ML20112B341

Affidavit of Mj Holley Supporting Conclusion That Cracks Do Not Significantly Affect Structural Adequacy of Facility Basemat.Related Correspondence

ML20112B341
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	01/04/1985
From:	Holley M HANSEN, HOLLEY & BIGGS, INC., LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20112B305	List: ML20112B302 ML20112B329 ML20112B341 ML20112B347 ML20112B358
References
OL, NUDOCS 8501100329
Download: ML20112B341 (27)

Text

-

~

a g January 4, 1985

3. f C?Cf"TED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v) .:- ,,

_n ,, n , ,

c -

.n u .?,o Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ,

In the Matter of )

)

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382 OL

)

(Waterford Steam Electric Station, )

Unit 3) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MYLE J. HOLLEY, JR.

Q1. Please state your name, address, and occupation.

A1. My name is Myle J. Holley, Jr. I am a principal in the firm Hansen, Holley, and Biggs, Inc., consulting structural engineers. My address is Box 88, MIT Branch PO, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. A statement of my relevant professional background and experience is attached.

Q2. What has been your involvement in the Waterford 3 project?

A2. On , or about October 30, 1984, I was engaged by Louisiana Power & Light Company to provide an independent judg-ment on the significance of the cracks which have been discov-ered in the Waterford 3 basemat, and to assist in addressing h

G OC O ph a

questions raised by members of the NRC Staff. My participation has included meetings with the NRC Staff on November 2 and November 20, 1984, numerous meetings with LP&L and Ebasco engi-

, .neers, and a visit to the Waterford 3 plant on December 10, 1984. In addition, I have been provided with, and have stud-ied,. relevant documents which have included reports and state-ments by LP&L's engineers (Ebasco), LP&L's consultants (HEA, Inc.'), members of the NRC Staff, and their consultants (BNL).

Q3. Maat is the purpose of this affidavit?

.A3. The purpose of this statement is to provide my con-clusion regarding the significance of the mat cracks to the structural integrity of the mat and the reasoning underlying that conclusion. .I have concluded that the defined cracks do not imply any loss of structural integrity.

x Q4. Have you reviewed the affidavits of the NRC Staff and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) which were submitted to the Appeal Board by letter from Staff counsel dated December.17, 1984?

A4. Yes I have. I am in agreement with the conclusions Eof BNL and the Staff regarding the structural adequacy of the basemat. I note, however, that one of the Staff members, Dr.

John Ma, states in his December 10, 1984 report that he is un-able to agree with the BNL and Staff positions, primarily be-cause he believes that force transfer across the face of the cracks during an earthquake is uncertain and hence the dynamic

. U f

seisn.ic response of the structure will be affected to an 1

unknown degree. I disagree with Dr. Ma's conclusion because l I

analyses, tests, and fundamental principles of reinforced con-crete. structural behavior all demonstrate conclusively that the effects of the cracking on force transfer across the cracks within the basemat will not significantly affect the structural integrity-of the basemat, including its dynamic response.

As I discuss the basis for my conclusions of the structural adequacy of-the basemat, I will address the various points raised by Dr. Ma.

QS. Do the defined mat cracks (vertical orientation, sub-stantial depth, modest width) imply any reduction in capacity for transfer of internal force components normal to those crack planes? ---

.AS. Clearly no impairment of the capacity to transfer in-

~

.ternal force components normal to the crack plane is implied by-the presence of the defined cracks, whether such force compo-nents are associated with gross section forces, i.e., " membrane forces", or with section bending moments. Concrete tensile strength is never relied upon in this context, and concrete compression strength is undiminished by the pre-cracking. It is not uncommon for reinforced concrete members to be designed for bending moment reversals, and the design capacity of a flexural compression zone is never reduced for the effect of prior cracking under an earlier bending moment of opposite direction. Total insensitivity to' flexural precracking was

, , , -n.. ,, - , a- , r , , ./

clearly demonstrated-by the beam tests executed and reported by BNL. (Affidavit of-Reich, et al., Attachment 1, Appendix E).

Q6. Do-the defined mat cracks imply significant reduction of capacity for transfer cf shear forces; i.e., forces parallel to thre crack-plane, across the cracks?

A6. No. Dr. Ma' quotes from one of the conclusions reached in a paper by A. H. Mattock, et al., to the effect that a preexisting crack will reduce the ultimate shear transfer strength and increase the slip at all levels of load (Ma affi-davit, page 26). Depending upon the amount of steel reinforce-ment crossing the crack, and upon the amount of externally ap-plied compressive force acting on the crack plane, the cited conclusion may or may not be valid. In my judgment, however, it is not relevant to the case under consideration. Dr. Mat-tock's research, as reported in the cited reference as well as elrewhere has conclusively demonstrated the very great shear transfer strength which can be mobilized across a crack. In-deed, the ACI Code equations relating such shear transfer strength to the tensile yield strength of rebars crossing the crack plane, which reflect Dr. Mattock's research findings and similar findings by other investigators, are specificially ap-plicable to a cracked condition. In a conservative application of the ACI Code equations, provided in the Ebasco Report of '

November 27, 1984, it is demonstrated that the available shear transfer strength across defined mat cracks is far in excess of

_.the shear demands associated with the factored design loads.

s

1

/r It should also be noted that the shear transfer strength demon-

.strated by these calculations is well in excess of the diagonal tension related allowable shear strength of the mat as pre-scribed by.the ACI Code.

-From all.the foregoing I conclude that whether the shear transfer strength across the defined mat cracks is or is not less than it would have been, absent the cracks, is not of interest. Rather, the important conclusion is that the shear transfer strength is well in excess of the demand; i.e., there has not been any reduction in such transfer strength that can 4 .be termed significant to the structural integrity of the mat.

i Q7. Dr. Ma has cited the observed widening of flexural cracks in zones near mid-depth deep beams, and has indicated u

~

'his concern that uncertainty of crack width renders the shear transfer capacity across the deep cracks to be correspondingly uncertain. Do you share this' concern?

A7. No. The tendency for flexural cracks in deep beams

'to widen with depth.is well understood. It has been observed on beams in service, has been duplicated in laboratory speci-mens, and has been modeled analytically. It reflects the fact that for each deep crack / extending essentially to the neutral.

axis, there typically are several shallow cracks in the near vicinity. The widths of the several cracks accumulate, i.e.,

as some cracks terminate their widths are absorbed-by those

-cracks continuing to greater depths. The phenomenon obviously is more readily observed in beams than in slabs because the g -crack profiles are clearly. visible'on the exposed side faces of a beam.

1 W- O

p.

There is no reason to suppose that the described crack widening cannot occur in deep slabs, such as the subject mat, although we have no clear evidence of substantial crack widening in the mat. At the top surface of the mat, cracks

-were. initially visible everywhere except directly beneath walls, and they were measured and found to be approximately 0.005" or less. At the time ~of the NDT-examination of the mat, crack widths'at the top surface were only visible outside the reactor containment building (RCB), and in tais region their widths still did not exceed 0.003". .I can think of nothing to suggest that top surface crack widths in the region no longer visible could have increased without a corresponding increase in the visible top surface crack widths. It is my understand-

~

ing that Mr. Muenow, who performed the examinations, assigns an accuracy'of 1 20%.to reported crack width values at depth (jr 0.007") for the regions outside the shield wall.

That is, one assumes that in these regions crack widening with depth to

.f- a maximum width of 0.0085" may have occurred. .There is no ap-

'I .parentcreason to expect greater crack widening with depth'in

..the~ area beneath the RCB than in the region exterior thereto, but the NDT crack width assessment beneath the RCB is less accurate than the 1 20% accuracy reported for the zone outside the RCB. However, I am told that Mr. Muenow, in recent conver-sations with Ebasco engineers, has stated that the NDT.examina-

. tion of ma,t cracks beneath the RCB indicates they cannot exceed

' O.015".

p -

. O

.A o

I conclude from all the above that some widening of some of the cracks, such as has been cbserved and explained for deep beams, may also be present in the mat. However, the NDT-defined upper limit of mat crack width still is very modest, and certainly not of such magnitude as to suggest any reduction in the shear transfer strength defined by the applicable ACI Code shear friction provisions. The distribution of shear stress acting on the crack plane, from top to bottom of the

-mat,-will not be uniform, as might be more nearly true if the crack width were constant from top to bottom, i.e., one expects

larger magnitudes of shear stress where the crack is narrowest

.(or' effectively closed by bending-induced compression stress normal to the crack plane) and smaller shear stress magnitudes

~

where the crack is wider. However, it is clear that the ACI Code equations defining shear strength along a crack plane do not. imply a necesssarily uniform distribution of shear stress.

This is evident from the fact that they are as applicable to a crack plane which is subject to concurrent transfer of bending-induced stress components normal to the crack plane as to a' crack plane 1 free of such bending-induced normal stress compo-nents.

In summary, I do not believe that crack widening with depth, suggests that shear transfer strength across the mat cracks may be less than the conservative values reported by Ebasco in their Report of November 27, 1984.

si D

F 6

Q8. Do the defined mat cracks imply any magnitudes of shear " slip" which might invalidate the analyses which deter-mined the internal mat forces associated with the imposed load-ings-(gravity, earth pressure, earthquake-induced) on the mat and the-supported superstructure?

A8. Based upon research by R. M. Whitel/ involving cy- ,

cle 1, fully reversed, applications of sheur stress across precracks of various widths referenced by Ebasco in their Re-port of November 27, 1984, it is clear that the slip, if any, must be extremely small. Indeed, _ based upon the results of Dr.

White's tests it appears that the required total clamping force which must be mobilized in developing the demand shear forces in the mat is less than the externally-applied clamping force exerted by horizontal water and backfill pressures acting on the vertical boundaries of the mat and the side walls above.

~

Asinoted by the Ebasco engineers, this precompression on the crack planes may preclude any slip whatever.

In the analysis of concrete structures'to determine internal forces caused by imposed design loadings, the stiffnesses of_ beams and slabs usually are based upon prop-

- erties of uncracked concrete sections, even though it is under-

, stood that cracking will occur. Moreover, in evaluating slab stiffnesses, for use in such structural analysis, the effect of shear flexibility almost always is ignored. The reason for this is that, for typical slab span / depth ratios, shear strain 1/- J. P. Liable, R. N. White, and P. Gergely, " Experimental Investigation.of Seismic Shear Transfer Across Cracks in Concrete Nuclear Containment Vessels," ACI SP 53-9, Reinforced Concrete in Seismic Zones, 1977.

C

contributions to total f'.exibility are negligibly small in com-parison to the contritations of. bending flexibility. The sub-ject mat does not have the very short span / depth ratios which would suggest to an analyst that shear strain contributions to flexibility _should be taken into account. .

As already noted, because of the externally-induced

precompression, there may be no slip at the defined cracks.

However, if.there is any slip, I-do not believe it can be of sufficient' magnitude;to significantly alter the effective flex-I ibility of the mat so as to require that it be accounted f,or in

. analyses for internal ~ forces due to applied design loads.

-Q9. Do the defined mat cracks imply that. flexural rig-idities of the cracked mat invalidate analyses-based on the ,

uncracked condition which were executed to determine internal mat forces caused by the imposed design loadings?-

A9. As noted in the preceding discussion, bending, rather than shear, is the dominant' factor in regard to stiffness of S' the mat, and-the uncracked properties usually_are used for pur-poses of analysis to determine internal forces caused by im-

-posed design loadings. This practice is reasonable when the structure, or a major element of the structure, does:not interact with an elastic supporting element,-e.g., the founda-tion material supporting the mat.

In the latter case, the as-sumption ofran uncracked mat, that is, greater flexural rigidi-ty than the mat actually exhibits, can result in computed internal mat forces larger than the forces that actually

.g.

LZ

develop. This may be understood by recognizing that an elastic supporting medium will develop a pressure distribution tending to counter the mat relative deflections. Moreover, the larger the relative deflections of the mat, the larger will be the am-p11tudes of the counteracting pressure distribution. In ef-

'fect, reduction in mat stiffness leads to larger relative de-flections, and larger bending curvatures, but smaller bending moments. Bending moments are the products of local curvatures and local stiffnesses, and the decreased stiffnesses more than compensate for the larger curvatures.

To illustrate the foregoing, I requested Ebasco engi-neers to repeat analyses for internal forces, assuming mat stiffnesses reduced by 50 percent to reflect the effect of en-tensive bending-induced cracking, i.e., a much larger bending stiffness reduction than would be associated with the present array of mat cracks. As expected, the mat bending moments and shear forces, representative plots of which are attached as Attachment 1, are only slightly different, and often are smaller for the cracked than for the uncracked mat.

Q10. Do the-defined mat cracks imply a significant change in the dynamic characteristics of the structure as a whole (mat plus supported super-structure) leading to possible adverse ef-fects on response spectra?

A10. Any reduction in stiffness of a structure will cause some reduction in one or more of the characterirtic f requencies '. However, it is common practice to perform overall e n

dynamic analyses on the basis _of member stiffnesses corre-sponding to uncracked concrete. Moreover, for the subject structure I believe the effect of greater mat flexibility on principal ~ structural frequencies will be small. It may be noted that BNL engineers analysed a simplified model to deter-mine the effect on dynamic response of complete loss of shear strength in one element of the mat. They found the effect on response to be negligible.

Qll. On page 16 of his affidavit Dr. Ma has noted that the-total tensile strength of the uncracked mat concrete on an East-West cross-section is about 166,000,000 pounds, in con-trast-to the yield strength of the top rebars crossing the same section of about 50,000,000 pounds. He expresses concern that, because cracking has eliminated the concrete as a potential strength element "in reserve," the reactor and its support that bridges the-cracks may be called upon to transmit the tensile -

forces. Do you share this concern?

All. No. In my judgment it would be unsound design to

~

rely on the concrete to carry tensile forces of the kind envi-siened'by Dr. Ma, or to rely on the concrete tensile strength to provide a reserve capacity of this kind. Steel rebars are provided in reinforced concrete to resist such forces, and the crack widths associated with the permissible rebar tensile stresses, in the mat or in the supported structures above, pose no threat to the integrity of either.

Q12. On page 18 of his affidavit Dr. Ma cites the earth-quake damage to bridges due to hammering effects at hinge ex-pansion joints. Do you believe that this experience justifys concern regarding force transfer across the cracks in the sub-ject mat?

L?;

n

.A12. No. The cited bridges spanned between piers with differing seismic motions, one from the other. In contrast, the. mat is a single monolithic structure, reinforced to trans-mit forces across cracks. It also is relevant to note that the mat is well below ground and the crack planes experience externally-applied compression force arising from soil backfill pressures and effective groundwater pressures acting on the vertical boundaries of the mat and the walls above. These com-pressive forces remain net compressive during the design seismic event.

Q13. Dr. Ma provided an enclosure excerpt from a paper by W.H. Price entitled " Control of Cracking in Mass Concrete Dams" containing the statement, "The primary requirement involved in mass concrete construction is that the completed structure it a ,,

monolithic mass that is free from cracks, particularly in the direction parallel to the axis of the dam, so that stress con-ditions developed in the loaded dam are essentially as calcu-lated." Does this statement have applicability to the question of the effects of.the defined mat cracks?

A13. No. Dr. Ma quoted the-statement only up through "is free from cracks . . ." (Ma affidavit, page 30). Had the statement not continued beyond that portion quoted, it might well.have appeared that freedom from cracks is mandatory for all mass concrete structures regardless of their intended load-ing and function, and regardless of whether they are plain or reinforced concrete. From both the title and the content of Price's paper, it seemc clear that the focus is on mass con-crete dams. Such structures are not reinforced concrete. They are-designed to.act.as uncracked monoliths, and their stability f

~

h and functionality can be directly dependent upon freedom from

. cracks, particularly cracks parallel to the axis. In contrast, the subject mat is reinforced with steel bars. Probable bending-induced vertical cracks are recognized and expected, and the steel- bar quantities required for force transfer across such cracks are provided. Price's statement, clearly applica-ble to mass concrete dams, does not seem relevant to the sub-ject mat.

. Q14. Dr. Ma has provided with his affidavit attachment

-enclosures which are excerpts from references relating to the crack widening phenomenon including, particularly, a summary -

from " Control of-Cracking on The Side Faces of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams" by G. C. Frantz and J. E. Breen (Ma affidavit, page 30). Beyond Dr. Ma's concerns regarding possible rele-vance of such crack widening to considerations of force trans-fer across the mat cracks, he appears to have a concern regard- ~

ing :possible adverse implications for durability of the mat concrete and corrosion of the mat rebars. Do you share those concerns?

A14. No. The cited paper by Frantz and Breen is a report of;a comprehensive research program which was stimulated by the occurrence of wide cracks near mid-depth on the side faces of ,

several large reinforced concrete highway bridge bent girders.

The authors noted that the wider mid-depth cracks have no ad -

verse influence on bending strengths, and I have indicated in response to an earlier question'that I-share that opinion. The principal significance of crack widening in deep beams is their potentially adverse effects with regard to durability of the cracked, exposed,_ faces of the beams, rebar corrosion, and aes-thetic appearance. Accordingly, the special side face

=: .

C

reinforcement which is required in deep beams is understood to control mid-depth crack widths in the side face zones. If the beam is relatively narrow such crack width control may be effective throughout the beam thickness, from one side face to the other. If the beam is not only deep but also wide, the special reinforcement-may only be effective in controlling crack' widths in zones near the side faces, but this limited control may accomplish the intended purposes.

Mid-depth crack widths in the mat obviously are not y

an aesthetic problem. Neither are they a problem with regard to concrete durability since the mat is not subject to cycles of freezing and thawing of any water in the cracks, nor to any

'large thermal cycles. The question of possible mat rebar cor-rosion has been addressed by others and found to be no threat, and it is not apparent how mid-depth crack widening can be a significant factor in this regard either.

Q15. As one alternative method for removing his concerns, Ihr. Ma , at page 31 of his affidavit, suggests pressure grouting or epoxy injection of the cracks. Do you concur with his sug-gestion?

A15. No. Dr. Ma's concerns do not appear to focus on the present ability of the mat to perform its load-carrying func-tion at acceptable internal stress levels. Rather his' concerns are focused on uncertain and possibly adverse effects of the mat cracks on the mat response to the design earthquake if it should occur during the plant life. He is also concerned 4

n

regarding possible long-term effects of mat cracks on concretes durability and rebar corrosion. As I have explained in a pre-

- vious response, I do not believe it is sound design to rely on

~

concrete tensile strength, either at presently uncracked sec-tions or at cracks which have been grouted or epoxy-injected in an effort'to restore concrete tensile strength, to resist the kind'of tensile forces normal to the crack planes which are of

, concern to Dr. Ma. As is normal practice in reinforced con-t +

crete design, rebars have been provided to. carry such forces.

As I have also indicated in responses to earlier questions, I consider the. capability for shear force transfer across mat cracks to be.more than adequate, and grouting or epoxy injec-

' tion in an effort to enhance this capability is unnecessary.

^

Finally, the-mat cracks do not appear to imply concrete dura-bility. problems or rebar corrosion problems.

I b

9 t

Q Q16. As another alternative for the purpose of eliminating his concerns Dr. Ma suggests the use of prestressing tendons across the crack planes. Do you concur with.this suggestion?

A16. No. For the same reasons as given in my response to Q15 I_do not believe that this measure, or any other repair measure, is required by the presence of the defined cracks.

, bl . f>_

• /RYCE 7 MOLLEY, p.(

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1/b day of January, 1985.

NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: e/ f/.

n

STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MYLE J. HOLLEY, JR.

Mr. Holley received the S.B. and S.M. degrees in

' Civil Engineering from MIT.in 1939 and 1947, respectively. From 1939 to 1946 he was employed by the S. Morgan Smith Co'. (now the York, PA Division of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.) as a stress analyst and designer of heavy machinery. In 1946 lun joined the Faculty of MIT in the Department of Civil Engineering.

While on that Faculty he taught subjects in structural analysis and design, and supervised structural research projects. The latter included work in the fields of

~

reinforced concrete structures, prestressed concrete, structural applications of granite, high-strength reinforced concrete beams, and the performance of thin arch concrete dams. For several of his years on the MIT Faculty, Mr. Holley was in_ charge of the Structural Division of the Civil Engineering Department.

In 1955 Professor Holley and his colleagues, Professors John M. Biggs and Robert J. Hansen, formed

'the consulting partnership Hansen, Holley and Biggs.

Since 1975 the' group has functioned as Hansen, Holley and Biggs, Inc. Mr. Holley's participation in'the professional efforts of.the group has continued

-undiminished since his retirement from teaching in 1974.

!- h

l l

1 The professional assignments of Hansen, Holley and l l

Biggs have been related, almost exclusively, to complex problems of structural design and structural behavior. Their clients include both engineering firms and owners of major constructed facilities. A substantial fraction of their practice has involved advice and assistance in the resolution of problems arising in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. In this area of their practice, clients have included:

Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation United Engineers and Constructors Gibbs 'and Hill American Electric Power Corporation

. Rochester Gas and Electric Company Portland General Electric Company -

Teledyne Engineering Services TERA Corporation.

Mr. Holley has been extensively involved in structural as-pects of nuclear power plant projects for all of the above com-panies. In addition, he has been a consulting member of sever-al internal design review boards conducted by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.

Mr. Holley is a registered Professional Engineer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Concrete Institute, and the American Society for Engineering Education. He has served on numerous professional committees, including several years on ACI 349 Concrete Nuclear Structures and ACI 359 Nuclear Reactor Components.

r

(: -

ATTACHMENT 1 e

L_'. .

NOTE: 5

, POSITIVE AND NEGAf tVF SHE AR PE AKS IN REGIONS AWAY FROM CONCENTRATED LOADS ARE FICTITIOUS AND ARE DUE TO LUMPING ]~

THE DISTRIBUTED SOIL RE ACTIONS AT THE NODE POINTSIN THE COMPUTER MODEL.THE M AGNtTUDE OF THE SHE AR FORCES IN k -- r- 4 9' S THESE REGIONS ARE SMALLER TH AN SHOWN. _

L ELEMENT NO. INTS)

(RC8

! EEEMI 0 $ EIE I~ E $ $ I IEEE I $553IIIE I i iii i i IiIIi i s i t i ii -

i i 300 -

WALL, i i I, g ,i, iWAt.L ABOV E ' '

ABOVE 200 - -

100 -

l i

P i

\ J s

0 E Y i

s 4

-100 - _

f

-' -200 - _

'I 300 lillii l i I II I il i i lIII I ii Illt i I LEGEND: ---- FULL RIGIDITY

<! 50% RIDIGITY

DESIGN ENVELOPE DBE

N -+ S T LOUISIANA p POWER & LIGHT CO. N S SHEAR DIAGR AM - SECTION A A-Waterford Sleam icONSTANT SPRING) 1A Electric Station n

L

• NOTE:

• C

• POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SHE AR PE AKS IN REGIONS AWAY FROM CONCENTRAf tO LOADS ARE FICTITIOUS AND ARE DUE TO LUMPlNG r-THE DISTRIBUTEO SOtt RF ACTIONS AT THE NODE POINTSIN THE L-COMPUTER MODEL. THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SHE AR FORCES IN (f. __..[ , .4= . d ,

THESE REGIONS ARE SMALLER THAN SHOWN. N L.:_

L' ELEMENT NO. (NTS) i q,Res

, . R S 3 at I E 3 3 E 3 I I 3 6 I I i ii Ii 5i i3 i5: 5i sii

$ IIII 3i $i 35 E3 3$

Iii i i s i i II .i i i i i i i i  :

-V- .g .

200 -

WALL l WALL -

j ABOVE ' '

ABOVE

. 100 -

,i l . * *\ ~ ~'I i p l 1 I l i u. ~

& N %

~

0 --

M g

(s --

I g

! -100 -

i I

200 _ l _

.S .

.y.

300 'il 8 8 'I 8 8 18 8 ' ' 8 8 8 8 I I I t il I I I I I I I I I e

LEGEND: ---- FULL RIGIDITY 50% RIGIDITY DESIGN ENVELOPE

, DBE: N*S LOUISIANA #

POWER & LIGHT CO. N-S SHEAR DIAGRAM - SECTION B B Waterford Steam (CONSTANT SPRING) IB Electric Station

i .. y .; ._'..d  ; ' r. +' -'~

.. -'h Q L ( , F:

.. .  ?: . . _ .

4. 1 + uf . ~ ~. c. --? t:hy. . r- ik +.. <. e.n : g;m' :. ,- s ^ i:n\> , . % .:i - .a;- ' f: * . . -

=

IT e' .

I b___ . . . , 4 -. .d C.

ELEMENT NO. (NTS)

Q RCB

$338'33 2' ' '

23" ****98 "E*

• 3 " ]* **

• gigggg' 5000 "IIIIl I i i iiiI I I I I II II I I I IIII I i 4000 - -

~ ~

r__ [ WALL i r

~

r WALL 3000 -

ABOVE ' '

ABOVE -

I

,f

{ 2000 -

i- h>-

g 1000 -

l -

2

[ $ 0 - 2

__ q -------- y o

l. 2 -1000 -

, O 6 I m -2000 -

'?

z i -3000 -

-4000 -

l 1

-5000 -

-6000 -

-7000 IIIII I l~ + FliI I I I I I I I I l ~ Ib ~l I ' ll i I I LEGEND: ._ FULL RIGIDITY 50% RIGIDITY DESIGN ENVELOPE DBE: N -+ S i.

LOUISIANA F g ,,

POWER & LIGHT CO. N S BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM - SECTION A A Wolerford Steam (CONSTANT SPRING) IC Electric Station

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I

a f7 e

TT f._.-

t , nn .d 0 '

l ELEMENT NO. (NTS) l ( RC8

-g., . 3tRIII3 Isti I63 EEE I I @ 6 I I Ii E 3 5 6 6 $III E I $5 EE E5 l l i iit i i ii i i i ii i i Gil I I I i ii i M -'

~[-WALL

~I~ WALL ABOVE ABOVE

$~ k 2000 - -

i1 5!

d

- 1000 - -

! '~'

-- [ .----- g V g

'1 E_ -1000 -

s ' 4 -

' ]I _ g (, e ~

3 w

,88 -2000 - -

2 3000 -- -

m-4000 - -

1

-3000 -

1 2000

'f - -

2 3 -1000 1II I I II II I II I I I I ii i i ii i i l i i ii I i l a i i LEGEND: FULL RIGIDITY  !

[g 60% RIGIDITY DESIGN ENVELOPE

)

f D8E: N*S 1

st I

LOUISlANA p;p,,

POWER & LIGHT CO. N-S BENDING MOMENT DI AGRAM - SECTION 8 8 Waterford Sleom (CONSTANT EPRING) 1D Electric Station l

l l

NOTE: ,

b POSITIVE AND NEGATIVI! SHE AR PE AKS IN REGIONS AWAY F ROM ,,

, CONCENTRATFD LOADS ARE FICTITIOUS AND ARE OUE TO LUMPING THE DISTRIBL TED SOfL RF ACTIONS AT THE NODE POINTSIN THE T-L.-

COMPUTER MODEL. THE M AGNITUDE OF THE SHE AR FORCES IN THESE REGIONS ARE SMALLER THAN SHOWN. l.a. _ , ,== .ij ELEMENT NO. (NTS)

L1 RCS

, MIEI I I IIII II(II IEEI! Ili!IIII ilIII I I I I II I I I I I I l l l l l llll l l

~ ~~

300 -

WALL ~ WALL -

ABOVE ABOVE l I 9

f.

200 - _

i 1M -  : _

g A 4 ~

f 4

h I

/

cc / ,

0 y v r v

-100 - _

f 200 -

.4

_+_

4

-300 e I i 18 I I I III i f- lii t t i I I t i ltII t I i LEGEND:

.. FULL RIGIDITY 50% RIGIDITY DESIGN ENVELOPE

{

OBE: N -+ S l

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. N-S SHEAR DIAGRAM - SECTION A A Woferford Steam (VARIABLE SPRING) 2A Electric Station m

n

1- J S$?n, ._- . . . . . I "$ 12">"w"'2"".-*Mr s M -@ m . .

m SHEAB KlU o 4 ($ ed O m** ,

• t g 101OQ 0

-r*mr

$yNo $ g 8 o 8 O 05"K.e, E. ;r e!E ~~ 8 *2,d,, 3 -2 a 5- i 3 i i 8

T .re a o z

{

36 m

g $3@2>

z <=EE E IC 83{m"5 $> $

~ ~

n l ~_ g ~ 92 3o6

>"-o2Cr-N'd 8 D o

o 1 I 120

1. /

og - - 148 s, pg" 32 Q[e - 1s2 E g>k A o

Zom_? -

.. A,

.e #

- --  : Id' 9-er; m5o 455 E .<C

,/w >

w s 2{$h_>

• .Obog m < -. 456 o y Im

- ~

r- < r -

O N - '"

I '~ - ass O 11*-. s z m 471 3 z"*Op i

l 2 w

• - 48o loss

>'na m

f  !

- 488 ,o *

o z go >

m o ~ -

-i m 05 I Q 496 % m 2 -. D

'E m

>c

%s --

503 0 h *z e

• 3g 2 t 512 z Esk,3 o i

ya 4 .- - - pJ -

516 d m C 2 E g- E ,

o O j ~ 526 1

, - _____, 525 3

a i E m, 1 .

g zm Y

~

3 ~~~ .6 ~

, Oh j -

s

~ _~ 348 3 ,'N M E

= - o > - 537 i

• i -

NI h - 549

- - 560 l

I - 571 F

I

'l r. ,Qp)k I "

1

- 582 N

~

N 593 I

o

. f w o

? -

3 604 g

CD

.k i i /{ I '

615

6

= IT

<~.

12. . ._, , ..,se .d L*.

ELEMENT NO. (NTS) 4 l -

EEEME O Q RC8 6 EIE 6 EI E I I5EE E $553I0IE Y, , , . . . , , ,... .

~[IWALL

[ WALL 3000 -

ABOVE ABOVE -

2000 .

8 10GO - -

6-E V O ~

E Y" ' - _ _ - ...-_

2 -1000 r :E I --

O

-2000 - -

2 0

z -3000 - -

m- g

'O 2 4000 - -

1

-6000 - -

-6000 - .-

a 7000 eieiii I *i eai e i e i i i e a i I i i iei e i

.i LEGEND:

I'l FULL RIGIDITY

,,,,,,,,, _,,, SO% RIGIDITY DESIGN ENVELOPE

-; f

.3 DBE: N -+ S LOUISlANA pig,,,

POWER & LIGHT CO. N S BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM - SECTION A A Wolerford Stecm (VARIADLE SPRING) 2C

Electric Station i

__ .__ . . _ . _ . . _ , _ _ . - _ . - .~ _ . . . . _ _ . . . - . - - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . ._ _ _ __ _ _,.. _ .

7i \ ,,*

I l

I 8 pmMz4 $ 34. m

, e ,Q 608234 5 633 0D 26 6 5 8 36 M6 911142024699111 4 5 644 67 2% %3 4255 1 1 2 2 5 5 5Ma 4

3 3 53 g 7 g 01 55 7

2 3 8 9 5 5 4

0 6

=8o ~ _- - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - ~

l

-. 8 I

y]'

' 3kE ' ,

4$r I

$o<m ,mO m

-- m.

~8o i 2, 1 8o 8 i

)

T g)

. F N \ iIII 8

/ ,'g )I4

_ K - o ,- - "

T F

)  !'g f('

(

% ,/

T s N , 8o 4

~  %

l E ~

M - s - ,

O - \

M ,w 8 o 8 g

• i G

N I

D ,w8o 8 I

-- N E

_ B

_S - ,*8o 6 t N -

,*8o i I

.. ,*8o I I

. l l

, ,*8o - - - - - - - - - - : - - - _ - - - - ~

I r@mg- -

. giI ,CrP 305 Q f

gmm_235 02 m

• O5 4

o$.2Iu

~

-roc @>.Z* , 6. c

$wmm p r32. - nO* 2 m mmzo h mgmz4 9 >o n > mg452- 9*

za.E,1 wgg _<$ $ m % m- wO m .aE." EE s'

- D