ML20136G479

Masonary Wall Design, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20136G479
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	11/04/1985
From:	Le A CALSPAN CORP.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20136A906	List: ML20136A901 ML20136A935 ML20136G479
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TAC-42914, TER-C5506-259, NUDOCS 8511220370
Download: ML20136G479 (28)

Text

_ _ _ _ __

a. .

I .,

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4

NRC DOCKET NO. ~ 50-219 FRC PROJECT C5506 i

g NRCTAC NO. 42914 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-61-130 FRC TASK 259 HASONRY WALL DESIGN JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION TER-C5506-259 l

.i Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con

[* Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Lsad Engineer: N. C. Chokshi H November 4, 1985 D This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States l- Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or Implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or 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 party would not infringe privately owned rights.

i Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

P a 44 darg*

Principal Author I Departmenf He~ad l

Date: //-/-# f Date: Il-1-f5 Date: 18- 4 -# 5'

( FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER

,39pg DIVISION.OF s s.. ARVIN/CALSPAN

m. _ _ ,,,,

t

, TER-C5506-259 i-1 A

4 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . I k

1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 r

1.2 Generic Issue Background . . . . . . . . . 1 a.

1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 1 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA. . . . . . -. . . . . . 3

. 3 TEcNNm EV-TI. . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1 Evaluation of Licensee's Criteria . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Evaluation of Licensee's Approach to Wall Modifications . 12

- [. 4 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

~

5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 APPENDIX A - SGEB CRITERIA FOR SAFEIT-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION

'9 (DEVELOPED BY THE STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

, BRANCH (SGEB] OF THE NRC) .

APPENDIX B - SKETCHES OF NALL MODIFICATIONS U

[ -

I -

I h

111

I' re .

1

{ ,

TER-C5506-259 .

I i

FOREWORD i

This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center

under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of I Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The

. technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the MRC.

E I

H T

i i

B B .

t I

I r

6

, TER-C5506-259

1. INTRODUCTION 1

l 1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW The purpose of this review is to provide technical evaluations of the I Licensee response to IE Bu?.letin 80-11 (1]* with respect to compliance with the Nuclear Regu".atory Comunission (NRC) masonry wall criteria. In addition,

'i if a Licensee has planned repair work on masonry walls, the planned methods

~

and procedures are to be reviewed for acceptability.

1.2 GENERIC ISSUE BACKGROUND  !

t-

.{FT In the course of conducting inspections at the Trcjan Nuclear Plant,

Portland General Electric C7 ny determined that some concrete masonry walls l did not have adequate structural strength. Further investigation indicated that the problem resulted from errors in engineering judgment, a lack of Ei established procedures and procedural details, and inadequate design criteria. Because of the implication of similar deficiencies at other operating plants, the NRC issued IE Bulletin 80-11 on May 8, 19P.S.

IE Bulletin 80-11 required licensees to ider.tify plant masonry walls and their intended functione- Licensees were also required to present reevaluation criteria for the masonry walls with the analyses to justify those criteria.

If modifications were proposed, licensaes were to state the methods and schedules for the modifications. l 1.3 PIANI-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND In response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&L) provided the NRC with letters and attachments (2-4] describing the status of masonry walls at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Based on the available information supplied by the Licensee, the Franklin Research Center (FRC) has conducted a review of the sta'tus of the masonry walls at this plant.

As a result of this review, a list of questiions was sent to the Licensee to which the Licensee has responded (5-10).

• Numbers in brackets indicate references, which are cited in Section 5.

N 3

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - _ _ . _ . _ -.--..-.--.-.J

I:

i

. TER-C5506-259 The Licensee has identified 47 walls at the Oyster Creek plant as safety-related (3]. Two walls have been removed from the scope of work as indicated in Reference 8. Consequently, there are 45 safety-related walls. However, I

for 20 of these walls, it was determined that minor preemptive modifications I

(removing affected sections of the walls) would eliminate safety concerns

(potential missile hazard to the vital system) associated with these walls k and, therefore, no reanalysis was needed.

The walls under conside' ration are typically single wythe, except for one 24-inch-thick shield wall in the reactor building. Unreinforced and reinforced walls are found at the plant. Both stacked and running bond construction are

[4 ~

encountered.

The masonry wall type and materials for the Oyster Creek plant are given below:

7 Wall Types Safety-related walls 45 Number of walls for which no analysis 20 was needed (preemptive modifica-

tions will eliminate safety concerns associated with these walls)

Additional walls requiring 19 modifications to satisfy the Licensee's criteria Number of walls qualified by analysis 6 i

Wall Functions Shielding, fire barrier, security, personnel partition 4

j Construction Materials i

Hollow concrete unit ,

Non-load bearing C-129

! Load-bearing C-90 Mortar C-270 Type M Bar reinforcement 'A 15, intermediate grade, deformed bars per ASTM 305 (Grade 40)

, Horizontal joint reinforcement Extra heavy Dur-O-Wal 1

'y TER-C550ti-259

2. REVIEW CRITERIA I

The basic doctanents used for guidance in this review were the criteria i developed by the Structural Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) of the NRC (attached as Appendix A to this report), the Uniform Building Code (12], and ACI 531-79 [13]. l b

In general, the materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform'to the SGEB criteria. For 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 8 and the appropriate increase factors for abnormal and exteme environmental loads hre given in the SGEB criteria (Appendix A).  ;

D l U

I k ,

.o I I f

l i

t j

TER-C5506-259

1

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION il This technical evaluation is based on the Licensee's earlier submittals

[2-4], and subsequent responses [5-10] to the NRC request for additional information. The Licensee's criteria were evaluated with regard to design and

, analysis methods, loads and load combinations, allowable stresses, construc-g tion specifications, materials, and any relevant test data'.

ls 3.1 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S CRITERIA i

The Licensee evaluated the masonry walls using the following criteria:

o Allowable stresses were based on ACI 531-79 [13].

! o The loads and load-combinations considered are those of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) of the plant, l o The working stress design method was used to qualify the walls.

J j o A typical elastic analysis procedure is summarized below:

determine wall boundary conditions calculate the wall's fund ==antal frequency using beam model or

, two-way action plate model.

obtain inertial loading from floor response spectra compare computed stresses with the allowable values in ACI 531-79

[13].

o The following damping values are used:

l f; a. For unreinforced. walls, 2% damping for operating basis earthquake

[] (OBE) and 4% for safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).

i- b. For reinforced walls, 4% damping for OBE and 7% for SSE.

Other than those areas identified in Section 4, the Licensee's criteria il have been reviewed and found to be technically adequate and in compliance with the SGEB criteria. The review of the Licensee's response to the request for l::

additional information follows.

Request 1

With respect to allowable stresses for factored loads, the Licensee uses P the following increase factors in excess of the values allowed by the SGEB criteria [11] which are listed in parentheses:

4 i

i.

9 TER-C5506-259 masonry shear in flexural members 1.5 (1.3) j' masonry _ shear in unreinforced shear walls 1.5 (1.3) reinforcement takes entire shear 1.7 (1.5) tension normal to bed joint 1.67 (1.3) tensi'on parallel to bed joint 1.67 (1.5).

The Licensee's justification for these factors is based on various test results [ Reference 3, Enclosure 3, Tables 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9].- The

. Licensee is requested to discuss the applicability of these tests to the

!I. masonry walls at the Oyster Creek plant with particular emphasis on the following areas:

boundary conditions nature of loads size of test walls type of masonry construction (block and mortar type, grouted or ungrouted).

. The Licensee is also. requested to indicate the number of walls that could not be qualified (if SGEB increase factors are used) and to identify these walls. Also, identify any conservative measures used in the analysis which could be claimed for using a higher increase factor.

- Response 1 Regarding shear stress, the Licensee provided a table that listed calcu-7 lated shear stresses for all safety-related walls. A review of the results

<1 indicated that the Licensee's calculated stresses are within the SGEB allowables.

With respect to tension, the Licensee provided a list of stress results, . l and the following conclusions were provided:

a. For unreinforced stacked bond wallt, two walls were overstressed for i tension normal to bed joint. Walls 20 and 8 were overstressed by 3%

and 27%, respectively, if the SGEB allowables wer's used.

b. For unrainforced running bond walls, the affected walls 17, 18, 22,

! 23, 24-2 (this wall consists of two sections: 1 and 24-2), 25, l and 26 were overstressed for tension normal to bed joint if the ,

~

increase factor sugge ted by the SGEB is adopted. The actual exceeding percentages vary from 3% to 11%. ,

i  :

L The Licensee provided the detail justification for using the higher increase facter (1.67 vs 1.3) by referring to six different test results from l ~

~

References 15 to 20.

, l

I TER-C5506-259 s

As a result, the Licensee concluded that for OBE events, the safety factor i

f (SF) lies in the range of 2.70 i SF i 3.86. Similarly, for SSE events, the l range is 1.63 i SF i 2.33.

It is noted that conservative measures such as low damping (4% as opposed  !

to 7% allowed by the SGEB criteria for SSE) and one-way bending assumption

{ where two-way action may be appropriate were used in the analysis. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the 3% to 27% of exceedance can be accepted, and this leads to the conclusion that the Licensee's approach is considered (

'~

adequate and meets the intent of the SGEB criteria.

t l

Request 2

f Provide sample calculations of the stresses for a typical stacked bond I h wall.

7 Response 2 7 In response to this request, the Licensee provided a sample calculation

_ for wall 2. This wall is a partition wall at the south side of the control room and consists of four sections. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4. Data on wall 7

,j sections are provided below: i

1. Wall Dimension

{ Height: 14.5 ft for wall 2-1 i

16.2 ft for other walls l

1 Length: 11.3 ft for wall 2-1 8.4 ft for wall 2-2 8.5 ft for wall 2-3

,p 14.5 ft for wall 2-4 .

Thickness: 8.in for wall 2-1 6 in for other valls i

2. Reinforcements i i

Vertical reinforcement: #5 bars at 16-in interval for all walls i Horisontal reinforcement: Dur-O-Wal at 16-in interval for all walls.

l i l The sample calculation has been reviewed and the method used to evaluate j g stress is found adequate and &cceptable. l 0

l l

j '

i

g.

!! l

l ll ' TER-C5506-259  !

i

[

Request 3 j i

Indicate if walls are subject to impact or tornado loads. If so, provide l sample calculations for impact and tornado analysis. l

!i ,

Response 3 j i .

i The Licenses stated that all~ block walls are located inside the main l 1 structures. Therefore, loads caused by tornado are not applicable to the walls in this plant.

>a The Licensee's re!!ponse is satisfactory and has resolved concerns asso-ciated with impact or tornado loads.

Request 4 Indicate how earthquake forces in three directions were considered in the analysis.

Response 4 In this response, the Licensee stated that the in-plane seismic force produces a smaller inertia force than the out-of-plane seismic force due to i

the sero period response from the walls in that direction (the frequency of well in that direction is in the rigid range). As an example, Wall 17, a hollow and non-reinforced wall, having the highest tensile stress normal to j the bed joint under the out-of-plane seismic, was examined as the most critical I case for the in-plane seismic. The results of the shear and tensile stresses normal to the bed joint due to in-plane SSE seismic are 5.3 psi and 1.7 psi, t i t

[ respectively. These results are insignificant if they were combined with the {

t i{

results in other directions.

j The Licensee also indicated that drift effect is insignificant compared with the in-plane story drift of 0.001 in/in (Licensee's allowable) for ,

l confined walls. (Note: This value has been used in other plants and judged j to be acceptable.)

6 f

li The Licensee's response is technically adequate and in conformance with {

I the SGEB criteria.

[

_7_

TER-C5506-259

, s' Request 5 Provide sample calculations illustrating the analysis of a multi-wythe wall.

Response 5 The Licensee stated that only one multi-wythe wall (wall 43) was identified. However, this wall was analyzed as a single-wythe wall of one wythe thickness (12 inches), and collar joint was not included in the analysis.

L.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory and in compliance with the SGEB critaria.

! t Request 6

!L

, 1. In Reference 3, the Licensee indicates that the energy' balance and arching action techniques have been used to qualify some to the

!' masonry walls. The NRC does not accept the application of these methods to masonry walls in nuclear power plants without conclusive

!, evidence to justify their application. The Licensee is requested to provide sample calculations to illustrate the analysis by each-technique. In addition, the following areas need technical j verification before any conclusions can be made:

ji a. Energy Balance Technique t

ip o It should be noted that no tests have been performed to date on j the post-yield envelope and the hysteretic (i.e., fully revised

cyclic loading) behavior of reinforced concrete masonry walls.

Also, any factor of safety for reinforced masonry walls of the types used in nuclear power plants cannot be used with any amount of confidence because previous tests have not been conducted to failure.

i o Provide ju'stification for and test data (if available) to l

validate the applicability of the s u rgy balance technique to the l 1 masonry structures at the Oyster Cru k plant, with particular 1 y emphasis on the following areas

l

. a. nature of the load l b. boundary conditions

c. type of masonry block

d. amount and distribution of reinforcement *

e. prediction of ductility ratio I f. prediction of elasto-plastic hysterstic behavior.

h e

-O-( .

h.

TER-C5506-259

..' o Indicate the number of affected walls along with their

, dimensions, type of block, and boundary conditions.

Y o Indicate how compressive failure of masonry and failure of the connection at the boundary were checked.

? b. Arching Action o It should be noted that there are no sufficient test data to k demonstrate the arching mechanism under a seismic loading. In addition, web-shear failure or failure by gross sliding might take place even before any arching mechanism could develop.

o Provide justification for and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of the arching action theory to the masonry structures at the Oyster Creek plant, with particular emphasis on the following areas:

a. nature of the load

{. b. boundary conditions

c. type of masonry block.

T j o Indicate the number of affected walls along with their dimensions, type of block, and boundary conditions; also,

,, indicate whether rigid or gap arching was assumed.

2 o Indicate how web-shear' failure or failure by gross sliding was checked.

'l 2. In a meeting between the Licensee and NRC staff on March 31,'1983, it

. was indicated by the Licensee that nonlinear techniques, such as -

p energy balance tehnique and arching action, are no longer relied upon Q to qualify masonry walls. The Licensee is required to confirm this indication. Otherwise, these issues will remain unresolved until the

, establishment of the final stai'f position on them.

I.1 -

Response 6 In response to these requests, the Licensee stated that nine walls (walls l 8, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 29) were initially qualified by nonlinear analysis. Subsequently, additional supports were designed for these walls, and new calculations were performed, taking into consideration the new supports. All walls are now qualified using linear techniques.

The Licensee's response has resolved concerns a,ssociated with the nonlinear analysis.

e 0

_g_

f" \

I l 1

TER-C5506-259 Request 7

a. Since the primary function of joint reinforcement is to control wall cracking associated with thermal or moisture expansions or contrac-

tions, the Licensee is requested to provide justification (test data) for the tensile strength of the horizontal reinforcement used in the ,

walls. Also provide verification to ensure proper anchorage of the '

i reinforcement at the boundary and proper bonding between the rein- l forcement and mortar. The Licensee is also requested to indicate the

( number of walls which were qualified relying on the strength of the horizontal reinforcement.

b. The Licensee is requested to indicate if Dur-O-Wal joint reinforcing has been used as structural reinforcing in qualifying any of the masonry walls at the Oyster Creek plant. If so, provide the details

% of this usage for each affected well in terms of reinforced or unreinforced, steel ratio, bondage / anchorage, etc.

Response 7 The Licensee stated that seven vertically reinforced walls (walls 2, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 45) were qualified by using joint reinforcement. The status of these walls was given in References.7 and 10 and is described below.

o The joint reinforcement issue is no longer applicable to Wall 2. The p original plan was to modify this wall (installing additional supports to strengthen the well). However, due to the difficulty of providing

{ the needed supports, a net-type vertical unistrut barrie,r was provided to ensure that the well cannot fall onto the control panels.

o The joint reinforcement tensile stress of walls 29 and 30 exceeded the SGEB allowable (30 kai) by 32%.

9 o The joint reinforcement stresses in Walls 31, 32, 33, and 45 were

[ -

less than 30 ksi.

. Walls 29 and 30 have joint reinforcement stress exceeding the SGEB allowable by 32%. However, this stress was conservatively taken based on two times that obtained from the CBE loading case. The actual SSE load (based on

(

i a cracked section) is about 70% higher than that of the OBE case. Therefore,

! the exceedance is acceptable and the Licensee's response is considered to meet the intent of the SGEB criteria. ,

I  ! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -. . . _ - . . . . . -. . . = . _ _ _ .

TER-C5506-259 Request 8

. Since the Oyster Creek plant is part of the systematic evaluation program (SEP), the following information is requested regarding the masonry wall aspects of SEP review.

Indicate the current status of the evaluation and schedule, if not complete.

b - Indicate the criteria used in the SEP evaluation. Are they .ifferent from IE Bulletin 80-11 evaluation? Compare criteria for SEP evaluation with staff acceptance criteria [11] and assess the impact

i. of any deviations.

Provide pertinent information such as seismic input.

R..-. 8 The Licensee stated that the evaluation of masonry walls at Oyster Creek was performed in accordance with the following criteria:

a. " Reevaluation for Safety Related Concrete Masonry Walls" submitted to g the NRC on November 14, 1980 (3).

b. The seismic floor response spectra curves igenerated for SEP-NUREG/CR-1981 UCRL-53018.

In Reference 6, the Licensee indicated th/t the stress results based on the seismic response spectra from the original reevaluation will be smaller if the SEP curve is used.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory and acceptable.

Request 9 Indicate the current _ status of the required modifications and provide detailed drawings of some sample modifications. .

Response 9 f The Licensee provided the status of wall modifications as follows.

o Mirne preemptive mod,1fications:

As indicated in Section 1.3, affected sections of the walls are to be a removed to eliminate safety cor.cerns (potential missile hazard to the vital systems) associated with the walls and, therefore, no reanaly-F sis was performed for these walls.

O

TER-C5506-259 Walls completed: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, and 47.

Walls to be concleted prior to restart during the refueling maintenance outage cycle 10: 1, 3, 4, 9, and 16.

o Walls that required modifications:

Walls completed: 22, 23.

Walls to be modified during cycle 11: 8, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 29 (originally qualified by nonlinear analysis). 17, 18, 30, 31, 32,

.k 33, 43, 45, and 53 (modified to reduce stress levels).

The Licensee stated that the deferment of modification of these walls has been approved by the NRC [14]. Typical modifications are provided in Appendix B.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

3.2 EVALIRTION OF LICENSEE'S APPROACH TO WALL MODIFICATIONS There are 38 safety-related masonry walls that require modifications.

The masonry wall modifications include the following:

a o Minor preemptive modifications to 20 walls.

. o Two walls (walls 22 and 23) were completed during the cycle 10 2 refueling outage.

J o Sixteen walls will be modified during the cycle 11 outage.

The following modifications are to be implemented:

i

\

I o Reinforce the support edges o Provide intermediate supports and bracings

~

o Remove the excess equipment load from walls 33 and 43

~

o Repair all visible cracks on both side of concrete block walls.

i Appendix B of this report presents the sketch of the wall modifications.

The Licensee's approach to wall modifications has been reviewed and judged to be technically adequate.

l I

I l

TER-C5'506-259

4. CONCLUSIONS I

A detailed study was performed to provide a technical evaluation of the masonry walls at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Plant. Review of the Licensee's critieria and additional information provided by the Licensee led

' to the conclusions given below.

l The criteria used for reevaluation of the masonry walls, along with the  ;

additional information provided by the Licensee, indicated that the Licensee's criteria are in compliance with the SGEB criteria except for the following 7 items.

o Section 3.1 indicated that 7 walls were overstressed for tension normal to bed joint if the increase factor suggested by the SGEB is adopted. Stresses were 3% to 27% higher than the SGEB allowables.

However, only one wall was exceeded by 27% and the conservative approach, such as one-way action and 4% damping for SSE instead of 7%

as allowed by the SGEB criteria, was used in the analysis for

[i unreinforced walls. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the 3% to 27% of exceedance can be accepted.

o Joint reinforcement stress in ualls 29 and 30 exceeded the SGEB allowable by 3J% for SSE. However, this calculated stress was conservatively taken based on two times that obtained from OBE. The

actual SSE load-(based on a cracked section) is about 70% higher than that of the OBE case. Therefore, the exceedance can be accepted.

With regard to the wall modifications, Section 3.2 indicated that 38

. walls need to be modified; modifications for 17 walls have been completed, the following walls still need to be modified:

o Walls to be completed prior to restart during refueling maintenance outage cycle 10: 1, 3, 4, 9, and 16 o Walls to be modified during cycle 11: 8, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 29, 17,

18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 45, and 53.

f The Licensee's approach to wall modification has been reviewed and judged  ;

to be satisfactory.

l e

?

i

_ - - __ _ ._. - . _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _.._._m.__. . . . _ _ . _ _ _ - . __ _ _ _ _

l

~

I TER-C5506-259

l. l l

5. RErEREncES  ;

1 l

l

1. IE Bulletin 80-11  ;

' Masonry Wall Design t NRC, 08-May-81

, 2. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.

Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear

-[ Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80-11

,, Jersey Central Power and Light, 07-Jul-80

- 3. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.

Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear P Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80 Response to Item 2b i; Jersey Central Pow 6r and Light, 14-Nov-80 4.

I. R. Finfrock, Jr.

. Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80 Final Reevaluation Jersey Central Power and Light, 30-Apr-81

5. P. B. Fiedler Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC 7

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Additional J Information Regarding Masonry Wall Design (IE Bulletin 80-11)

GPU Nuclear q August 11, 1983

6. P. B. Fiedler Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80-11 Reevaluation of Masonry Walls GPU Nuclear November 2, 1983

., 7. P. B. Fiedler 7 Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80-11 i Reevaluation of Safety-Related Masonry Walls

, GPU Nuclear July 26,1984 I t

8. P. B. Fiedler i Letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC  !

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80-11 l

- Status of Masonry Block Wall Analysis and Modification Plans  !

GPU Nuclear  !

j March 21, 1985 i i .

1 l l, ,

i i

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

l!* i

~

l. TER-C5506-259

I

9. P. B. Fiedler j4 Letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC

^'

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80-11 GPU Nuclenr June 14, 1985

10. R. F. Wilson Letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - IE Bulletin 80-11

'k GPU Nuclear August 14, 1985

11. SGEB Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation Structural Engineering Branch of the NRC 00-Jul-81

12. Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials, 1979

13. Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1979

.ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79

14. NRC Letter Docket No. 50-219, LS05-84-03-037 Dated March 27, 1984

~

Subject:

Licensee Request to Defer Modifications of Some of the Masonry Walls (IE Bulletin 80-11) Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating d

Station i

. 15. R. E. Copeland and E. L. Sauer, " Test of Structural Bond of Masonry

[* Mortars to Concrete Block," Proceedings, American Concrete Institute,

) ,

• Vol. 61, November 11, 1964

16. R. O. Hedstrom, "Imad Tests of Patterneli Concrete Masonry Walls,"

]

Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 57, p. 1265. 1961

'd I 17. C. C. Fishburn, "Effect of Mortar Properties on Strength of Masonry," l Monograph 36, National Bureau of Standards, 1961 i

. I

18. S. L. Whittemore, A. H. Stang, and D. E. Parsons, " Structural i Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions," Building Materials and i Structures Report No. 5, National Bureau of Standards, 1983 l

! 19. F. E. Richard, R. B. B. Moorman, and P. Woodworth, " Structural and Stability of Concrete Masonry," Bulletin No. 251, Engineering  ;

Experiment Station, Uiniversity of Illinois,1932 l

20. "Research Data and Discussion Relating to Specification for the i Design and Construction of Imadbearing Concrete Masonry," NCMA,1970  !

I i i l

1 1

(

I I :.

1 j

i l

APPENDIX A l 1

)

a SGEB CRITERIA FOR SAFETY RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION (DEVELOPED BY THE STRUCTURAL AND GEOFECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH fSGEB] OF THE NBC) l

[. '

E 5

I a

7 '

l 3

1 ll t

I i

i i

l l FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER j DIVISION OF ARVIN/ CAL 5 PAN i

20th & RACE STREETS, PHILADELPHIA.PA 19103 l

e TER-C5506-259 I

a CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 2 IDADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . A-1 1

, a. Service Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . A-1 7 b. Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2' 3 ALI4WABLE STRESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 4 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . A-3

'~O

$ 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . .  :. . . . . . A-4 l .

h e

.)

, iii i

> - TER-C5506-259

1. @ neral 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

'l Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise, by the provisions in  ;

'I this criteria.

The use of other standards or codes, such as ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is 1 , also acceptable. However, 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 i 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. Imads and Load Combinations The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normal

'[I 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 i =

(3) D + L + W '

C If thermal stresses due to T o and Ro are present, they should be

, included in the above combinations as follows: i l

, (la) D + L + To+Ro i (2a) D + L + To+Ro+E (3a) D + L + To+Ro+W ,

Check load combination for controlling condition for maximum 'L' and 'l l

for no 'L'. j 1 .

t i

[

r i

A-1 '

i

'w,

. TER-C5506-259 (b) Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions .

[ (4) D + L + To+Ro+E i .- (5) D + L + To+Ro+Mt +

(6) D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.5 P, k (7) D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.25 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Tj + Y ,) + 1.25 E (8) D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.0 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Ym ) + 1.0 E

In combinations (6), (7), and (8) the saarimum values of P a, T a' R., Yj, Y r, and Y m, 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 Y e, Y ,

and Y,in (7) and (8). Whenconsideringtheseloads,localseedion '

strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no Icss of function of any safety-related

[.i -

system. '

Both cases of L having its full value or being completely absent r should be checked.

3. Allowable Stresses i f

Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the  :

following modifications / exceptions, shall apply.

(a) When wind or seismic loads (OBE) are considered in the loading combinations, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted.  !

(b) Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection i category shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with

_. the inspection requirements of the SEB criteria. t

[ 'f (c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by f

l f 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. ,

q

~

f (d) For load conditions which , represent extreme environmenta1, abnormal, abnormal / severe environmental, 'and abnormal / extreme environmental i l conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the l l factors shown in the following table:

l' h O t

A-2 I l  :

, , t l ______.-_____,n, -

TER-C5506-259 Type of Stress Factor Axial or Flexural Compression 2.5 Bearing 2.5

]

? Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy Shear reinforcement and/or bolts 1.5 L

Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1.5

., Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular

[; . to bed joint for reinforced masonry 0 for unreinforced masonry2 1,3 Notes (1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial spalling of masonry unit.

(2) See 3(c).

4. Design and Analysis Considerations (a) The analysis should follow established principles of engineering mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices.

(b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper considerations to boundary conditions, cracking of sections, if any,

. and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls.

(c) Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis shall be those for

~

reinforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.

(d) In general, for operating plants, the seismic analysis and Category I

[ structural requirements of FSAR shall apply. For other plants,

,I corresponding SRP requirements shall apply. The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, materials, and other pertinent parameters used.

(e) The analysis should consider both in-plane and out-of-plane loads. '

(f) Interstory drift effects should be considered.

b j A-3 l

[ .

TER-C5506-259 (g) In new construction, grout in concrete masonry walls, whenever used, shall be compacted by vibration. -

J (h) For masonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of

. ACI-531 shall apply. i

l

8 (1) Special constructions (e.g., multiwythe, composite) or other items l not covered by the code shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for  !

their acceptance. l (j) Licensees or applicants shall submit QA/QC information, if available, for staff's review.

^

In the event QA/QC inforination is not available, a field survey and a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings and specifications (e.g., robar and grouting).

i (k) For masonry walls requiring protection from spalling and scabbing due to accident pipe reaction (Y r), jet impingement (Y.3), and missile impact (Ym), the requirements similar to those of SRP 3.5.3 shall apply. However, actual review will be conducted on a case-by-case

[I basis.

, 5. References

.I J

(a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.

, (b) Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures ACI-531-79 and Commentary ACI-531R-79.

(c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings - Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06.

(d) Specification for the Design and Construction of T. cad-Bearing .

Concrete Masonry 'NCMA August, 1979.

(e) Trojan Nuclear Plant Concrete Masonry Design Criteria Safety Evaluation Report Supplement - November, 1980.

t

~

{

A-4

t:

i

'l I

( APPENDIX B SKETCHES OF 10LLL MODIFICATICES

[

H E

I a

l a

B .

i l

l I,

1

?

~. FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER P DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20th & RACE STREETS, PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 I

\ _ _ _ _. - _ - - _ . ._ -

.r. . .

l t-i

,., .o.

'. 3 .

< g

) 4' 3

,,  :: .; / l 1 L i ,

17

. .. .. o . ,

to I

. .J -

i

._)  ;

l 4,_

, g . _. . . _ - - . . - - - - - ,-

T e -- l 1 w .. . .,..--

p , -_

l -

1 og ,, ..

H)

-t. .

9

. c <  : - ;_ ._ y

...I .. L_. __

j .__ ..__j [

, __..__3.. -

t .i ,_. _ . , y

=

q ,._ , ,_.,  ;-

O

.. 1 . < -

e i l

S (_._

' . ..' i i_.. .r O o .:j* y .. I l *

. i i '

A - I l

__ lt . . . . L: i_..) _. I ._ G (I). -

1 l' l I  : . . '

i  ! 2 il F- Hl -! c2

.*}yj .. I--! i  !

g' . 9. _ > .l _.!

i - [ . . --] ,

.r  :... ,

L 9_.j ._. u C h

_) J

,. 's'

> -. .__ 1 e...

, n N I

• i ' . u

-) 2

b. a . g

.. <r

e o .. i

- (  : e a n ,

Ce

g .-

?

=g e 1 _ :>. . > ..  !. _,

! Se <

r 2

. i ,

4r , . . ,

til i .; ,,

e n > . . . - .- -

_)

b; '

1 i iij e A' -g  : ._ _. _.

l e p  ;

- .Jk .

l .

- . .- . p  ; .. . _ _ ._ _

-\

4- ,

i  ; - -

b y

a. .

I L- G .

. t

,, i -

'i' j l -[ - -

. ... t L -\ . j; l ;3h.,

i j ,p ~ '--- --

- .. ,_. s , - _ . . ., .. .

g.

i.,. i e . n I i l -l

,o

,r i .

. .4 p

5 g,

a __I u; 1 i

.m 1 , > .: ;-

al e

,a

..,,,t. 1 .y w

4(,

g 2.t> c.y k . i..q .'

4 .. .x

.., ,-- .w amor trvawn "I paay guy (SL9-**ev,mvva. s.e.atsu2.k4 m

lY h.aa .,6h B-1

f TER-CS506-259

.l-

] .

%{%\

.y

.i.' %t w/ +.WX.

g

.y

\ ,-

L (%S -

Y.L. .. . m /: ,

8 '

Q7 L co N ,A. a.uus @

r A

@Lr,.r..Ys.I (,

SECTICN B B w .ve .e CTVm Fest ALL Wositt3oNTA,6 ANSLES) f$

D Til coupAs.ai'"M @

M _

.} y suus.

YI R' . . W ..

'~~

.. Wmi .

l

/ ..

, TSute4T M Taas e 6+otAt 7

i @.u.u.s

?

E_nou c.c - .u. . .-

fYP. We et ALL M ERTt i (AMesLEtt 4 EAST Su E-2 i

-e. _- -. . . . _ . - - _ _ - - .

i I

P

',- _ _ c c. . we ,

. wus u . .  !

. 9.?. .. . \ . : 'y_

~

h ..Q-}

/ i l ( .

w ,

se  !

/

. -g =taa y,

r l - ..ii.v-  ;

f' _e __. - . ~, ., 7 S . . i . E l 5-

~

hm . . , /"i l

(

o

,, -Z '

5 ?maa f ,-  !

< es i::

~

- -- a

~

,y 'g g i

/ 1 3 3 f .5 c -

m '

-6)--

{ wiu-  !

lN(

'/ L - ,

i l

[ 2:q m Z: ;!  ! T (

-,-,- w_

l eL 1  :

1 1

J  ! )  :

l a: :

a ; -

I

- eJ r d

{- (

ii

/

@emc== ew s.

y k SEC.TIONJ D D f h - ,v.io -

j f

t P

e

.S. .E.

=

wuus t

i

- w% - l i

(

i t i -, wy 1 . f '#.g

.r 1

p g* (4mz

+ i 21 11 1

?

i i

. g~ .g i

. I w , m .

4{ w

-t-y  ;

w ... ___ to ,

~j 't i,

,! @t*tte%

)/x ( ,

I

'1D l wAu. 33

'g f

---

1%RC"Ttc'sb1 .as M-Mvg. .To'd.Yi.NiINT c  ;

@ u.a..m A_ -

- ^

nem t_ c - <

> amas m n e c a. m a W 4 N ; Te ,

F B-3  !

b i

- _ . _ -