6 ! ,
- 0. - 2.n 55.8 5..i j t i
Ige: 4.6 23.4 3.1 58.1 1407 31.5 45.1 . 3.7 58.1 - 1400 10.6 45.1 5.7 23.4 35.7 58.1 }i . 1410 7.9 45.1 2.2 23.4 3.5 58.1 *1 1411 13.6 45.1 9.6 23.4 24.9 58.1 I 1 1412 8.3 45.1 3.7 23.4 29.3 54.1 i 1413 7.3 23.4 4.7 58.1 1414 2.83 58.7 58.1 . 1417 les IISA Egulp. la Presletty Zeni 1421 10.7 23.4 6.7 54.1 ! 1422 9.7 45.1 4.2 58.1 , j 1423 0.4 45.1 0.E 68.1 4 1424 10.4 45.1 5.4 23.4 41.8 58.1 : 142$ 2.4 45.1 1.7 58.1 ?
! 1926 22.0 45.1 18.3 23.4 36.5 58.1 !
1427 11.4 45.1 4.5 58.1 I l ____ _ _ _ ___ - j
I . c2 ATTAOSENT 1 OCouEE talCLEAR STAileu. InIITS 1. 2 AND 3 l' . Its 88-11 IIASONRY IdALL SATA SutetART ln EI RLOW. ALLOW. SUPPORT ALLOW. CELAR R AKN. WALL NOAll. IGlil. W eilCAL VERilCAl. STASILITY 5NEAR 5. SHEAR JOINI . ORAWih6 SEqufEE siK55 51RE55 STK55 STRESS Facies (E SiaE55 STRESS $NEAR tssesER teNWR (PSI) JP5I) (PSI) (PSI) SMETY (PSI) JPSI) (PSI) **' h 5
- 0-3068 1230 14.4 45.1 10.4 23.4 46.( 58.1
- ' 123l 2.73 41.5 58.1
- 1232 2.53 . 36.7 58.1 ,
1733 3.44 42.9 58.1 , ,. as 1734 10.6 45.1 5.4 23.4 37.4 54.1 !
$ 1235 11.6 45.1 5.4 23.4 47.8 54.1 1236 4.94 39.6 58.1 1237 2.19 45.2 54.1 ,
123s 3.26 12.2 60.6 t 1239 . 2.95 20.5 60.6 ; 1248 . 10.1 23.4 4.5 58.1 .. 1241 7.8 45.1 3.72 23.4 - 32.6 58.1 r. 1242 27.2 64.1 34.1 44.8 16.1 60.6 , ; 1243 3.48 42.9 58.1 i
~
1244 Its 115R Equip. la Proximity Zr. 1245 2.75 41.6 58.1 12M 15.4 45.1 ., 11.s 23.4 44.7 58.1 l 1247 7.8 45.1 3.72 23.4 32.6 58.1 - l 1248 9.3 46.5 58.1 1249 13.4 23.4 . 3.4 58.1 1250 15.2 45.1 9.7 23.4 33.3 58.1 1 1251 11.9 45.1 10.5 58.1 ! 1252 24.2 ** 45.1 16.5 23.4 25.3 58.1 1253 30.8 64.1 42.7 44.8 16.2 60.6 1254 31.1 68.1 42.8 44.8 ' 15.6 60.6 1255 2.61 16.9 60.6
.i I __ _ __ _
,'=
m 33 ATTEleENT 1 OCONEE le8 CLEAR STATION,1311T5 1. 2 AND 3 us IES 80-11 MA5DNRY W4lt DATA 51semaY 1 ALLOW. ALLOW. SUPPORT ALLOW. . COLLAR l2 3 ABCH. WALL N0til. HORIZ. VERTICAL. VERTICAL STA81LITY SHEAR 5. SHEAR JOINT
- n DRAWING SE@ENCE STRESS STRESS STRESS STE55 FACTOR CF STRE55 STRESS SHEAR * * -
g as48ER matEE (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) 5AFETY (PSI) (PSI) (PSI). RENARKS 5 0-307A 0513 17.3 23.4 6.9 58.'1 0519 115 In-ktps 164 in-ktps 6.4 58.1 . Reinforced Wall 0522 Prouletty Zone Modified 0523 1.4 45.1 1.8 58.1 0525 les NSA Espalp. la Proxletty loa 0527 31.5 45.1 5.7 58.1 0528 No 185R E9 sip. la Prautalty Zoe ;
- s. 0529 16.7 23.4 13.5 58.1 a
0530 Proulalty Zone Modified , 0531 Proxletty Zone Modified i 0532 18.5 23.4 10.6 58.1 0533 llo NSA Espelp. la Prouletty los - 0534 21.7 23.4 S.3 58.1 0535 9.5 23.4 16.9 58.1
- 0536 26.0 45.1 10.6 58.1 i 0537 . Ito IISA Egalp. In Prouletty Zoe 0541 Ito ll5R Espsip. In Proxletty 20-0544 No NSR Espelp, la Proximity Zo.: i 0545 900 al5A Espalp. In Peculaity 201 0546 haulalty lone Modified 0550 24.2 45.1 11.4 23.4 7.1 58.1 0557 35.6 45.1 17.2 23.4 26.2 58.1 055$ 124 in-ktps 168 in-kips 6.4 58.1 . Relaforced liall 0559 17.3 23.4 6.9 58.1 0563 37.9 45.1 11.6 58.1 0564 32.2 45.1 10.7 58.1 -
05E4 44.1 45.1 24.7 58.1 ! 0571 Premielty Zone Modiffed 0578 18.3 45.1 3.6 23.4 4.9 58.1 0579 18.9 23.4 10.6 58.1 ; s
. _ . - . _ =
t d-1
~
I I* 111' 1 11 111 1: _=_= = _== :__ _ :
,} =III 3 II 131 3
. l 4 ~~~ III I ~~ II~~~III ~ I E n_u_n ~a _a_s n_u_n _a
- ISS 3 23 533 3 '
E = = = =g Sm Se
== = <
- s. = -
$553 S *
- S """"" S . S S S . S S S ".S I g a.gE 3 3 3 3 3 335533555553355 e ~ w
.gowS . ". .
~
cg gr .. . ~ ~ mem. m-wee Ea E . 23 5g -
~
= -E=c . A g $ k *
= "g **
__ .g.- o e s e ga gg
. e e e RS = ,
= . 3 = ::= :::::::::::::::::::: :::
wg W I-u 8- ~ ~ . ~ s~ ...:.~~... lyg i . i i i ai sii'sidi"i
~ ~ ~
52QO S S S S
==
gg- ,r = = s a = 45- . .o ~ . . 3 gh! N i
~
N d i 5
- g. 8
~~...~.. -~. ~. ~
. IImm l-lllIIIs g E s _3_ 3 _3 _3 __3 3 _3 _3 E22_2~,~5.E2_2_2_g_RE
___ _ _0_~ _2 _ _ ~__ 3 gR'3R R M as a 6 l l 1 1 I l n 3-9 l I duA Dumou Frenian Research-C.onter af The Annen nu ar d
e o b
>m hI ATTAtlefili ',
e . OCONEE leKLEA8 STATI0ll. INil!S 1. 2 AND 3 IES 80-11 MASONRY WALL DATA SupMARY 4 . n ALLOW. ALLOW. SUPPOST ALLOW. COLLAS MICH. WALL H0812. H08II. VESTICAL VESTICAL STABILITY SHEA8 5. $HEA8 J0llii , im WING SEQUENCE ST8E55 SIAE55 STESS STK55 FACTOS OF STK55 51K55 5HEA8 isN8(R NUH8E8 (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) _ SAFETV (PSIL est (Psli *, 8tHA8:5 0-3088 12 % 25.2 68.1 32.5 44.8 3.2 . j 1297 12.4 8.0 60.6 . l 129e 18.5 23.4 5.1 58.1
,, 1302 15.6 23.4 7.1 58.1 1303 6.67 26.1 58.1 5 1305 28.9 44.8 2.4 34.8 60.6 j 1306 6.24 58.1 1307 1.8 68.1 16.0 44.8 3.7 60.6 .
1308 36.0 44.8 2.9 60.6 j~ 1309 36.0 44.8 2.9 60.6 1310 40.3 44.8 2.6 60.6 ' 1312 32.5 44.8 1.8 60.6 1313 36.3 44.8 2.9 60.6
- i 1314 36.3 44.8 2.9 60.6 l 1315 4.86 10.5 63.6 l 1317F 3.27 15.3 60.6
- 1318F 19.7 68.1 .
22.1 44.8 10.8 60.6 1319F 20.3 68.1 23.1 44.8 10.8 60.6 1320F 18.0 68.1 18.9 44.8 10.8 60.6 i 1321F .2.74 16.3 60.6 i. 1322F 19.7 68.1 22.1 44.8 10.5 60.6 l 1323F 19.7 68.1 22.5 44.8 10.5 60.6 f 1324F 20.5 68.1 24.4 44.8 10.5 60.6 l 1327F 21.1 68.1 27.0 44.8 11.2 60.6 i 1326f 2.3 44.8 0.8 00.6 1335F 34.0 44.8 5.6 60.6 1336F 21.3 44.8 2.1 60.6
,q
- - . - - . . - ~ . _ . . - . . . _
t e
'sillisiliH NNNNNNNNNNN DDDDDDDDDDD 55855558SIE $
;;;;;t%;mmt c=c:
22222** = 226====2t=22 ~~EE
))gg sassassssas y,,,
e 55555555555 ~aaa - t &&&&&&&&&&& wwwwwwwwwww DDDD gggg
$$$$2"55"G=55
==
5 ttt:
==. 2222 BRRRRRRRRRR
$55: **
g w% 5g
*
- k ut Egg "97 99"" 97
$E x" NE 333 5253 55 1 . ;. . "
. 500 =~*. ~ *. ~ 9 '
*5 aa c-
-3 w=E m~ =~~ 2222 -
Ea E - CB B s!g Eva Eb EE
~~
g +]" mm I E. w- .gm E *: - 5555 55 U""S yENE 0000 20
- w. wa- -
$* bN-8 meum em ewa awaa aa
=gs ,
= ..
. ..m .
E500
"$EE W m $$$ COCO 4N- eNo -m-e 555 Em-5 $ bEkE w
5 R22222-224* O 33S" m OOOOOOOOOOO $$$ $$$k $$ ::R 2222 k k $
"h El6 0 6 6 6 6 N E-11
~
M.cJOJll Frankhn ResearctrCenter A Chauen of The Pausen tunmae
'**##%J *m. -s- ewir e w.w m, ,g ,, ,
T i l i t x x sa as a. 8 -3a, . il ,e, - s
'5 4
- XI II i y
- ~~ ~ , . ~ , ~ , ~ ,
~= == 1
.. .. s1:
%% 1% %
EC sk ss 2* s2 G
$550 2 a
s-3~s w
- W
$505 n - -----n-~~------ -
W .:;;' S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS - S I,"j
~
i
-w s m
~ "
5 N05 N * *gum-
*e*mecomm~
***5 * * *-N-u-n *c *m *o .
mg W-a am-
~ e -
~
E . ED r s5 . 2s: . ~
"N
~
S E3
- 3**t.
5 m .. . .
~ mS . e-4 g ...
.g.
E OO , ,, ...., d 44 Maddd d did 5"8 "lll Wm. 22 . ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ we > 5* 8 $=- g;;; *: "! *. *NNMCM 5 *! *.*t M
*! c 'J. *!
g>g om NN C
. N C.3 ww, N NN NNNN- e.G
* - e e .en i hU$O - -- --- - -
l WMo.{ $ n, . e, e, , e, , , S,Y l . 1 dhO e e, ewe N - i d 'd did i d
'5C,_C - -- - - - -
w sW5 we ~ e e~ m = - co m ., e ~ M , m e m o .. N . l
. h Pk to N tiul W Qoooo oNNNNedMMAM NNPdNNNNNNN o ~ o , a- dNNf4NN 3W - -- - - - ooooooooooooooooo
- g. S . S . R
=--
was g 2 ssR E
~ N N N nh5 f 0 6 6 0 5 E-12 M'dl.;L.I 1
FrankHn Rese.:it.ch Cccer A on min The er . wm _
g e s= g ATTACle(Ni 1 y OCONEE NUCLEAR stall 0N. INIITS 1, 2 AND 3 l Ita 80-11 MA50NRT uniL GATA $U WARV 1 n. 2,2 ALLOW. ALLOW. SUPPORT ALLOW. COLLAR R AP.CH. L'ALL HG2fl. HORIZ, VERTICAL VERTICAL STASILITY SHEAR 5. SHEAR. JOINT . IE, ra wlNG sequence STRESS stress siaEss stuSs FACTOR OF STRESS STRESS SHEAR * ,
- facIEER _ taatBER (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) SAFE!Y .(PSI) _(PSI) (PSI) REmRKS in. 0-2304A 0242 Ile N5R Ep ip. In P m utalty Zone '
0243 Ile 185R Epip. in Proximity Iom: 0245 000185R Esgulp. la Proximity Zone 0249 : llo NSR Equip. In Proutelty Zon 0264 7.2 45.1 6.5 23.4 16.9 58.1 0267 5.1 23.4 2.4 58.1 0268 3.0 23.4 1.4 58.1 0269 8.11 22.4 58.1 e Y 0270 ~ He itSR Ogulp. In Proxialty Zona C 0273 100181R Dgulp. In Frontally Zone
~ ~
0-23048 1100 17.55 8.3 58.1 1101 17.73 10.4 58.1 l 1107 19.44 23.4 5.51 E8.1 i till 15.0 45.1 20.5 23.4 28.0 58.1 1812 16.24 45.1 . 21.9 23.4 28.2 58.1 1813 16.03 45.1
- 21.57 23.4 27.2 58.1 1 1142 18.0 23.4 5.1 58.1 l lI43 14.6 23.4 4.3 58.1 1846 Structural Framouork Supportin8 Wall 1147 3.8 45.1 21.9 23.4 13.1 58.1 1159 13.63 14.3 58.1
* ~
0-2305A 0600 15.65 12.3 59.1 0601 14.9 45.1 15.4 50.1 0602 10.0 45.1 14.2 23,4 8.3 58.1 ! 060) 22.3 23.4 6.5 58.1 : 0604 21.8 23.4 5.7 f2.1 0605 8.9 23.4 . 3.6 50.1 0606 18.4 23.4 , 6.3 58.1 OCO3 12.6 23.4 4.2 f.d.1 : 0609 17.1 23.4 5.3 58.1 i 0611 7.1 21..I 2.3 58.1 t
e z ATTAtleENT 1 , Dq ' Fg OCOMEE MICLEAR STAil0N. UIIITS 1. 2 AND 3 [g IES 90-1) MA5ONRY WALL DATA SUNtARY a:s 1,. " ALLOW. ALLOW. SUPPORT ALLOW. COLLAR , ARCH. WALL HORIZ, HORIZ. VERTICAL VERTICAL STASILITY SHEAR 5. SHEAR JOINT + i 1 ORAulNG SEQUENCE SINE 55 STRESS STRESS STRESS FACTOR OF STRESS STRESS SHEAR e. ra:48ER _tateER (PSI) (P51) (PSI) (PSI) SAFEYY (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) REMARKS In! 0-2305A 0612 22.4 45.1 13.6 23.4 32.2 58.1
- 4 0613 2.6 45.1 0.8 58.1 .
0614 13.8 45.1 21.5 23.4 38.2 58.1 0615 17.3 9.47 58.1 0616 15.4 23.4 4.8 58.1 0617 6.7 23.4 3.0 58.1 0618 14.0 23.4 4.5 58.1 0619 18.6 23.4 5.7 58.1 M 0620 4.84 45.1 2.9 23.4 10.0 58.1
/* 0621 22.7 23.4 6.4 58.1 0622 6.7 23.4 3.0 58.1 .
G623 14.0 23.4 4.5 58.1 0726 1.2 45.1 1.0 58.1 1 0727F 5.2 23.4 3.0 58.1 0728F 12.6 23.4 4.2 58.1 .'
+
0729F
- 3.8 23.4 3.2 59.1 1
. 1
~
6.5 10.0 23.4 7.4 58.1 ! 0-23058 0624 45.1 0625 22.9 23.4 7.1 58.1 6626 5.4 45.1 10.4 23.4 8.6 58.1 l 0627 15.8 23.4 4.9 58.1 ! 0628 7.58, 24.0 58.1 ! 0629 9.1 45.1 14.9 23.4 17.6 58.1 1 0630 16.6 23.4 4.5 58.1 0631 29.1 44.8 2.1 60.6 i 0632 . 27.3 44.8 2.2 60.6 i 0633 35.6 68.1 44.0 44.8 3.1 60.6 . i' 0634 24.7 44.8 - 2.0 60.6 0636 3.1 23.4 2.4 58.1 l 0637 15.0 23.4 4.9 58.1 i 0638 9.4 23.4 1.1 58.1 0619 16.7 23.4 5.3 58.1 0725 21.7 23.4 6.0 58.1 l i h. 4
.e g .
LO
?Q ATTA09 TENT 1 nF OCONEE NUCLEAR STATIM . Utilis 1. 2 ANO 3 ym IE8 8011 MA50NRV WALL DATA Sl594ANY 4
ALLOW. ALLOW. SUPPORT ALLOW. COLLAR ARCif. IMLL NORil. HORil. VERTICAL VERIICAL STASILITY SHEAR 5. SHEAR Jn!!!! In' 3 q OnullNo SEQUENCE sastrER STRESS STRESS STRESS STRESS FACTOR OF ST8E55 STits5 SHEAR NUMBER (PSI) _ (PSI) _(Pill _(PSI) SAFElf (PSI) (Pil) (Pil) ***RDWlRKS 0-23064 0808 7.6 45.1 5.0 23.4 26.0 58.1 DeOS 4.56 34.1 : $8.1 0810 15.2 45.1 22.7 23.4 26.6 58.1
- 0811 4.93 31.9 58.1 0814 6.6 45.1 3.6 23.4 29.8 58.1 .
0816 7.4 45.1 15.0 23.4 36.9 58.1 y 0817 2.3 45.1 10.0 23.4 28.2 58.1 g 0818 10.5 45.1 10.4 23.4 7.3 58.1 0823 20.3 45.1 18.8 23.4 52.3 58.1 0825 20.3 45.1 18.8 23.4 2.7 58.1 0826 6.6 45.1 2.9 23.4 3.3 58.1 0828 Ilo IISR Equip. In Promletty Zore 0830, 0831 llo NSA Equip. In Proxletty Zore i 0832. 0833 Ile NSR Equip. In Proxletty Zoe. ,
% 23068 0834 17.0 45.1 21.3 23.4 31.5 58.1 0835 17.9 45.1 . 20.9 23.4 31.6 58.1 0836 3.66 38.0 53.1 '
0837 17.9 45.1 20.9 23.4 31.7 58.1 0838 3.83 44.6 ,, 58.1 0839 6.0 45.1 2.9 23.4 27.1 58.1 0940 23.0 68.1 30.5 44.8 11.4 60.6 0842 22.0 68.1 32.4 44.8 11.1 60.6 0343 29.5 68.1 35.1 44.8 13.0 60.6 0844 31.3 45.1 7.9 23.4 29.0 58.1 0S45 31.3 45.1 16.9 23.4 29.0 58.1 , 0345 12.0 45.1 19.2 23.4 24.7 58.1 ; OS4FF llo NSR Equip, in Proxletty Zor , 0848F - 4.32 11.5 60.6 k
e s
~
A1TACl#ENT 1
- n h
5g OCOMEE leACLEAR STATION. UNil51. 2 ANO 3 IFB 80-11 MASONRV Wall DATA StSMARY a' ALLOW. ALLOW. SUPPORT ALLOW. COLLAR l ARCil. WALL ORAulnG SEQUENCE HORIZ. STRESS HORil. STRESS VERTICAL VERTIEAL STARILITY SliEAR STRESS STRESS FACTOR OF STRESS
- 5. SHEAR .10lNT STRESS SilEAR tariotR _ sanieER _{ PSI) (PSI) (PSI) (FSI) SAFETY (PSI) (PSI) (PSI).
IQ REMARKS k 0-2307A 0640 llo IISR Equip. In Proximity Zone: 0641 IIe NSR Equip. In Prouletty Zona 0642 18.2 45.1 6.8 58.1 - 0643 24.5 45.1 3.4 58.1 0644 54 in-ktps 187 in-kips 6.2 58.1 Reinforced Hall 0653 16.9 45.1 9.2 23.4 5.8 58.1 0654 14.3 45.1 10.0 58.1 M 0655 14.3 45.1 10.0 58.1 a 0656 Prostelty Zone Modified 5 0657 Ilo NSA Equip. In Proximit)r Zont 0658 000 NSR Equip. In Proximity Zon: e.'.65 . Proximity Zone Modified 0666 . Proximity Zone Modified 0667 16.4 44.8 1.6 60.6 0668 17.1 68.1 8.8 44.8 4.7 58.1 0669 ., IIe N5R Equip. In Prouletty Zond 0672 No 185R Equip. le Prox!alty 20m 0675 alo MSR Equip. In Proximity Zou 0676 11.9 45.1 11.8 23.4 33.0 58.1 0678 28.4 4.5 58.1 0679 77.9 in-kips 204 in-kips 26.5 58.1 Reinforced llall l OE35 Ilo N58 Equip in Proulaity Zor.a . 0 6116 14.3 45.1 17.4 23.4 13.7 58.1 0633 16.3 45.1 3.3 58.1 0689 77.9 in-kips 204 in-kips 26.5 58.3 Reinforced Wall 0690 12.7 45.1 3.9 58.1 0-230dA 0704 14.0 23.4 3.7 58.1 . 0705 14.0 23.4 3.7 58.1 i 0705 14.0 23.4 3.7 58.1 i 0707 14.3 23.4 4.3 58.1 ; 0703 II.9 23.4 , 4.1 58.1 . 0709 9.4 23.4 3.3 58.1 j I l-
O
*. t I ,
s a Na AllACletENT 1 , f OCONEE IAACLEAR STATION. Ui4ITS 1. 2 AND 3 IIS 80-11 MASONRY Watt GATA SUN 4ARV - y= ' ntou. Att0u. SuPP0ai atou. CottAR l'I R AnCn. untt n0all. H0all. VEnTICAL VERTICAL STA8ILITY SHEAR
- 5. SHEAR .30lNT usi8ta , ' nun 8Ea (PSI)_ (PSI) (PSI) (PSI) .SAFETV (PSI) (PSI) (PSI)
I{" 4 11.9 13.4 3.9 58.1 REHRAKS 0-2308A 0710 ; 0711 22.2 23.4 6.2 58.1 . 0712 20.2 23.4 4.8 58.1 - 0-230'e 0714 als 1858 Epip. In Prouletty Zone 0715 He IISA Epip.' in Premielty Zone ; 0716 ?;J; a 44.8 2.1 60.6
.28 -s 3717 tu , 44.8 0.4 60.6
* '8
. 0718 27.6 44.8 2.1 60.6
-4 0719 7.01 24.4 58.1 ,
0720 17.1 23.4 5.2 58.1 0721 27.8 44.8 2.2 60.6 0722 34.9 44.8 2.2 60.6 0723 28.9 44.8 2.2 60.6 0724 35.9 44.8 2.3 60.6 0725F 19.3 68.1 , 17.1 44.8 10.5 60.6 ' 0726F 17.2 68.1 20.3 44.8 10.2 60.6 0727F 17.3 68.1 19.5 44.8 10.1 60.6 0728F 16.4 68.1 16.8 44.8 11.1 60.6 0729F 17.3 68.1 18.6 44.8 11.1 60.6 0730F 16.6 68.1 17.5 44.8 11.1 60.6 0731F 8.2 68.1 33.02 44.8 11.1 ,, 60.6 0-2308C 1435 slo 185R Equip. la Promlelty Zor4 1436 slo 185R Equip. la Pronielty Zor.a 1937 No 185A Equip. In Premielty Zond 1438 Ilo N5R Equip. In Promialty Zont 1439 110 al5R Equip. In Fromletty IcN , 1440 No NSR Equip. In Premielty Zor.4 1442 Ito NSR Equip. la Proximity Zont
s 1 l l l l F. i .
=
- e I_I k
- v R$
g .i
~ =
I g m I 1% us 2
=
j l Sh E3 3 E gga $ I
=
$852
- =2 W I w
3: e. a BWy ---- -- , "a
$E 5".0$ $$$$ NN i $U
~l.m -e a -
a p
< g5cc ~~~~ ~~ k; i3 E5 AAAA dd $ 3~) 1
~
Ea. }55E 2 E . CB 3" ..k. W 5g "g: gt 33
%t a
.g 1
g =l* 2 ~43 ii ~I .i ng5 -- i~ th
==
IT 21 E'3 d's' a !'$$-
=wa g==3
'. '. '. 5
====
=;
g 33
"" * *b 3:
5- $$- nnnn 2 8 E- !!
=wa
--a ~~~~
-2 gg m:
z-~ __ 2* ...
- s. wE I} *%2 g~dC- ~
. ws . w
=Ima --
=s2 DS 24" j~. 3o A0- - LZ y wa Eat ET
' gjo
= _[ -:3
- W $ b mwe -
g .:l (El 2:22 a s sass EEE
~~~
8.s= 23$
==,
se er 455 2 ,;l = b II2
=
la a
=l e:s w$g
*m e E gz* a <fa 1
, N E-18
%'J' J !iJ Frankan Research Center A Osuumese of The Psussene sumane
e s. i ATTACHMENT 2 1 SGES Staff Position on Use of Arching Action Theory to Qualify Unreinforced Masonry Walls in Nuclear Power Plants 1 INTRODUCTION Unreinforced hollow bicek masonry walls have a very limited capacity under the action of out-of$ lane loads. Higher resistance could be
- deVeToped by' chating large in-plane clamping forces,'thereby forming a three hinged arch mechanism after mid-span and support flexural cracking has occurred. The most important conditions for the arching mechanism to develop are the existence of rotational restraint at the boundaries '
~
~
and the prevention of gross sliding of the wall at support sections'. ' Some of the licensees have relied on the development of this arching i mechanism (referred to herein as ' arching action theory') to qualify unreinforced me.sonry walls in their plants. ~ t The staff and their consultants have reviewed the basis provided by licensees to justify the use of arching action theory to qualify the ud einforced.masonr7 MTis. The staff met with a group of licensees re;, resenting approximately eleven utilities and twenty two units on November 3,1982 and January 20, 1983 to discuss this issue. Further, a i i _ _ n. __ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ __Zi_ J '
~ +
s.
. 2-site visit and detailed review of design calculations were conducted by
- . a s:a" anc c:r.saitants to gain firsc-hand knowledge of fielc conditions and the application of arching action theory in qualifying j
in-place masonry walls. Based on the information gained through the above activities, the staff has formulated the following position on the
, acceptability of the use of at:hing action theory to qualify unreinforced masonry walls in operating nuclear power plants. The
{ staff's technical basis for the position is dist:ussed in the attached - repo rt. POSITION The use of arching action theory to qualify unreinforced masonry block walls is not acceptable. Therefore, th2 licensee shall fix the walls currently qualified by the use of arch;'q action theory such that they meet the staff acceptance criteria based on the working stress approach. _ (AppendixAofTER, Attachment 1). e e e ee
- e. #'
3 s a,'
i .
~.
ENCLOSURE TO ATTACHffENT O i 1
.O g
9 O. h e g o S I J O
. .. N I
.m l
== . . . . - . -- . . . .
e . EVALUATION'OF ARCHING THEORY IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
\ .
Prepared by Ahmed A. Hamid Harry C. Harris 1 Vu Con 2 June 1983 1.
. 2. Department of Civil Engineering, Drexel University Nuclear Engineering Department, Franklin liasearch Center i
&v?CO\] -
Sf f
. .. _\
. 1
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . ~ . - . . - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. .s i
l INTRCDtX: TION In response to IE Bunetin 80-11, a total of 16 nuclear power plants ha.ve indicated that the arching action technique has been employed to qualify some unreinforced masonry walls. Based on the review of submittals provided by tne licensees and published literature, Franklin Research Center (FRC) staff and FRC consultants have concluded that the available data in the literature do not give enough insight for understanding t$e mechanics and performance of unreinforced masonry walls under cyclic, fully reversed dynamic icading. As a result, a meeting with representatives of the affected plants was held at the NBC on November 3,1982 so 'that the NE, FRC staff, and FRC consultants could explain why the applicability of arching theory to masonry wans in nuclear power plants is questionable [1]. In a subsequent meeting on January 20, 1983, consultants of utility companies presented their rebuttals (2) and requested that they should be' treated on a plant-by-plant basis. In accordance with their requests, the NK staff has started the process of evaluating each plant on an individual basis. In this process, the NBC, FRC staff, and consultants have initiated visits.co various nuclear plants to
" examine 'the fiefd' conditfons of unreinforced masonry walls in the plants and to gain first-hand knowledge on how the arching theory is applied to actual wans. Key calculations have been reviewed with regard to the arching theory.
EVAL"dTICH CF ARCHING THECRY } _ Test of unreinforced concrete masonry wans were recently cond'u'cted by Agbabian Associates, S. B. Barnes and Associates, 'and Kariotis and Associates (31 (this joint venture ark i$ designated as ASK) . Based on the visit to Oconee Nuclear Station, the results of the AEK tests, and all relevant infeemation submitted by the licensees including the rebuttals given by the licensees in the January 20, 1983 meeting, the NRC, FRC staff, and consultants have made the following evaluations:
- 1. The design methodology used at various nuclear plants was, developed by McDowell et al. [4] in 1956 for solid brict walls under static monotonic icading. No test data are available to check the adequacy of hollow block masonry under cyclic, fully reversed dynamic loading.
....' Franwi.in
*cm .w.~ Research.. Ceeter
__ _ _ . . . - ~, . - . - --
. . . .V ,
s
- 2. The only dynamic test data for arched masonry. walls are the URS tests (5) for blast loading. mis type of loading is not a true represen-tation of earthquake loading because it is not fully reversed and has a decayed nature. Under very short-duration blast loading, masonry i walls, which have much lower natural frequencies, would not fully respond to the ' applied load. In addition, only two walls were tested under cyclic blast loading at URS for arched masonry walls.
- 3. Extrapolation of test data from solid masonry to hollow block masonry i is questionable. Recent test data (6} of eccertrically loaded masonry assemblages showed that the failure mechanism, strain distribution, and overall behavior of hollow masonry are quite different from those of ' solid or grouted masonry.
- 4. Ecllow block ansonry walls are more susceptible to premature web-shear failure or crushing compression failure. Precluding these types of failure is neccesary for the development of the arching mechanism. No data are available at the present. time to determine the safety factors against these brittle failures under seismic loading.
- 5. Recent ASK dymanic tests (31 showed that unreinforced block masonry walls did fgJ1, (couapse) under earthquake loads with ground acceleration (effective peak acceleistioh) of about 0.3g to 0.4g, which is typical for nuclear plants. Also, some walls experienced
- Accal crushing at the base before failure by instability, which emphasizes the possibility of premature compression failure of arched walls. It must be noted, however, that the ABE test walls wer*e not restrained at top to develop arching. Se effect of boundary conditions could be significant and cannot be evaluated without further testing.
l f 6. Unre.inforced block masonry walls are extremely brittle, and flexural failure occurs without warning. Se sensitivity of unreinforced masonry to crack development due to temperature and shrinkage is evident. Also, the inherent strength variability indicat'Es the
, necessity of different safety indexes in ultimate failure . analysis.
. 7. Masonry walls in nuclear plants usuaMy have openings and attachments. S eir effects on wall stability under seismic loading are unknown and cannot be rationany evaluated without testing. .
- 8. No test data are available for gapped arching block wous under cyclic loading. In some cases, restrainers are provided around the gap to prevent gross sliding this repair measure does not necessarily change the well behavior from gapped arch to rigid arch.
k g .... l'ranidin ar Research Center se 1% r, %
~~
,, _ _ ~ - , - - < -
, . .s CONCLUSION A review and evaluation of the available information on the applicanility of arching theory to unreinforced masonry walls in nuclear power plants has
.:,ven presen:a:. 2.;c, FIC staff, and consultants are firmly convinced taat their original position expressed to the licensees in the November 3,1983 seeting is still valid. It is evident that test data are needed to quantitatively determi,ne the effects of different wall geometries, material properties, and boundary conditions on unreinforced block :sasonry walls' resistance to earthquake loading. It is recommended that a confirmatory testing program be performed to investigate the applicability of arching theory to unreinforced block masonry walls in nuclear power plants.
~7 g,g s
...' FranMin Research Center asta==wNr, - .. -
. - . ... . . ._- .. . -~ --
_ ,_ - - - - - .--- - - -- - c e .. '
~
REFERENCES
- 1. Hamid, A. A. and Harris, H. G., " Applicability of Arching Theory to Unreinforced Block Masonry Wall.s Under Earthquake Loading," Franklin Researce. Center, Philadelphia, PA August 1982
- 2. " Rebuttal to Applicability of Arching Theory to Unreinforced Blocx Masonry Walls Under Earthquake Loading," Computech Engineering Services, Inc., URS/J. A. Blume & Associates and Bechtel Power Corporation, January 1983
- 3. " Methodology of Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in Existing Unleinforced Masonry Buildings: Wall Testing, Out-of-Plane,"
A8K report, El Sequado, CA 1981
- 4. McDowell, E. L. , McKee, M. E. , and Sevin, E. , " Arching Action Theory
, of Masonry Walls," ASCE Proceedings, Journal of the Structural Division, ST2 Marca 1956 .. . 1
- 5. Gabrielsen, B., Wilton, C., and Kaplan, K. , " Response of Arching Walls and Debris. from Interior Walls caused by Slast Loading," Report No. 7030-23, URS Research Company, San Mateo, CA February 1975
- 6. Drysdale, R. G. and Hamid, A. A., " Capacity of Concrete Block Masonry Prisons Under Eccentric Compressive Loading," ACT Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 80 March-April 1983
.. Franklin Research Center
*=====n^~- , _
...~ _ .. - . . - - . . . . - - . . _.- .-
_. .--. - - - . --. ,- ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _}}