ML20137J693
| ML20137J693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1985 |
| From: | Con V, Le A, Pandey S CALSPAN CORP. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13324A777 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TAC-42196, TER-C5506-405, NUDOCS 8509050141 | |
| Download: ML20137J693 (177) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ _ _ - . . . _ . - - _ _ . Enclosure 2 NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION U l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT B *
, . N'RC DOCKET NO. 50-206 PRC PROJECT Cases
. NRC TAC NO. -
- PRC ASSIGNMENT 4 NRC CONTRACT NO.NRC 0341130 PRCTASK 405 SIASONRY MM.L DESIGN SOUTRIRN CALIFCENIA EDISCH CONFANY SAN ONorRE Ulf!T 1 ,
, TER-C5504-405
- g. ..
PreparlNiflot
- Nuclear Regulatory Commlaalon PRC Group Leader: V. N. Con Washington, D.C. 20688 NRC Lead Engineer: N. C. chokshi August 20, 1985 ,
g - This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, empressed 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. ratua, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such inird party would not infringe privately owned rights. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:
.EnY f Y.fl.[A h, b J wlM l%
v Principal Aytherj Department Director
- Date
- S/ 20/A5 Cate: f6 d Mi M 8 Cate: A D
- M '~
, j
~. A -
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER OlVillCN CP ARV!NeCALSpaN ! h leta 4 8act litetts moceth.4 pa stes j 1
. . . - - - . -. .- . ~ - - --
t
, TER-C5506-405 CONTENTS f
- senties .
211Lt Engs 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . ., . . . . . . .. 'l 2 -mn IgytNWikTICN . . . .- . . . . . . . 3 I, . 2 CCNBTRUCTIdNDETAILSANDNhTERIALPROPERTY.
. '. .' . . 5 3.1 Construction Details
. . . . . .. . . . . . 5 3.2 Naterial Properties ,
. . . . . . . . . . 6
, 3.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) . . . . 6 4 ' LICENSEE CRITERIA . . . . . .. . .. . . '. . t
. 5 NONLINEAR ANALYSIS NETN000LDGY .' . . . . .. . . . 10 5.1 Analysis Nethod Used for the Turbine, Ventilation Equipment, and Reactor Auxiliary Building . .-
. . . 10 5.1.1 Model Formulation . ., . . . . . . . 11 5.1.2 Model Refinement . .' . . .' . .,. . 14 5.1.3 Nethodology Assessment . . . . . . . . 16 5.2 Analysis Nethod Used for the Fuel Storage Building. . . 26 5.2.1 Fuel Storage Building - General Description. 26 2[
5.2.2 Background of Analysis . . . . . .. . . 28 5.2.3 Nothodology and Criteria . . . . . . 30 L' 5.2.4 Description of Model
& . . . . . . . . 30 q 5.2.5 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 36 h 5.2.6 Assessment of the seismic Analysis of the tual Storage Building Structures . . . . . 37 6 ANALYSIS RESULTS ] . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 ,
g 6.1 Turbine Building . . . . . . . . . . . 39 d 4.2 Ventilation Equipment Building. . . . . . . . 39 6.3 Reactor Auxiliary Building. . . . . . . . . 43 y' r 6.4 Fuel Storage Building . . . . . . . . . . 43
.a.
6 Suns 111 a
- ... - . .. ..~
B3 . TEA-C5506-405 , CONTENTS (Cont.)
~
Section . 11113 Eggs 6.4.1 Fuel Storage Building - General Description. . . 32 6.4.2 Bachground of Analysis . . . . .' . . . 36 6.4.3 Nethodology and Criteria . . . . . . . 39
. 6.4.4 Description of Mode' A . . . . . . . . 49 6.4.5 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.4.6 Conclusions. . . . . . . -. . . . 46 1 7 . TEST PROGRAN .' . . ,. .- . ,. . . . . . . . .50 7.1 Test Setup. .'. . . . . . . ,
. . . . 50
. 7.2 Test Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7.3 Input Time Histories for Tests. . . . . . . .
55 Y , 7.4 Boundary conditions of Test Specimens . . . . . . 57 7.5 Naterial Properties Tests . . . . . . . . . 57 7.6 taw-Level Pullback Tests . . . . . . .
., . 65 7.7 Full Intensity Dynamic Tests . . . . . . . . 65 8 TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . .' . 46 8.1 Materials Properties 66
[ . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Damping Measurements . . . . . . . . . . '66 8.3 Full Intensity Dynamic Test Results . . . . . . 70 9 CCARELATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 73 $ 73 g 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Wall Construction . . . . . . . . . .' . 75 [ 9.3 Input, Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 ~ 9.4 Frequency Content of Response . . .- . . . . . 76 7 9.5 Comping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 e M J iv
r- i
- 1. 9 '
;m ,.
.g- ,
i I . TER-C5506-405 CCNTENTS (Cont.) Section 9.8 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . 78 9.7 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 9.8 Steel Strain Ratios . .. . . . . . . . . 80 9.9 Masonry 5. train._. . . . .. . . . . .. . . 80 9.10 Length of Yielding Rebar . . . . . . . . . 80 10 CONCLUSIONS . . . .- . . . . . . .. . . 82
'11 REFERENCES . . . . .' . . . . . .
. .' 84 Appendix A - "SGI3 Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall .
Evaluations," Developed by the Structural and
- Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) of the NRC.
o Appendix 5 - , " Technical Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SCNGS). Unit 1, Masonry Walls." Technical Report prepared by Des. H. Harris and A. A. Hamid. . . Appendix C'- Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Regarding the Nonlinear Analysis Methodology. Appendix D - Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Regarding Walls in i p , , , the Fuel Storage Building. p Appendix E - Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Regarding the Test Program.
- 5. Appendix F - Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Regarding Post-Test Questions. .
i,s d .
."?
') .
e
..e J - v
r
- eoe. '
TER-C5506-405 - FOREWCRD e
- h' This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contr'act with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory decaission (Office of -
Nuclear Reactor Regulation', Division of Operating Reactors) for technical ass,istance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The ' technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by
. the RRC. .
1 . g: . . V . . D,
- g. - -
e b .
*1 e
h - L b a
'l q * .J .
9
.)
S' O e
. vii
m . . . . -. ._ ._ _ .. _ . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . .~
- m. ,
TER-C5506-405 ,
- 1. 13ri'n000CTION In an effort to respond to the II Bulletin 80-11 and as part of the Systematie Evaluation Program (SEP) Topic III-6, Seismic Design Consideration, Southern California Edison Company submitted its seismic reevaluation of the reinforced masonry walls to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission (NRC) for 1
. review and evaluation. Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC), Los Angeles was the Architset/ Engineer for San Onofre Unit 1. Computech Engineering Services Inc.
g (CBS) was retained by BPC to assist'in this report. Franklin Research Center W (FRC) was retained by the NRC to review and assess the Licensee's reports.
- Des. M. Marris and A. Namid of Drosol University'were retained by FRC'to evaluate the nonlinear analysis mediodology used in qualifying a number of masonry wella in the plant. , ,
ThisreportrepresentsFRCevaluati[en'andassessmentsbasedonthereview of the Licensee's documents, other published literature, and test data relating to this subjoet. The report also reflects the results of a number of , meetings with the Licensee regarding safety issues of masonry walls in the plant. h . The review covers the masonry walls in the following buildingst turbine, , ventilation equipment, reactor auxiliary and fuel stprage. Regarding the fuel storage building the review covers, in addition to the masonry walls, the structural steel iraming, the reinforced concrete fuel pool and base mat, the , reinforced concrete slab and the roof deck. r The main body of the report consists of the following sections: t[ 4 o Background information o Construction details and material properties
]M o Licensee criteria -
o Nonlinear analysis methodology o Results of the nonlinear analysis s o Test program - - o Test resulta q o Correlation analysis. I
... The following appendices are also included with this reports .)
1
TER-C5506-405 Appendia A: "SGER Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluations." Developed by the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGER) of the NRC. Appendia 3: " Technical Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Statium (SONGS), Unit 1, Masonry Walls." Technical Report
. prepared by Des. M. Harris and A. A. Hamid.
Appendia C Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Regarding the Nonlinear Analysis Methodology.
- p l.1 Appendia D: Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Wegarding Walls in- '
the Fuel Storage Building.
. Appendia E: Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Regarding the Test Program. .
Appendin F: Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses Regarding Post-Test Questions.* 6
* "- A test program was performed by Southern California Edison Company to ,
verify a nonlinea'r analysis technique used to qualify the reinfo'rced masonry 3 wells in the plant. Results of the test program are considered proprietary , information by Southern California Edison Company. As such, Parts of Sections 1 ' [ through 10 and Appendix B Bf this reoort are considered proprietary information. '{'] s p
$l
. t
=
4 L
. (
em 88
.i 2- .
TER-C5506-405
- 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In response to II Bulletin 80-11 and as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) Topic III-6, Seismic Design Consideration, Southern California submitted its reevaluation of the reinforced concrete masonry walls on January 11, 1902 (1]*. '
The Licensee's submittals consisted of Licensee criteria, discussion of the nonlinear analysis, and the results of the nonlinear analysis of walle in I the turbine building, ventilation equipment building, ausiliary building and fuel storage building. For the fuel storage building the licensee also
'provided the evaluation of the, structural steel framing, the reinforced' -
B concrete fuel pool and base mat, the reinforced concrete slab and the roof - deck. CIS technical staff also made a presentation regarding the nonlinear
.. analysis methodology in January 1982 at.the NRC office in Bethesda' Maryland.
Based on the results of the review of the Licensee-proposed nonlinear analysis and other published literature, the NRC sent a' letter dated February 17, 1982 (2] to inform the Licensee that the proposed nonlinear time history analysis could not be accepted as the sole basis for evaluation and qualificat,lon of the masonry walls, and a number of questions were raised regarding the g nonlinear analysis. Subsequently, and in accordance with the NRC ' 48 recomunendation, the Licensee made a commitment to perform a dynamic test g program to validate the nonlinear methodology. Also, responses to questions B/ regarding the nonlinear analysis were provided (31 ( On May 11, 12, and 13, 1982, the NRC staff conducted a walkdown at the L San Onofre plant to gain first-hand knowledge about the insitu walls and held
,. an audit meeting with the licensee and CIS to discuss the design and analysis
[ method. The test facilities at the Earthquake Engineering Research Center . (EERC) at the University of California at Berkeley, which the Licensee J proposed to use for its test program,'were visited.
.., By letter dated July 19, 1982 (4}, the Licensee submitted the proposed ',{ } mascnry wall test program. The program was reviewed, and lists of questions were forwarded to the Licenses for additional information and/or further .. e
- Numbers in bracket's indicate references, which are cited in Section 11.
.l TER-C5506-405 f
clarification regarding the test program on September 22, 1982 (5) and January 3, 1983 (6) to which the Licensee responded (7, 8]. On April 8, 1983, upon the NRC request, the L'icensee also submittad a protest analysis of one [ l test panel prior to the actual tests (9]. Because of the complex nature of, Y the test program, it is worth noting that in addition to the above-mentioned' l ' l communication between the Licensee and the NRC, a number of conference calls
! were held during this period to resolve the details relating to the test r
program. -
, s On May 5, 1983, the NRC, TRC staff, and consultants were at l'.he test site g to witness the tests done on the first test panel (referred to as Wall 1A in Al
. the test program). Another hur test panels were tested from May 18, 1983 to July 14, 1983. ., ,
,, By a letter dated April 12, 1984, the Licensee submitted a total of five ,
, reports providing the results of the test program (10]. It is noted that the ,
Licensee considered the data given in these reports as proprietary. As a
. result of the review of these reports, a report was issued by Des. H. Harris
- and A. Hamid (11], a meeting was held on September 5, 1984 at the CIS office ,
in Berkeley, California to discuss the test results and their correlation with the analysis methodology; a site visit was held the next day to examine the affected' walls. A list of action items was developed fe'om this meeting and the site visit (12), and all of these action items have been answered (13, [ 14j. A report concerning the nonlinear analysis methodology was also issued tk by TEC consultants and is included in Appendix B of this report. L
+.~. .
f m f I L i i . c i 4
. e . = * .
r - - -~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ' " - - ' TER-C5506-405 ,
- 3. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND MATERIAL PROPERTY 3.1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS , ,
, AtotElof33websarewithinthescopeofevaluation,andtheyare located in the following buildings:
o Turbine building (12 walls) ) B' o Ventilation equipment building (4 walls) '
~
~
o Reactor aus111ary building (7 walls) r o Fuel storage building (10 walls). The masonry walls at San Onofre Unit *1 are single-wythe reinforced . D b, ' concrete block walls constructed from 8-inch thick hollow units with the exception of the biological shield walls in the control room, which consist of 8t . 6-inch thick hollow units. . . yf' , The following information summarises the constpaction details at the San Onofre plant ' - o Vertical robar #5 or #7 at 32 and/or 48 inches p .
; o Dowels 45 at 16 inches .
- , o Horizontal robar 45 forming a bond beam at 40 inches (reinforcing v
la ratio = 0.08%)
- o Vertical reinforcing ratio of 0.25% in fuel storage and ventilation c buildings .
E o Vertical reinforcing ratio of 0.08% in reactor auxiliary building n
'j o Vertical reinforcing retto of 0.12% in turbine building .
o q Control joint at every 4 feet - o Partially grouted. The top three courses and the bottom three courses are is'1y grouted. O The wall attachments consist mostly of electrical conduit and minor items such as grounding cable, telephones small diameter ccyper tubing. { r 1 TER-C5506-405
.l 3.2 NATERIAL PROPERTIES The materials properties are listed below: 2 Natorial Tvoe ASTM Soecification Enoineerino Procorties I T
8 Block and Mortar
'Nollow concrete block ASTN C-90 f's = 1350 psi masonry, Grade A, Fully grouted, hollow ASTM C-90 f's = 1500 psi block masonry, Grade A, j
Mortar for concrete ASTN C270 m, a 2000 psi block, 9 Reinforcinq steel . .. Intermediate ASTM A15 fy = 40 ksi ' Grade No. 2
, size round bars
,' No. 3 through 11 ASTM A15' fy = 40 ksi {
. ASTM A305
.. T No. 14 through 18' ASTN A408 fy a 40 kai -
- Welded Wire Nesh 10 gage and large ASTM A185 fy a 65 kai .}
11 gage and smaller ASTM A185 , fy = 56 kai , 1 3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTRCL (QA/QC) According to References 3 and 12, an initial inspection performed by CES staff revealed that the present condition of the walls was reasonably good.- There were no visible cracks. No sign of deterioration of mortar joints and blocks was detected. - l In a later response (13), the Licensee provided detailed infomation y relating to the QA/QC, program in the plant. F l According to this reference, the masonry walls at San Cnofre Unit 1 were ( inspected for the following items: l c C 1 a
o e . -
- E .
, TER-C5504-405 ,
- 1. vertical and borisontal reber. location
- 2. oontinuity of horisontal robar through vertical joints ,
- 3. assenry well anchorages 4 '. grouting of bleekwull sells sentaining robars and bend beam locations. .
. The corroepending methods of inspection are outlined belows' I8 1. Zaspection of 54 sample reber locations using an electro-engnetic reber locator (sample plan was devised to provide 95% confidence level that 95% or more of the'rebars are installed as specified) 8 .
2.* ht the sample robar loestions, tracing horisontal reber aeroes .
, vertical joints using the,reber locator
- 3. Visual inspection of anchorages between masonry walls and structural members to confirm that they were installed as shown on design - -
T drawings (same sample walls used as in robar inspection)
- k. ..
Esaadnations of esisting information to establish that sells with
~
4. robar and hond beams are grouted (these records include approsimately 200 Construstion Inspection Data Reports (CIDR], photographs taken durlag the eenstruction in the outage of March 1901 to Cateber 1904, and laboratory reports for the prise saeples taken from esisting us11s in the ventilation equipment, reactor ausiliary, and turbine buildings). . . TheresultsoftheinspectiEprogramare,asfollows: e -
'1. The inspection verified that at a 95% confidence level, 95% of the g reber in the masonry walls are located in accordance with the sonstruction specifications. )* 2. The inspection verified that horisontal robar is continuous through vertical joints. , ,] 3. The anchorages between masonry walls and structural members were L found to be consistent with the design drawings. ,
r' 4. The review of esisting records established that block wall cells with reber and bond beams are filled with grout. .
; Appendix F of this report provides further information rotating to the CA/QC program. .
m 6
.. ) ,
. . g TER-C5506-405 g
- 4. LICENSEE CRITERIA l
Based on the review of the Balance of Plant Structures Seismic Evaluation E f - e [15, 22] tnd the reports prepared by CES (1], the criteria used by the l Licensee are sum.weized as follows:
- f i
d ! o For linear elastic analysis: The working stress procedures described ' in ACI 531-79 were used. Only one wall in the reactor auxiliary y building was identified to be qualified by linear elastic analysis. g o The stresA allowables were based on the ACI 531-79 codes. , o A d.' ping value of 7% was used for the design basis earthquake (DBE) , t
. . loading (0.67g Housner response spectrum). . .
o An increase factor of 1.67 was included in the ACI $31-79 allowables (IS) (masonry shear and tension) for load combination including SS,. E
.- With regard to the linear el stic analysis, the Licensee's criteria are considered satisfactory an.1 acceptable with the' exception of an increase {
a
;. factor of 1.67 for masonry stresses (shese, tension). However, all walls are*
l reinforced and this increase factor was not actually needed because the steel r reinforcement will re'sist the induced tension ard the Licensee's allowable for I the steel is in compliance with the SGr3 criteria. , With respect to the criteria for the nonlinear analysis, detailed i discussion is given in subsequent sections of this report. 4 Regarding the nonlinear analysis, the following criteria were introduced (1): . , i For transverse loads: I o Maximu.$displacementofthewallislimitedbyamaximumsteelstrain 1 to yield strain (ductility ratio) of 45 o Maximum face shell compressive stress of 0.85 f'm on not area is used I o For flexible connection (support): connection is capable of accomodating the vertical displacement of the wall , o For rigid connection (support): connection is capable of resisting maximum forces developed
.g.
4
TER-C5506-405 , o For stability of well . No permanent offset during dynamic response . - If the well deflection is greater than the wall thickness, the
- restoring moment due to the inertia force must escoed the overttirning moment due to P-4 force. -
For'in-clane loads . o capacity of the well is 41mited to lowest. capacity of the three potential modes of behaviors flesure, shear, and sliding o Two load cases'were'used (combination of load in three directions):
. Lead Cast Cut-of-Plane In-Plane ,
Vertical 1 100%'
- 40% 40%
2 ,, , 40% ' 100% 40% y * ' ' As briefly mentioned in Section 2, the nonlinear analysis methodology g* U underwent a test verification program, and co'rrelations between the test results and with those obtained from the analysis are given in Secti,ons 8 and 3 . g fy ,
- 4 l,' . .
- F t
e SH l I tes -, m .
, . . T k
e TER-C5506-405
- 5. e NONLINEAR ANALYSIS METHODCI.CGY Q
This section will cover the following two topics: Nonlinear analytical technique used to qualify walls in the following buildings: turbirie, ventilation equipment < and reactor auxiliary. - I 4 Nonlinear analytical technique to qualify the walls and seismic analysis of t.he fuel storage building structures. g
. d 5.1 MTALYSIS METHOD USED FOR THE TURBINE, VDITILATION EQUIPMDIT, MID REACTOR , , AUXILIARY BUILDING
- j This subsection will provide an overview of the analysis methodology used to qualify walls in the turbine, ventilation equipment and reactor auxiliary building. Detailed information regarding this methodology was given in f
Reference 1. . t -
' ~^ ' J The methodology was developed for the inelastic transverse analysis of centrally reinforced masonry walls. This methodology is based on the use of '
[t
~
,,. the nonlinear computer programs DRAIN-20 and MISR-II. Wal1deformationis allowed to extend beyond its elastic limits. As the wall deformation falls
., into inelastic ranges, plastic hinges are formed, vertical rebars are allowed to yield and the mortar joints are in compression only (gap elements). -
f 7: Criteria for this methodology are provide *d in the previous section. The 4 following information highlights the key features of the,m'odel used in the , y analysis .
- i L
o A finite element model based on the DRAIN-20 and MJ3R-II computer programs was used. C [ o plastic hinges were included in the midsection and the base in the 1 model. l o The plastic hinge was modeled as a truss bar which yields in tension, o A minimum of two joints (mortar joints) on either side of the points I.. of maximum mcment were included in the model. o At the mortar jo!nt, the face shell was modeled as truss bar elastic in compression with no tension espacity. * ~ o Blocks between mortar joint were rodeled as plane stress elements.
TER-C5506-405 . o Strain hardening of the rebar was limited to 3 to 5% of the stiffness prior to yield. o A time step less than or equal to 0.02 times the fundamental period was used. o A masimum damping ratio of 7% of cri'tical damping was used.
. The basic components of the finite element model are given in Figure 5.1.
B . 5.1.1 Model Formulation *
.B The initial attempt was to determine.the applicability of inelastic . ,g, modeling.techn! ques'to a centrally reinforced wall subjected to out-of-plane u loading. A vesification study was carried out using a simply supported beam model in the foll< wing steps:
verification of elastic model
- i .
verification of plastic hinge - trial time history analysis. , 8 This study was conducted by varying the strength and stiffness of the
'$ model. A serise of six time history analyses were performed in this initial ,,
4 pinase of model formulation. .' In order to verify the elastic component of the model, a 1-foot-wide , strip of well was modeled for a uniformly applied load. plane stress elements were used for elastic analysis of the model. The purpose of this study was to provide a reasonably accurate stiffness by adjusting the finite element mesh and thickness of the plane stress elements (the thickness of the plane stress b elements was selected so as to give the correct cracked moment of inertia of . the wells which was calculated from the transformed cross section).
.N ls The predicted displacements of the model were compared with those of the
,, theoretical predictions. As a result of this study, the model shown in Figure j 5.2a was adopted.
The plastic hinge investigation was conducted by using tho test results tt of Scrivener (17]. Dimensions and section properties were calculated to match
, the wall tests as closely as possible, f.cading was applied in increments.
. - - ~ -
'E 1
.. TER-C5506-405 i
-l 0
a i t p
, u) i, -
GAP ELEMENT Elastic l'n compression
, No tension capacity 9
8 l .
-[, f,
@J.) l , NQ*$ 4 'k , )
e- '(@N s %s X ;s, s., . ,'s\'.3 . ',s NN s. - ~ wN. s s .. se..ks.s-
.'. A s-s' N l.
YlEl.D ELEMkNT -
. . hi-linear in tension. -
i b s' Figure 5.1. Basic Finite Element Model
4 . . TER-C5506-405 16'-0*
=- - - .. t p-12" Wide 7.5" """--""""-~T"""-""""-"""~-""""
m M 1-94
-eth-Q ,
,. PROTOTYPE ,
3 7 9 12" _7_f 12"
}0".3 "! 10 , p y
f .
.I
- -.3. 7 5 "1 ..
Q Q- s xx xsc . . . x ., .c; x xx x xx xx .. xx 1J. s y s s s_- '- [ , s. sN,N NN N N,N1 A 4x.- . 3.75" M *
~(T russ ( 2-D Elements 4
- Elements 3 l'igure 5.2a. Model for Elastic Verification 5-i o
n . L
- s. 0 -
M a m ve . 4.. - . 4 . y I kll jf .75"
,\' N ? .. N NNN '.s \ 's .N' [ ')
h e?s c.r NNNNNNN- [ ;
' d 7f_4,75" 1.
- (2DElements il (Truss Ele:nents 7
I
!.} , .
Figure 5.:b. Model for Plastic Hinge Verification
s . . i . , TER-C5506-405 . j The model for plastic hinge verification is illustrated in Figure 5.2b. The computed load-displacement history was compared with the experimental results
*~
given in Reference 17 and shown in Figure 5.3. ' i The next step in the investigation was to run a time history analysis (5 seconds of the N-5 component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake). The purpose j
^
of this analysis was to evaluate the wall responses in terms of displacement pad ductility by varying the steel strength and by using the moment of inertia c. of the cracked section for two cases: (1) throughout the model and (2) only
, at the plastic hinge locations. ,
The results of this initial phase of model formulation indicated a need
, for a parametric study involving the following parameters: .
o Number of elements in the model o Length of joints being modeled . o Strain hardening parcentage *
~
r o Moment of inertia (I) for the plane stress elements. 5.1.2 Model Refinement - A parametric study was carried out to refine the original model formulation. The first part of this study consisted of the determination of the appropriate number of elements to be used in the model. Two models were used: a cantilever was modeled with a point load and the simple beam with a unifomly applied load. A length (L) of 120 inches was used with the depth , (D) varied over 6 in, 8 in, and 12 in. Results of the midspan deflection are h shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. It can be seen from these figures that the deflections computed by the models approach the theoretical deflections as the number of elements increases, with faster convergence for lotter L/D ratios. The results also indicated that to achieve an accuracy of 90% or better at least 30 elements were included in the model. % To test the adequacy of the cracked joint elements, the results of the ,, Dickey and Mackintosh test series (18] were used. The model was loaded q monotonically in increments of load up to 60 psf, and the following parameters were examinedt .
.1
) .g .
TER-C5506-405
)c a. . E .
M U C I 5 ~, to
- y We s - ..
- N h
t 4 0 W W
- a. , l lie
' 9 e
4m m I a e Il
- g O
~1 e a. a.
y
. .- W W .
a a N N w
. a 2 i g43/91) WO3) 8 I d
8 gl. g W w
- , e . 44
.- a
)
. . . .g g .
l1 . U
,.e Q.
C b t, o
- c
- 4I T' 3 W
- a. O.
a M 6 e g f.1 u} . C.e F. '. T N l I L i a g- .
.l b
.. # 6 m
I
i s TER-C5506-405 h -i i
.s .
t
- 1 l.
1.v - G g0, s #
,e* '
I l ' ' ' 0 .8 - e - SS W ./
~
<< /
l s' . so '/ f *- , f/ y
.. . E** l .
/
5 i
/'
I / / .
. r I / ! E
- 0.4 ( ,
, LEGEND .
s.. g
- D=12" - -------
,./
g i D= 8 " y i 0.2 ~- t-
' D= 6" * '-
/.
U i - 1 I f is i l t A 0.0
, i i d
d 5 10 15 20 25 30 IC.MER OF ELIMINTS . C"I v t C.- . l L. r-i -' Figure 5.4. Sirr.ple Beam Deflection
- - - . ~ . . . . . . . . .._ , .. .. . ,, .; _ . _ .. , _ . . . _
. - .u . .2 -
- - . ....;.::-...-.. . .: . = . . . . . .:=..:..=...
TER-C5506-405 o l I g ... I - l * , ' l ,-
. ,g -
/
g g= o s ,,
- ,' /.
h s' / Q . g 0.6 r
,p -
f p l t! . / -
.s Q. ._ . ,' i
! / ;
f
/ , /. ?
1
.b. Ia.4
=
/, /, i l
/' i !
b / uct:n
@ f
, .y ,17 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N E -/ l g e 0.2 D= 6" -- -. - , 8 . i l CT 0.C (3 ' 5 to 15 20 25 30 ICM3IF. E Eu m s t -m l0 l b(? 1 5] t u . s' Figure 5.5. Cantilever Deflections l
-17 l._- -
TER-C5506-405 o Variation of mortar joint depth or joint length (1 in, 2 in, 4 in, and 6 in) { o Number of joints being modeled and variation of stiffness of the g plane stress elements - 4 o Variation of strain hardening of the rebar. ,
. 4 Figure 5.6 illustrates the prototype test wall from Reference 18 along ,
with three different finite elements models being examined. The initial. 8 3 analysis started with Model 2A in which a'll joints were modeled and the joint length varied. The results of this study are shown in Figure 5.7; the 4-in k joint length gave the best results and was selected for further analyses.
" Figure.5.8 shows the results of Models 2B and 2C. These two models"have joint j
*- details similar to those of Model 2A in the central portion, but the remainder of the model is represented by plane stress elements. Figure 5.8 indicates
" tihat Model 2B, with three joints and the moment of inertia (I) e, qual to 1.5 cracked moment of inertla', gives the best results. Model 2C with only one .
joint did not give good results and.therefore was eliminated from this stuity. The next parameter examined was strain hardening, and Model 2B was used ; for this purpose. Figure 5.9 shows 1% strain hardening of the rebar gives the best correlation with the experimental curve. _ t# , The final model was slightly modified based on Model 25 and is shown in Figure 5.10. . To test the prediction of the model, the test results of Scrivener (17] were used. It is noted that Scrivener conducted two series of tests on 10-ft- 7 high walls with 4-1/2-inch thick clay brick units with vertical reinforcing in the cores of the bricks. The load was applied quasi-statically in fully reversed cyclic maaner by changing the air bag from one face to the other. The prototype test wall and the finite element model are shown in Figure 5.11. A typical cyclic load-deflection curve as well as the correlation results are given in Figure 5.12. , ) 5.1.3 METHOCCLOGY ASSISSMDJT l The model formulation presented abovs shows that a reasonably adequate c procedure was employed in developing the final model. However, as previously i, .
-lS-e 1
--.- .- ~ ....n,_..,_
I I CIl C C C (11.0 D @ @ @ (($1 Q g h'~'g~ 'g g ' um _ u - u . u g- y u s.u- .
. IhW t .
w reg 2 .. i
.., Y j p - ' u' .
! .h 6 u aL '
' a 'J '
yii Li L ' . , i
- s . .
4.11 eag.la ~~b ' h hr , b q- ,-
, e y" r.-t- - - -
. . t . x .
< cl s
- g. .
.r.-
;~
- f. ,. .
s , i % _i w
-l w
.lJr.
, s i _ > , ,i ..
- e, , .
h '
- t
.- .- 5.
,k - -
y
~~
H ,l.q l
.- i g j kg.
g s .
. Mu .
g g:
~
q .
,s y e e.
s
- l i. . .
i, m, , . _
,- 8
)
8 ,$ l
> >g t
%)D 3 . .
N l l
/
O O
@ . ., E q : ts -
h A
- - ', ; -s g./ '
L J ' s t 3.9" :_=L i1 L 3.' L'9" . f '- - S ( 3,,-hy's,,a . c, m fel reararna G 2 e ' (c) nonet. 2n (d) nonst 2c L. 11
' a' k '
41 gyg;y,ggs..
'g-e : g .. a
. ALq h O r.ep arues element s a ygeldles trues element $ 3 *UjT. '#
- g rione strese element ~ erseted stiffnese O
d its) MODEL 2A g Plane stress element- grees et tffness i s. O Ut
)
l Figure 5.6. Models Used to Determine Cracked Stiffnese 1 i i
TER-C5506-405 ' 1 12CEND EXPERIMENTAL 1" JOINT IzscTa - - - - - - - 2" " " ' Aa a = -. _.
. 6" " "
60 ,, -
"~
g -w-
- # }, ;
y
,, ._ _.._._.y------ a 50 4
/ / --
23 l- . - t .
./ *
. .l *
. I -
,o l .
40 i / .- l
- I #
e t - f , , ALL JOINIS NODEI.I.ZD }:j
'8 IIASTIC STITTNESS BETk'EEN JOINTS -
. t 1 / <
It STRAIN RARDENINO
. 30 _
g .
,,.7 a I. #
. ._ , g
/ ,
e't l /,.- n B j h 20 g , 1 . m / .- . . l j .' Lq I , r 10 3 f. I o k t; 0 1.0 2.0 5.0
! n 3.0 4.0 6.0 f-d .
DISPLACEMENT (INGES) I Q
. G l Figure 5.7. Yielding Model - All Joints Included o
-. .. . .. - . ~ -. .. .. . - . . . . . . .... ..- _
, g, , __ .; _ . . . _.. . _ _
- g' .
TER-C5506-405
~
.u a s
==>== = "^' -
B 1 JOINT, 2Ic,r 3EIVEEN JOINTS -- - 3 JOINTS,21 WEEN JOINTS g- 3 Jam.1W,3E: m.i. Jam =Eu.En 3r m rN JOI m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 60 ,, s - - m g ,
//._+;_.=~
50 B. l -
/ 4
/ :: /
o - g g 4o f s h , l
/
# 11 STRAIN RAMEKINC
, 4" JOINT 1ZNGTE l -
g a / .
/
- l$.
20 -
// ,
I -
' =-
r / . 10 / : . I I :'
- I l-w . i
- C ' ' '
O'
, 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 V
DISPLACDCN- (IN N ) , t' l LI Figure 5.8. Yielding Model - Variable Nucler Joints
- y* * -w- ..-e-w y ,. ,g., .
w.,.,,.,,,,.,---.,.-,..._y,, . . - , , ,..,.---rw r- -=r---'--+w--wv*=----w - - --*'-----'---=--m
TER-C5506-405 H c
- g.
1.ZCIND . EXPERI E AI. . - 5% STRAIN BARDENINC. - - 21 -- -- 12 h1 _ - - . 60 - . . s,#, a .
#, q
~
- n. -
3;,,___,,.. .-- ~ . ~ = ~ ~ = = ~ ~'
\
50 - l - I 1 40 m L . n i. c.
- r o
q -. [ a .! . t
. . v.s 30 3 JOINIS -
. .. t - 4" JOINT I.INCTR ? lh I cr 3T.TWIIN JOIh'TS " l S . ; 3 ;
- c,. p
. l E 20
['
.E -
e 5 - t
. n 10 -~ --
. . h;
! l 1 i ,
t '
, i
- s r 5
L [ L ? i E l ,, p i . t ) I t i O 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 F
- u DISP 1.ACDENT (INCF.IS)
.r 1
Figure 5.9. Yielding Model - Variable Strain Hardening Ratio , h
l TER-C5506-405
? -
f '
- N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N N\\
. 00000000000 .
o A y ( cap truss elements
\N .N (compression only) sN s g -
Tielding truas ele =ent
\. ,'c' s
\ (tension only) ,
g
.g ,
Plane stress elements-
\ gross stiffness ,
a \ pw xys
\ N Cap truss elements te . x g a %-
o gp u , n o .~ 4-3/8" he
. . g- -
se f s T-Ah [
/ 7' ,5-
*. . O s 3
Q , I s u. 2. *<*i . y.. V i - am, 1 e. i . .
-
- s
'l.
1
.. . . , [, .
4 x ...; -
,x .
V.
- 19% w as ,$~
- f -
6-
,. .e 8
, i (a)FRCricrrYPE l .
s
.E t
w.m.m. % S 1 6, <
\ .
t
/O '\ ' ,. -
/
CN
%\.,
/ ,e .
/C
/
e
- 4 Il Figure 5.11. Model for Cyclic Loading . <
l s d
. _ = - . . .
e -. . . . .- - . . . . . . _ -
~
TER-C5506-405 C
. ~
4 Jl
* 'N WALL SPAh 10FT. - -
N . W ID T H S F T. k so- -
@ LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING 4-3/8' j
- E . 4* REINFORCING BRICK '
l' q ,
; Og
. 40- -
r**' <
*$ 1
.j
.- 2a. ,
I ,e. e -s. -7
-s. -s.
-4 . -s. -a. -t ./ .
,s_ f otrtecTrontire y .g 7 g,
- l. 1 I 2 3 4 1
'f '
/
I z ./
/
/
-to- .
rn o 1 -40 . . U I e o
~*
a
= = " " y
- g .
p
\
O^ .
== ., Cf*PMED EXPERIMENTAL m.
- l jw b
!J kJ
)-
u Figure 5.12. Correlation with Test Results m
. 1 E
d
. TER-C5506-405 y
. I discussed with the Licensee, the major concern associated with the proposed methodology is the lack of applicable test data that can be used to verify and confirm the conservatism of the methodology (2]. -
The tests cited by the Licensee (17, 18] are not applicable to the walls in the plant in terms of block type, reinforcement percentages, grouting, . boundary supports, and the type of loadings since the proposed model includes a number of features and each fe'ature may significantly influence the total 'h
- response of the wa'11s. The sensitivity of various parameters (i.e., length of
- f I
plestic hinge, behavior of gap elements, equivalent moment of inertia, dcctility ratio, etc.) needed to be examined under a.well controlled test , pe: gram to ensure that the proposed model with all of its' complex features p will result in g conservative evaluation.. 5' y
-5.2 ANALYSIS METHOD USED FOR THE FUEL STORAGE BUILDING .
The analytical methodology given in this subsection will cover,'in .
,]
. addition to the masonry walls, the seismic analysis of the fuel storage a building which includes the following structures:
,I o Structural steel framing 'd
. o Reinforced concrete fuel pool and base mat t
. g o Reinforced concrete slab at elevation 42 feet o Roof deck. r(
5.2.1 Fuel Storace Building - General Description 7 U The fuel storage building at San Onofre Unit 1 is a steel-framed, masonry and concrete structure that provides storage for spent and new fuel (see I Figure 5.13). It also houses a decontamination area, 480-V switchgear, and
~1 I equipment for transferring fuel to and from the containment building.
w l The spent fuel is stored in a pool contained in a massive concrete chamber, which extends from elevation -3.9 feet to 42 fast. The rest of the
~
building is constructed of reinforced masonry blocks, with steel framing supporting the steel roof deck, which is at an elevation of about 65 feet. L
. Concrete slabs are located at the base and top of tha switchgear reem. There
~ * *'~
. - . - - . ~ _ - . . - . - . . - - . . - . ~ . - _ - - . . . - . . - . - - - . . . - . . . .
. l TER-C5506-405 l . m
~
g,( -
,s " *
.. .} ,*-
*Os, E *
* * ,, #58'h .**
i
. ~ . A ,,%*'
.A%,.
g c/, ;'%s - e,.- I
,,f[' '1 4 %* l
- g. .
( z. r n -s
. i
,%t. .
,r 7. ,
e- 4 ! ! N
,,, ss lN
' Ql -
b'
%{i I I
! si %. I 3 p-e e i s 4 '4,,,#', ,
I i' % \ / ,, l . i
- 10. % % .:
i! .
, 3 .
' j i N, F .38 ,$:.!, -
.yf ~i!t
. B - l' j j g'
, > i :
r 1 \ , , / i
;!/
N'i i . ,-
) #
7 ' 3 - O v. u f3 U Figure 5.13. Fuel Storage Buildi..g J L'I
#9 c
E l i ' 1 TER-C5506-405 h l is also a mezzanine floor in the switchgear room at elevation 31 ft 0 inches and it is constructed of steel framing and grating. There are a total of 10 masonry walls in the fuel storage building comprising the switchgear room, which is adjacent to the fuel storage pool, and the entire structure above the fuel storage pool (see Figure 5.14). Above the 42-foot elevation, the masonry walls supply all the in-plane stiffness, and below 42 feet (switchgear room), the dominant effect on the walis is caused by imposed displacements from the r-ro tation of the fuel poof on its soil springs. . b 5.2.2 Background of Analysis , Thean$1ysisofthefuelstoragebuildingwasoriginallysubmittedby Southern California Edison Company (SCE) as Volume 4 of the " Seismic Evalua-tion of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls" (19] for the San Onofre Unit 1 plant. Since then, howeverI soil conditions different from those assumed in tho' analysis were encountered at the site. Because the soil structure
*- interaction dominates the structural behavior of the fuel storage building, a j supplemental analysis had to be performed and was summarized in Volu=e 5 of the " Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls" (20). The ]
'O general methodology for both the original and revised analyses are the same.
Both analyses were performed using the earthquake time history method, - p although the revised analysis used a different method of scaling the time t-histories to fit the evaluation response spectra (see Section 5.2.5 and item 1 hg below). Both analyses used linear and non-linear global cceputer models and detailed sub-structure models to carry out the stress evaluations; however, the revised analysis used modified soil springs in its models to reflect the { actual soil conditions at the site. In addition to altering the soil springs to reflect the lower in-situ soil density, Volume 5 incorporates the fo'llowing [ modifications to the analysis of Volume 4:
- 1. The earthquake time histories were frequency scaled to more closely [-
fit the analysis response spectrum.
~
- 2. The analysis response spectrum was increased over certain period ,
ranges. .
~
-- . . ., - . . = . . . . . - . . . . . - .
l, . I TER-C5506-405 5 . l
- \
FS-1 v Q FB-2 , FS-8 -
. FB4 F8-4 .
. . . FB'-7 ,
FB-5 ELEVATOM 42*-0* , .
~'
e, F8-8 . E., FB-10 l i l - L; ELEVATION 14*-C* QJ , 'd i J lii t
. (J Figure 5.14. Masenry Walls
___ . _ xm _ _ _ _......_.-,s...._ TER-C5506-405 s
- 3. Each of the three components of each earthquake was scaled to fit the analysis spectrum, instead of using a constant scaling factor for all components. .
- 4. Masonry material properties were adjusted as a , result of tests on specimens at the site.
- 5. Soil damping parameters,were refined to be closer to the specified values. .
- 6. Allowable stresses for embedded bolts were modified as a result of 3 recent test results. I
- 7. The analysis was based on the building's present condition, which has Q all structural modifications installed (see Figure 5.15). IJ
'8. The model elementi mesh for the switchgear room ' walls was refined.
- 9. Only one model was used'for both' vertical and horizontal responses,
. instead of separate models for each response.
}
. 1 5.2.3 Methodoloov and criteria .
Ei Both linear and nonlinear techniques were used in the analysis cf the HJ fuel storage building. All analyses were carried out using either the SAP-SA (linear analyses) or ANSR-II (nonlinear analyses) computer programs. The .g horizontal and vertical earthquake loads were combined and applied .
.to a three-dimensional ANSR-II global model (see Figure 5.16). The global model results were applied to detailed substructure models to obtain more .
precise results. The acceptance criteria were based on the " Balance of Plant Seismic Re-Evaluation Criteria" (21] for the San Onofra Nuclear Generating Station E C Unit 1. This source references the following codes:
- a. the 1979 Uniform Building Code ,
- b. the AISC Specification for Steel Design, 1978 edition
- c. ACI 318-77, for reinforced concrete requirements. 'd./
1 b 5.2.4 Description of Model , W ! Two global models were used to perform the analysis of the fuel storage .y building: a linear medel and a nonlinear model. The linear model is exactly Q
'i 5
._...- . .., . , . . . - . . . . . . . . 1
. o
, TER-C5506-405 e ,
. ... . . _ l l 1 .1 I !
8 e :
. .l l l l. . _
E ADCED Sf%CING l l -
- . WAu. FD-7 1 _
'a I
f - - t 9' e' > I , s l fI O
~
*iL
% ADOED COUfMN '
' '. / l { g , -
c' V I I I : - l t . I I I
- l I , i l p- . l l j b
l I f'-
; 9, y
, .g . 4
/ *."18 ?d".*R f4 L7c'.t M is'.
m o* s .
~
?. 'C .Q ' O<u .e be ..l.,?
q ,, .,,o. . e .. u .
,j l f/- . -
i
/ i 1 vq l l'4:
Figure 5.15. Structural Modifications ' i , i e.o l
1
+ T M-C5506-405
{ i , s
/
t
./ ~"
i
-< f* s
-s -
/ g I
/k ,-
I
/
1 p
\
N
' y'[/ i l
s//y s
=
f - L l Figure 5.16. Fuel Pool Global Mcdel t
}
g j
; TER-C5506-405 , ,g -
tu the same as the nonlinear model except that it does not include the nonlinear effects of the masonry walls. This model was used to extract the normal modes . of the system, which contributed to the understanding of the overall dynamic behavior of the structure. The normal modes were also used to obtain the frequency-dependent damping constants that were needed to compute the composite modal damping for elements in the nonlinear model. The nonlinear J model is an ANSR-II computer model that includes both the in-plane and d out-of-plane nonlineak responses of the masonry walls. The "in-plane" walls were represented by finite element models with plane stress elements. In
~ '
order to include the "in-plane" masonry walls in ths global model, correction . .
~ '
g factors to allow, for the coarse ANSR-II grid and openings in the walls had to , U be obtained. To find these factors, a " detailed substructure model of the wall was analyzed elastically for static lateral loads using the SAP-5A' progra s.
. .. The deflections from this . analysis, in conjunction with the deflections from a similar analysis using a e,oarser substructure model, provided the correction factor sought. The "out-of-plane" masonry walls were modeled differently in the fuel storage building than in the ventilation, turbine, and reactor auxiliary buildings, all of which used tru'ss, gay, and plane stress elements to form their masonry wall models. Each "out-of-plane" masonry wall in the fuel storage building was represented by a beam element. In the inelastic ,,
l L analysis, the inelastic behavior of each beam element was represented by a
- l
- hysteresis curve (Figure 5.17). The shape of the curve ensured that the U correct static cyclic behavior was obtained. This model (single-mass) was tested for dynamic and static response, whic h was compared to the response N
g from the more complex models (multi-mass) used in the other buildings. The responses of the two types of models compared favorably, as can be seen in i Figure 5.18. Two walls, FB-7 and F5-4, were not included in the global model I 6'
- for out-of-plane response because their hori ental spans were much smaller than their vertical spans. They were evaluated separately based on two-way
{ " l spanning. - l l m , s' i The light gage metal ecof deck and the ficor slab above the switchgear Le roem at elevation 42 feet 0 inches were globally modeled as diaphrag=s using plane stress elements. The properties of the ecof deck elements vera derived
'~
from the deflection coefficients supplied by the manufacturer. The me::anine
,m,____._.._._..__ . _ _ _ . . - - - . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ , _
i TER-C5506-405 k E i I C
\
w
, popcg .
d -
- n
- u
. f '. .
~
. F
^
r
. DISPLACEMENT
~ I PE e
C l g t r b w F ? . V , r l t
==
Figure 5.17. Hysteresis for Centrally Reinforced Walls
)
- - . - . - . ~ . . . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . . _ - . - . - . - - > l' , ..
TER-C5506-405 g e
'E
. el.
' ~~
B C N S j h Y
' ~
s 3
'9- .
$y, g .
D -
<W %
w 8-
= .
b -
-/W /$
E . 8 # 7* sf i s *m -
.f f 5 u g l I Y 8
~
i I 3 f-s ? g g 6 > 1 l n A l. l 1! %g 3 e g C
~
7 5 u t ft " 1 6: m., 8 l f N I e * (rsu:ufjnGrG:v'ds:t12G:423 . l R l I ! ., -3s-i
_ __ __ . j e ! TER-C5506-405 E I steel floor framing at elevation 31 feet 0 inches is covered in part by a
- steel grid, resulting in partial diaphram action. This is modeled using truss members that span horisontally from the fuel pool south well to the masonry well FB-10. ,
The com: rete slab at elevation 14 feet 0 inches, beneath the switchgear room, was cast on grade. And because it was not considered to have any , significant. influence on the masonry walls or fuel pool, it was escluded from { the model of the fuel storage building. , The concrete fuel pool was represented very coarsely in the global model (see Figure 5.16). A more detailed linear substructure model'was used to ,
, obtain the stress pattern for component evaluation. - .- 5.2.5 Analysle '
e p .. . . p The analysis of the linear model included two SAP-5A eigenanalyses: one *
. using the elements with their original stiffness, the other using the eleinents e in their degraded condition (i.e., with their minisman stiffness). The modes I y estracted from these analyses provided data for computing damping values for ,
, elements in the nonlinear anodel. Z The nonlinear model was analysed for a set of three earthquake time histories. Each component of each time history was scaled to fit the analysis W response spectra ("Housner spectra"). This individual scaling of each
- component produced horizontal components of approzimately the same intensity j (i.e., matching the Housner Spectra); therefore, it was necessary to consider only one orientation for each' earthquake. 'The time histories were scaled
, using Computech Engineering Services (CES) computer program THSPECT. The original analysis (19] scaled each point on the accelerogram by a factor F derived by equating the spectral intensities of the real time history spectra with those of the analysis spectra. The revised analysis (201 used an e iterative procedure in which the real time histories were transformed into the '1 frequency domain using a Fast Fourier Transform and scaled according to the 7 ratio between the target and computed spectra. An inverse Fast, Fourier Transform was then to obtain the modified time histories which were in turn .
. used to calculate new response spectra. The new spectra were compared with
g - TER-C5506-405 the target spectra and new scaling ratios were obtained. The procedure'was repeated until satisfactory convergence was obtained. Note that all scaling . was performed for both the sine and cosine coefficients, and thus the phase angles are unchanged. Therefore, the phase relationships between the various frequencies of the original time history are re,tained. Since the masonry walls provide all of the horisontal stiffness, the steel framing in this building carries only vertical loads. Steel columns carry only vertical gravity loads sinde the vertical seismic loads are taken by the masonry. Horisontal members in the roof, the diaphragm at elevation 42 feet 0 inches, and the messanine were evaluated for vertical seismic effects using a response spectrum' analysis and the appropriate envelope spectra for each' elevation. The acceptance criteria for steel were based on the AISC g Specification for Steel Design, 1978 and a 60% increase in allowable stress D .*. for load combinations containing seismic loadd. The metal roof deck was evaluated for seismic s' hear forces. The accept-ance criteria were based on manufacturers' recommendations. .
. The concrete slab at elevation 42 feet 0 inches is subjected co out-of-plane seismic and gravity loads. The response of the slab to these p -
loads was evaluated using the SAP-5A program. Gravity loads were represented U as uniformly distributed loads with an additional 109 psf over the area of the new fuel racks. Vertical earthquake effects were analysed using the envelope response spectrum at that elevation. The evaluation of 'the slab was based on ' ultimate strength techniques and ACI 318, 1977. 3 i b The fuel pool was evaluated for combined horizontal and vertical , earthquake loads and the dead load of water amplified by the vertical accelerations. Hydrodynamic effects of the pool water were also included in , the analysis for horizontal seismic loads, which was based on the time history l analysis of the building. The pool was analyzed by the ultimate strength method according to ACI-318, 1977. "1 5.2.6 Assessment of the 3eismic Analysis of the ruel Storace Buildinc Structures i The methods and criteria used by Scuthern C211fornia Edison Company to evaluate the fuel storage building at the San Cnofre Nuclear Generating i
.TER-C5506-405 't I
Station Unit I have been examined and found to be adequate. Based on the results reported in SCE's " Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Volume 5 (20), it is concluded that the following components which P comprise the fuel storage building are adequate and acceptab1'e: $
- a. Structural steel framing
- b. Reinforced concrete fuel pool and , base mat ,
L
- c. Reinforced concrete slab at elevation 42 feet ,
j
- d. Rocf deck. _
. l The floor slab of the switchgear roc.3 was not considered in the evaluat' ion of the fuel storage building. However, this slab is of little concern because it f "
was cast on grade and has no structural connection to the masonry walls or fuel pool. The walls of the swite!. gear roem rest on reinforced concrete strip t footings. . r Regarding the masonry walls in the fuel storage building, assessments of
. the methodology used in qualifying the walls were given in Section 5.1.3.
M W L c L r b W
.Fc.
e
TER-C5506-405 -
- 6. ANAI.YSIS RESUI.TS The proposed finite element model introduced in the previous section was used to evaluate the masonry walls in the following buildings: .
o Turbine building . o Ventilation equipment building o Reactor auxiliary building *
,' .s o Fuel' storage building. ,
The location of these buildings and corresponding, masonry walls are shown In Figure,6.1. , The design basis earthquake motion used in the' analysis was the Housner response spectrum normalized to 0.67g. Three different time histories , a- compatible with the Housner response spectrum were used in the evaluation: El Centro (May 18, 1940), Taft (July 21, 1952), and Olympia (April 13, 1949). 6.1 TUR3INE BUII. DING , The turbine building has 12 walls to be evaluated (TB1 through TB12). N
' The walls in the turbine building have the dimensions and reinforcing information shown in Table 6.1 .They were divided in three groups according c to their heights: ,
e Group I: 21 feet 4 inches
}
Group II: 14 feet 8 inches . Group III: 10 feet
=J Group II also has a subgroup iia.
G
, Tables 6.2 through 6.5 show the results for all groups of walls given in Table 6.1. .
b 4.2 VENTII.ATICN EQUIPMDtr EUII. DING J ' m The ventilation equipment bu11 ding has four walls to be evaluated (VB1
]j through V34). The ventilation equipment building is a single-story masenry building. The building is 20 feet high. The four 6-inch masonry walls included in the analysis are the exterior walls of the building. The walls
_ ~ ~_ _ _ _ _ -
. . . - _ . . . . . _ . - ~ . . ,_
. I t
*i t t +- t >
, sis.,a ....a. <,,, ,,,.
, , t r . ) F, s
l I I i -
\ . ,
e , e-a 6- Ta-3 :
<my r .
; es, .
e
,,,.r.>,r>>>,. s' il e
r ,rrs,aT5-1 _
,, < , ar a r, , ,
c n a
'" e- ;
.s. o ,A i .- Tupusseet summeses m
.,T g..r.....- ,*,r ;
2.,,,,,,,,,,,.., , ..- . , FS-9 -e' I
)
4 1.-.i FUEL o .? '
'STORAod
, 7 -
e: . v8-t
- w,,,,,y 8 ,9 ),,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,%, ,i EUILDINCl ,
, 7 "'vWt"'! 9
* , B L,D.O.,. s.
8
~l,.,...... " err .,,,
v . t
-J,,) va-a ra-a ,
9,, ,9y; _---_________ , e
,2,,... ,, , . .
M ;*rrm ri l j- . g i _A.1,, a =, n,.r>ar r5
$s-3 I{ M y
I
, 6D-1 ! f j f REACTOR AUXILIARY SUILOlHG l u
!. m,,.r. .in _ _ g.,
t.
- l g .-
( L_ :mmarr_ana:--
, ,L .,
u . Figure 6.1. Location of Affected Buildings .
# I r! P .4 r'r "1 rn'4 rn"1 fM Te 'l [3 0. [T3 (M t"?J l'?M P2H] rm l0ZT1 rT!3 ' I
TER-C5506-405 , R Table 6.1. Turbine Building Masonry Walls
- I WALL 1.D. MEIGHT REINFORCING s OPENINGS GROUP NUMBER Ween Vertical Morizontal (b)
TB-1 21'-4* (0) #5 at 32* e5 at 48* YES l.lla
#5 at 32*
75-2 14'-8
- NO e5 at 48' 11
! TB-3 14*-8* #5 at 32' #5 at 48' NO 18 . 75-4 14'-8* e5 at 32* e5 at 48' NC N ' ]u - 75-5 21'-4* . es at 32* #5 at 48' NO I T5-4 21 '-4
- SS at 32* #5 at 48' NO I E Ta-7 21'-4* (o) #5 at 32* e5 at 48- YES . iia
,5 T5-8 14'-8* e5 at 32* e5 at 48* YES N TS-9 20 *-8 * #5 at 32* e5 at 48' NO I I
TE-10 20 *- 8 * '. . #5 at 32* #5'at 44' NO I 4 78-11 20 *-8 * #5 at 32* e5 at 48* YES I TB-12 10 *-0* #5 at 24' .85 at 48' NO 841
'R 'g.
(Q) Also has portions 15'-8* high ,
! Table 6.2. Sumary of Results - Turbine Buildings Group I Walls Il EARTHOUAM RECORD
] . EL CENTRO TAFT CLYMPM i 1.. 1..
- DISPLACEMENTS Onches) 7 Mid-Span Masimum 8.49 4.99 9.94
- 7.21 -10.23'
'e Mid-Span Minimum - 9.88 k Support Max 6 mum 1.87 1.49 1.81 j ,
Support Minimum - 1.59 - 1.41 - 2.57, t STHL ST7%3N 7%TIO (Eu/Ey) 21.4 15.8 24.5
- r SUPPORT REACT 10N CDs) . -929 -552. -992. j
! MASONRY COMPRESSNE STRESS j -'
; (ps0 311. 306 314.
.! U . , ,0 , I 4
;.n l _ .
......,.-4....
. . . _ . . _.s.-. .- -. . , - - - - --.- - --- - - -
~
k TER-C5506-405 m E Table 6.3 Summary of Results - Turbine Building Group II Walls 4
- EARTHQUAKE RECORD 1
;- EL CENTRO TAFT OLYMPtA 1940 1952 1949 m-DISPLACEMENTS Onches)
]
Mid-Spah Manimum 8.18 4.74 4.77 - 'l Mid-Span Minimum - 8.00 - S.13 - 8.10 ] Support Mastmum 1.52 1.82 1.84 Support Minimum - 1.82 - 1.44 - 1.84 STEEL STMAIN RATIO Eu/Ey) . 25.0 14.8 , 14.7
~ .
SUPPORT REACTION 00s) ,2649. 1914. 2429. L
) -
. MASONPW COMPRESSNE STRESS -
(ps0
. , '314. 305. 305. ,.h 1 :; *
,Q
. Table 6.4. Summary of Results - Turbine Building Group iia Walls A
. ... a EARTHOUAME MCORD EL CENTRO TAFT OLYW PtA 1940 1982 1949 OtSPLACEMENTS Gnches) i Mid-Span Masimum 4.84 - - :-
M64-span Minimum -4.36 - - F
~
! Support Mastmum 2.90 - - Support Minimum -3.73 - - g STzEL ST7WN MT10 Eu/Ey) 8.5 - - o SUPPORT REACTION Obs) 1015 - - h as MASONRY COMPPES$NE STMSS l (psi) 300 . - - ,
.9, c
~
t . a 1 l -
, - l- . . . , . . .... _. _ . . u- _ . . . _ _
( - TER-C5506-405 are vertically reinforced with No. 7 bars at 32-inch intervals and horizontally reinforced with No. 5 bars at 48-inch intervals. A 2-foot bond beam reinforced with two No. 5 bars top and bottom exists at the top of all four walls. A typical section of the wall is given in Figure 6.2. , , The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 6.6. 6.3 RDCTOR AUXILIARY BUILDING . - The reactor auxiliary building has seven walls to be evaluated (SBl through_S37). Wall Sb5 was qualified by elastic analysis, and the remaining six walls required nonlinear analysis. The walls' height varies from 8 feet to 14 feet 8 inches. Two models were generated for two groups of walls. The walls were grouped according to their height. Groups I and II correspond to walls having heights of about 8 feet and 14 feet, respectively. The
' reinforcement in the walls varies, but a minimum of No. 5 bars at 48 inches along the vertical and horizontal direction exists in the walls.
I . . Figure 6.3 depicts a typical section of a wall. Tables 6.7 and 6.8 give the analysis results for Group I and Group II, respectively. i 6.4 FUEL STORAGE BUIt.DI.W - i . Results given in this section include the masonry walls and other structures in the fuel storage building. The walls of the fuel storage building were evaluated for the effects of in-plane and out-of-plane loadings. Allowable limits were established for in-plane strain due to in-plane loads, and steel strain ratios and masonry compressive stress for out-of-plane loads. The criteria for the San Onofre ! Unit 1 plant (" Balance of Plant Seismic Re-Evaluation Criteria." February 17, l 1981 (2]) set the allowable in-plane strain as 0.00264 based on the strain at which loss of strength'begins. Wall F3-7, which is braced with steel against the allowable strain, is increased to 0.00528, based on the strain at which I spalling would occur. The in-plane strain for all walls is well below the i l 2
- yy O
TER-C5506-405 , Table 6.5. Summary of Results - Turbine Building Group III Walls EARTHOUAME RECORD . EL CENTRO TAFT OLYMPLA k 1940 . 1952 1943 DISPLACEMENTS Onches)
. (
Top Maximum" - y,g3 3.24 \ ' 4.23 Top Minimum 7,4g 3,j g T -5.93 1 3 STEEL STRAIN RATIO Eu/Ey) 16.8 S.0 11.7 MASONRY COMPRESSNE STRESS
)
(psi)
- 362 350 356 s - . .
g Table 6.6. Summary of Results - Ventilation Building s i .
~ '
EARTHQUAKE RECORD EL CENTRO TAFT OLYMPtA l 1940 1952 1949 , l , e OtSPLACEMENTS Onches) , l- 3 4.24 2.16 S.28 Mid-Span Maximum -2.98 Mid-Span Minimum -5.21 -2.24 3.65 0.71 1.16 STEEL STRAIN RATIO Gu/Ey) h 824 -479 -605 l SUPPORT REACTION Obs) l ' l MASONRY COMPRESSIVE STPkSS 552 390 548 (ps0 , d i __ _ _-__ __ ____________ 1
~
E. TER-C5506-405
. EL 39'-10*
w i s:
- , 8815 J
- i
- 4. -
VWs 14*- 10'
- l .
L 4X3X1/4
^
. . s r -
7 W- #7 at 32' VERT. m M . . u
. 9 n ... .
g . L.r
#s at 4a* woniz.
- g. .. g pm .
S =
. . )
T
^
9 . W 9 y g g . . . o ' a g e Nd n t . 3 h l . I y s,. ==' O "" EL 1s'-to' <
,. . .y -,
, i .c
.t J r!!A -
n MM seatse-3 7 vv vs-1.m e e 4 i Figure 6.2. Typical Wall Section (Ventilation Equip.t.ent Euilding)
,m .._._ ,., . . , , - . . _ , . , -- ,, .
__,_._.,_y_,
- .m. . ~ , . - ,_. ~...,.....~ n .. . .%. ._.. , . . . _ . . . . . . _ - ~ . . . _ . . _ . , . . . _ _ _ - . . . . _ . p FJ TER-C5506-405 b
. U g
'Stul % -
M
'~
. . / ""
. O Ed 2.e: ,
w .- -- m . g 4 o
.i*
=
.iu T__R HORIZ #5 at 48*
- e _, VERT #5 at 44' .
I w e
- 4a
-- .1.
o J
.- o . __
w - E a - 7 __ t;
~
l
.i 1
- 4. { , - 4 4 A
a'. 4 t~ Vw c-h I 568122-2 .h NORTH ELEVA' DON y 88-2 t .' t r f.I
. d 1
Figure 6.3. Typical Wall Section (Reactor Auxiliary Building)
FI
- TER-C5506-405 J
Q . l j' Table 6.7. Susumary of Results - Reactor Auxiliary Building Group I 4
,, EARTHQUAKE RECORD EL CENTRO TAFT. OLYMPtA 3 ', . 1940 1952 1949 OISPLACEMENTS Onches)
Mid-Span M'animum **
' 0.37 0.12 0.38 Mid-Span Minimum -0.32 -0.14
, -0.34 STEEL STRAAN RATIO Eu/Ey) O.84 0.25 0.79 EL -
. SUPPORT REACTbN Obs)
- 1 g '
779 240 563 - - 1 MASONRY COMPRESSNE STRESS
%) 184 49 159 J ,# e %
Table 6.8. sununary'of Results - Reactor Auxiliary Building Group II EARTHQUAKE RECORD l 1
- EL CENTRO TAFT OLYMPIA '
i 1940 1952 1949 g DLSPLACEME.VTS Onches) - (J Mid-Span Maximum 2.99 2.38 2.00
., Mic-Span Minimum -2.33 -2.23 -2.86 STEEL STMIN MT10 Eu/Ey) 3.78 2.70 3.67 Il SUPPORT REAC1 ON Obs) 708 598 525 u .
MASONRY COMPRESSNE STRESS 1
; (psi) 237 237 237 i .- 1 i !
~ l
m..,_
' ~
]
TER-C5506-405 allowables except for FB-8 and FB-9 (switchgear room), which have respective f strains of 71% and 99% of the limit. However, these walls are braced along one edge that abuts the fuel pool, so strains substantially higher than the allowable would not seriously affect these walls. . H All walls but FB-4 and FB-7 were represented in the global model for out-of-plane response. These walls were evaluated with a sap-5A finite. element program using the envelope response spectrum from the nonlinear , analysis.' The mIaximum moments for FB-7 reached 32% of the elastic capacity in k a horizontal strip and 6% in a vertical strip. The maximum moments for FB-4 were 99% and 103% of elastic capacity in a horizontal and vertical strip, 4 respectively. These results are conservative, however, because the capacity was exceeded in only one region and because the roof level envelope spectrum e was used, which has accelerations of about twice those found a,t the base of .s 1
- - the wall. The walls are also well reinforced. Of the other eight walls, wall.
~
FB-5 had the maximum deflection, 9.93 inches. Its maximum steel strain ratio was less than 50% of the allowable of 45, and its maximum compression masonry ;- stress is about 53% of the criteria limit of 1434 psi. The maximum bending moment in the steel members occurred in a 12WF45.3 ,5 roof member and was evaluated at 33.5 ksi. This, with an allowable of 56 kai, produced a' ratio of actual to allowable stress of 93%. The maximum ratio for axial load in columns was 73%, with an actual stress of 3.2 ksi and an allow-able of 4.36 ksi. A flexural member at elevation 42 ft 0 inches, 24WF94, also has an axial load that is 8% of the axial allowable. The interaction ratio of flexural and axial stress for this member is 81%. The allowable shear load for the metal roof deck was established to be
- 2962.5 lb/ft. The maximum calculated shear load was 2329 lb/ft, which is 79% y
! of the allowable. For the slab at elevation 42 feet 0 inches, the maximum moment was 55% of - l, l~ l the design strength of 4.75 k-in/in; this occurred in the east-west direction. - In the north-south direction, the moment was 21% of the design strength, which . was 13.93 k-in/in. ,
l I_
- r i
l' I 7 TER-C5506-405 . M . All fuel pool walls, except the north wall, and the base mat of the fuel pool sustain moments considerably less than the cracking moment. The north - wall has a moment along a vertical strip of 319,519 lb-in/in, which exceeds the cracking moment of 193,150 lb-in/in. However., the design moments capacity 7 is 334,337 lb-in/in; therefore, the wall is adequate. g .. . 5 .
~
~
B . .
,,A .
. 't Q e f
,y - R e Q
- 3' -
G J
- Rm .
4 1: t.1 I
^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ^
. . o TER-C5506-405 at g;;
- 7. TEST PROGRAM In conjunction with the information given in this section, Appendix E documents pertinent information relating to pre-test activities.
The main objective of the test program was to validate the analytical technique (nonlinear time history analysis) used to qualify the masonry walls in the plant. The test program was recommended by the NRC staff due to the lack of seismic test data on the type of wall co'nstruction at San Onofre pl' ant (2). Further discussion regarding a need for a test program is given in . ( Section 5.3.
. The test were conducted by Comptech Engineering Services Corporation at
- the Structural Laboratories of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, -
University of California, Berkeley. The tests consist of material testing, ~
, low-level pull back tests, and high-level dynamic response, tests on wal1 w panels.
f
~
7.1 TEST SE1VP * , G The test setup consisted of four reaction frames: two MTS actuators c1' U located at the top and bottom of the reaction frames. The test walls were installed on top of a steel plate that rested on four Thompson Dual Roundway Bearings sliding on top of steel rods with minimum friction force. To prevent uplift,of the base of the wall, a second set of Thomson Bearings was placed at the appropriate location. At the top of the wall, spreader beams were attached to the test wall. The test setup is illustrated in Figure 7.1, and the roller 4 system is shown in Figure 7.2. k
'~
i Cacacity of Test Eculement d The capacity of the test equipment was as listed below: C.. s
. ~.J, Maximum psi.
dynamic load 65.2 kips based on a hydraulic pressure of 2500
- S1 Maximum stroke of the actuators is 16 inches. * '~
Maximum piston velocity is 30 in/sec. ~ 2
,j e ek'
B
- B . .
TER-C5506-405 3 -
,w e ,e, e -
, / Frame .
B . Servovahre . Spreader . pTop Actuator . 8- n s ' l . g : < J *
^
, g f, Wirepots e f
. .. L
- 3. . _ .. . _ .
fasonry Wall - Specimen ,
' s i i '
. . i . . . _
.e . s
}.
; w .
Reaction Frame- ; , r . e: p R , Servovalve Bottom Actuator f*s / O .
._3 .
~
Footing LN N g d~ .c Sprea' der a & 3 c >., r - -- _
-, Beam,
- s. :
'~
Figure 7.1. Test Setup
-..,,-.,,--,-,--,,------,,,.--n.,-.,,
u - w .-. . . . . . . _ . n.- .. w a .- .: l
. . e TER-C5506-405 s se ci M *
'j
\. e, .'.
Q ;
,m
'I
-4 .
c - - , _. M,txk! 44
- n. . -- -
.m
- j. y&,f.h'5
_ ' . xs n - _. _ -- ,;.Q.. , . - . Y. e, g k 2.
- N [5 =~ ~
; rQ;d..2 atp.c.&.M..%..M,,
r W
.. , b.. .fs g e U. )A "" .
< E . ; -h, ' - 9 .
.- ';*e;.k
%jgg7 :$
$ = ~;$9,'t r,s,?.N.
, = .1 , / . ,a - - , ,
'a ,'. h $ M. .
J' ~i[
. 3 f, j .,
' l' . .:. ~
e 5 c ,Y , , .
~ .. . , . ; .- , U ;- j g ,, .
b
~
I ;- *tN51 . W.S. .
\ x.
- N k e
j rg. p.. i _. e- $* e g f. Il vn =
-. e
.ll
. . L. ;.
f,,'a':e-N y.' ~ j ' > t 9 1 l N 1i f M ' z- n. . - + ls x ;.' IL u .l,h(?
- 6 QA: '-h% ,
c: 8 k, 2 T'f) n I!h.sP.".! .? f.i.b
%. s-, ^.
% g aQ '. -$
7 4 p- . ,
- g. . a -e b
D> l} IE ' 5,u- ! E h j .',as %
i
' *l }l *
@*~- F* eJ.
t.%
. g w- .
- h. _
< ' pg [; , e, i. . Igl i c '-
sliz .a .
"~
i d.$$gpMf:l;
- p. . . p
- f. W -C . n
- J s .. < ;
J5gg c 5. .-
$f-"h;!-
1 . h.A .. i -s2-
... m..
n
l f TER-C5506-405
~
l Flow capacity of the servo valves is 200 gal / min. The actuators were controlled by a displacement co==and signal based on a . prescribed displacement of any earthquake time history. - - Due to the limited capacities of the test equipment, it was not feasible to test the walls to a complete failure.
, ?
Test Instrumentation
- g The instrumentation for the tests consisted of the following:
- o. Accelerometer (total of 7) -
q o Wire potentiometers (total of 11) - o Direct current displacement transducers (DCDT) -(total of 22) g o Strain gages (total of 20). ,
'.(-
In addition, the stroke (displacement) and load time histories of the two actuators were measured. The locations of the test instrumentation are shown in Figure 7.3. ,
~
7.2 TEST SPECIMEN - The test panels rese letheactualwallshttheplantintermsofblocli ' size, morta*r type, reinforcement ratio, wall height,'and boundary condition. Each test panel was single-wythe constructed of 8-in coni: rete block. Each - panel was 8 ft long which accommodated the space and lifting capacity of the overhead crane and driving capacity of the actuators. - Three types of panels were selected for the test program and represented u walls located in the following buildings: o Wall Type 1 (Fuel Storage Building and Ventilation Building) 9 l! Three specimens were tested: 1A, 15, 1C [ - Test panel 24 feet height
. L] -
#7 robars at 32-in intervals .
~}
Horizental rebar 45 at (S-in intervals. 2 .
~53-
_ _ , _ . - . - .ua . _ . . . - _. . . . . . .
. 1 TER-C5506-405 h
l l INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY a N [
. 1 e
ii Figure 7.3. Schematic Diagram of Instrumentation Layout -
i
- n. , - , ~.-n-...- .. .-
f B l TER-C5506-405 ? . The wall type corresponded in height and reinforcement to the fuel storage building and the ventilation building. The walls in the ventilation building are approximately 3 feet shorter than the test
-Q spect=ans. It is noted that walls in the fuel storage buildinj are -
U the heaviest and tallest walls at San Onofre Unit 1. They are the only walls not founded on grade and, as such, their input motions will have amplification effects in excess of any other walls at the* San Onofre plant. . Figure 7.$* illustrates a typical test panel of type 1. o Wall Tvoo 2 (Reactor Auxiliary Building)
- One specimen was tested: 2A Test panel was 16 ft 8 in Vertical robar #4 at 32-in intervals -
~
- ' Horizontal robar #5 48-in intervals.
This test panel correspcnded in height and reinforcing to auxiliary building, although some walls in the auxiliary building are, approximately 7 feet shorter.
. o Wall Tvoe 3 (Turbine Building) .
Two specimens was tested: 3A and 3B - Test panel was 21 feet 4 inches high 3 Vertica'l rebar #5 at 32 inches . ( u Horizontal rebar #5 at 48 inches . This wall type corresponded in' height and reinforcing to the turbine
'd building walls although some walls in the turbine building are 1,;l approximately 6 feet shorter.
7.3 INPUT TIME HISTORIES FOR TESTS The similarity of input actuator motions to those of in-structure spectra b* . was verified through spectral comparison. The criteria were to have the actuator motion response spectra resembling the instructure spectra as closely
's poss'ible over the frequency range of interest. The duration of motion was a
30 seconds. - I' U v.-..,_, - ,_.-,,-r,, ,~ . , _ . , _ , _. _, _ , . . . .. _ _ , _ _ _ . . , ..,__..__.,_.-,____.._,_,-_,--_._m__ - _ . , . , . , . .
. . . . _ - . . . . _ - . __ ____ . __ _)
.l O
TER-C5506-405 U b . gg _ g Ess. %w w w wxx1%%sw ** h*= 5:SkNwNh%4%vsis % N % m 4e a l I n l I n _
\
n i ie i u _ Ekl I RSI I Es 5N l i Nb l l
$5 -
l ksl l 1%%l l M _ q SM i em m m _ smsws :. m .,wsmsms _
!Es I fsx .
f3
\'is\wAN Nhus\nvA <WW M s \N N NNWNW _ M '
S8 I I M i tsW - g
~
S4I l %%l l %E M SM i l#d l . FM l l BMi l SS - 0 m o ea .wuwm I ms es
- ~m e
smermsws ,m-m
- m. m m m. a mmm m 2 -
s
>% i nS l~ H _
t FM I I 8%I i sb _ , M i i*M l 8% _
~'""'"
p WI I N f I s8 _
= = " * = a ~a = 0 yy gh
. ta_l
. \. c o
,.1_ . . .s
< uww w wwwww me s~mem s .x.
I ss
--...o,..
tj i ;sa l Es o....... L nl l kNI ISS . L-J I IE d l BS - I mi I F#l l WM . b1 I - Isel. I
. m . m._,. .
ss m ; p , _ , a s N .i = -_er. _ s we su .m sNm . n! I ID1 I W M3 I I Mil I ts 9 r Mi I l M I Em _ o l l I 0: l I t!!s -
'i l i t M l hA 'R a : 3.w .>ei mew.< 5 aa *aaa'a' ** ~.<c'a* 's it 4it- 's h* ' ~ teiW4 %V)L6 is "<am .=a'a~ = ,
L ,
-}- .ee1 cisN O .$w ;ps irq u.. . g i
..a.........,,,,........ .
l Figure 7.4. Fuel Storage Building Test Specimens - Reinforcing Details '.. i c: e
s E . g TI2-C5506-405 The input time histories were determined from the analysis of the various bulidings where the masonry walls were located. For example, the acceleration time histories at the top of the fuel pool and at the roof levels obtained from a nonlinear analysis of the fuel storage building were retained and used as inputs to the test we'11s. These inputs included the in-structure amplifica-tion as determined from the nonlinear analysis. Most critical responses were the results of the Taft ground motion. Therefore, the Taft ground motion was used in the test program. It is noted that the input motions were different for the two actuator levels. Figures 7.5 through 7.10 illustrate typical displacment and accelention time histories and their corresponding response --
' spectra used as inputs,to the, test walls. Further disc.ussion,on this subject
- g is provided in Appendix E. , , , .
E - g 7.4 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS OF' TEST SPECIMENS .
- y. . .. .
- The dowel,s installed at the test base have the same area of dowelled steel,and the sa'e m embedmont percentage as in the in-situ walls. The in-situ walls have a pin connection at the top which is typically a ledger angle. The
' g top connection of the test wall has a spread beam, and the actuator was G attached to the top of'the panel via a pin connector as shown in Figure 7.11.
a Further information concerning this subject is given in Appendix E.
, ~,.
l 7.5 MATERIAE. PROPERTIES TESTS 7 ( ) Prior to the actual seismic test, testing of all mortar, grout, and steel samples was conducted by Testing Engineers, Inc., Oakland, California. These tests were in conformance with ASTM C91 and ASTM C109-75. In addition, the , testing of the compressive prisms and block samples were performed at the
$ Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
' l.J I California. These tests conformed to ASTM E 447-74 and ASTM C 140-75.
- , Nine cylinder samples of mortar and nine cube samples of grout were sampled during the construction of each specimen. The' samples were selected
! in q oups of three: the first group frem the lower one-third of the wall, the seccnd group from the middle one-third, and the third group frem upper one- ! I'.
~
4'..
._ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. l. _ . . _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ . __
I TER-C5506-405 E
- 3. ,
IU g .
. .... .. ...................... ....... .......... ~.y c
. .. . . . D.
.. ..... .................... ............. E
' p
. M : .
.a a
- : u -
- =
. * . . . N,
. . e.
. . . w .
g l
. . . ,_ . a c
d _,_. I
. . . . . i w .
3 8 .-
. . en
. . . ........ w . ... .. .
.. . iv g. ,
s
. ; s : o ::
g g
.m. ..v. a, q.
y o
.e=~_ . . .. . . ..
ge8 a .,
* * - _t e ..
,g ,
1 m *
* ( .
. . . %. . g
, e y
o .
.. . . ., a ,a
- . .r . . *! g8 '
. . . N
~
. m * *
. N
. . . ~ .
e ,
- : J E. s t EEP
- O 6.
j ;.
. 1 e
. . e e e
. . . p . L I . . . . m
. . . g;
.;.. . . . . . . . ; .. . . _ ..:.........:......... s p
- T
. F. ,
E p r
. .m E. E. E. E. 9 9,. . -
u' ' DI) IN3urL%SIO c 9 e>.
. i
\
i B. . 1 l . l TER-C5506-405
.I 14 D ,
E , _y .
. . . . u
.. . . . . =
8 . E a e e . . .
. . 4 p
g
. , . g
.. . . . y pg .......... 6............. . . .................... g
. . . k e
. . . . . 6
. . . . g
. j .
ihi' l- 3--g {. j
~
j l . . 3
. . . fu
** y g
m .
...,.e.
.'. .. .. E8 E
h o g
$w : . - he Ie u
- h. .
j E ! r) d i ! [ :
* . . in
.,,,f
. E*). lelP 4'7
. *
- b M b (b) M Ild"h E M N ,
6 . b s. e.
TER-C5506-405 r se
. . t
= . - . .
.. ; . ;.. .;. ;...; ..q ; ..;...p. .;. . .
. 8.. .;.. ...: .;...
. 4. L.;.. .,...,.,_, .. l .p 4.. t .L !...; ; 4 _i. ;.. .p...;....;.
p ; ..;. .;. ....;.. 8 4. .7p ..p.. p.,_p ,......,....,.......
;_ l.. p.g.4 ...............
.... 8.._ p.p.
. p ;....p
. 4 .p p..> !./..pi. ;. p.4 p p..p; 4.;...; p; 4..1 p p.;...p;.;..p.
.I I I I II
.I .e_e...e_ e!.. .I.
I I I I I
..e e. <I- I. e. .I .I ...I. .I I.. I. . I ..I .I ..f. ..I.
I e ..I...
- I 8 8I 8I 8I8 I8 I8 I 8 8I 8I 8I8 I8 I I I8 8 I iI I I
- I 6I I I t i !I i I I .
8 8 8 8 8 I t 8
* { '
>==l-4""I+=I->.*.Ia*4*al.**{_.f {-
- j. 1==b=.{_4 =le..{._8_8f.=4***l.=.I..n f f*
8 8 8 8 I8 I8 I8 I8 I8 g0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 I 8 8 I $ 8 8 8 I I I I h I I : 9 I I I t 8I I 8 8I I I I I I i i I Ie to 3 3 e e I t t t t I t B l 4 3 3 9 9 t s 3
'l1rs 8 8 s a 1 8 4 8 8 8 1""r*"I"*'l 8 0 r - I"*T*"r 1""r"=r l""r f t'. r"r"1"~i-*l"~r" t
8 . 0 0 B I $ $ $ 0 9 8 8 8 8 af 8 8 4 8 I t @ l i I I. I I I I I I l i I I I I I
- I I I I 'J l ! I'1 I I l I 4 8 8 I $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 1 I 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 3 3 .@
I I I I *
- .I. .I._I; ; I._.I . ..I ,I_ I. I... I I .I
.I . I._I. .I I,_.I. .,I'._t.I _,I_ I. .I_.I....I
. . _ e q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I '
- e s 8 8 : 8 8 : 8 : 8 : : : 8 : : : :
i 1 ! I I I
- : : : t t
.b' g
i 8I I 8 8I8 I i i 8 I I i ! I i i0 ! B 8 8 8 8 I I I I I I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I I I I It tI 1 e t t t t t I I e I 1 i j l I : 9 I I I I I I e 1 I i l i t l* I i. 8 i 888888 I l I t 'I $ $ 1 t 8
- t 8 8 9 t t ag i I I eI i ! !e Ie I ! ! I I I I I I I l3t il! I I Ia I: I '
*po e a a a
._l s ,i i _.,._, l : 3 t 4._e.. r_.,_ _.8 .Il. s , _,. i t 4 .
,8~ 8 l.4 .,
t
-t, -i-H_.,-H-H,_.H,_,-t,.. H_, '
_ t-, t- - , _. .H. -i-H_.. . . M,_,_, .".t,. . .. t,_-H,. H_, , - _ .,t- . 4.._ .i p _. : .ppl 4 4 pppy_.' ;. p; 4.! . .pp ;_4. p.p..p 3
. 4_. _.pp _f._ppi pyt... t t t._pp.4 .p.pp. o
.I .I .I. I I_.I. I: I. .i..!I 4 p p p.p . .i I.. ...J i. !. ..I . I. I. ..I....I.. ?. . b
. .i i: :I .I. ..I I. .i. g a
.8 II 4I 8 I I8 I9 I I 8I 8I 4It *I I I I I i 1 1 I I I I I i I !
4 l.. 4 p 1 8 8 8 8 3 0 $ $ $ t l_4. { , _ . p I
- g. , _ l t 8 4 8 8
.g .p..t.
- se*"* ,,.f f4,.# p g 4I t ,.
8 8 8 8 8 a 8
- 6. ,. 4 ,
8 6 g. f
- 9 e
-{
~4 t.
t"Y I lI I1 I 'l 3 t t 8 8 I s B 3 : C t 3 6 I I It I I I It tI I I I I I I I.I I I i { i t I l t , p *# t t %* e...g. I .e
'5 g .g_.g. g.a.p ,. .p. e.. .t _g g ..,I._ ga..q t
t g. t 8.. t t
- g. .t.. r . t_g. g t
...tg .gu. t. .. g 8 8 $ 8 8 8 ""I 8 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 8 8 8 8 I I I I I l
- t. I t 4 9 8 8
prf"*l 8 I
- B
! I I I i .I I I i i i l'I I I I I I t t i f 8 t
W " % 4 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 t i B
- : f -:-J I I
... .1. . .I. t .I.
. . . . . . . ! ,4.
t
. I.. .I .I .e i. .I.
. ..I...I I..6..I..i. :... .t.
s 8 6 I I I I I i i I a *'N t i I Ia Ia I I I I I I I I I I ,I 68.
$g C '
e e a e a e t a : e s 8 t s *
- s ?.
I ! I I: I ft 8f 9 I I I I I i I. I I I 6 I I I 1 8
# i. s a t 8 8 i s t t t t t i e : 4*
f I i a t I ! I I I I I e i I i s a $ e r 8 s
- a I I - 9 e 3 t 8 : *)' .%*'.4
i . I I I I I I a t s a : , I.
,oq:
.,...t, I I 'tt .
I I I I .I, I, I I ! I I I I I i ' . '% I I, i f i
- I
- i. t. t t 8 8 4_.,8 . . . . .
, t . 'l.
t l 4.
- y. .
, t
.....4..........
t .
,3 3...;....!. .g...:... 7 ;. ;....j. ..;....; .; . ..g. 8 .. ..;. 3 .... ., s..3 . :.. ;....;. .;.. s. .
. g 1
.p.. 4....pp..pp.4 .pp..; p
.L . 4. 64_.pp.4 .pp..t . ........
..ppp4 J
. J._p.; ppy .i. N. .N..p.i.. . i.. .;.. .;. .t g r
.i,_.r _i ...i.. .i ...i.. i.. !...i. .i._i_...i.
g 1_ .i . i rppy...i
. . ...i ..I.. i .. i..... .. u. . .. i ....i... r.
ge I l 1 1 1 6 t t i l l t l ; 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 f
*I l l :
t & t 8 8 6 8 I I I 6 6
- 8 8 8 4 8 O 9*
>* 1 * . p { 4 w{...{ )_{. 4.. t. t..op. { 4 g...g ..).nj. (. .. [.
I
.{.. >...{.. 4..u.[g. o!.% 5 . l.s g ]s '
I e l I t t I e i II I I : s s* . e i a s ! ; I i ! & I a I 8 !
. I t :
Ig. : 5 W
.f I t I t.
- p. 4,f 1 9 ?
- t f **'t 4 8 t s 3 7.ug .. .y .. .g...g.u.7...g...g. . . . .g ..g . . 7. ..g .. t.. . g...g. . ..p& .g . . 3..u f 1 1 6
- f. p . . g ....p .. .g e o ; .q...'... Cn, 8 8 8 I a i f 1 4 *s 3 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 I 8 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I ! a' r5 I 8 . t
.a I I I I I I I I I t 8 4 8 t ' . I t 8 8 8 8 8 1 5 8 & . t 4% 8 l .6....e... I I i i !
.l.. e...em..l .ne..4.u.e... I... I i I I I I i e .. i e. I. . 4... .e I. ..en o._ea e ..e. + e_ ..i _ bo I i it i I 4n. e + e", e .
E.J l 1 i. t I, ,I, e, I i te I i t I i I, . I I, ,I t ; .! I i
+ !
' e , , , t , t . . t
't l o
' I i l I a i i ! I I ! I I - .
I I I ! '
! i I. : i i i i i I i % .W t a 8 : i r s a 6 M l s 1 i
1
! I I ft f:
I I 8 f I i i a I I i a ! T i ! ' i .'
*
- i .
I I I I .I I i i *i 5
?\.
i g U 3 t iI i i t eI It It It i t i. I I t I. I . t s ? I f 1 8 1 i i 1 1. ,' y pC gy gv e e E3
. WB e'
NN D .Y
.a ec
LJ ! C1 a Ci.J E.R ED LI:L E!.S 12G3 43.s 1535 IID En unit ESB E=> IWI isN Gi3 mm .; O
. i.
4, .. I i 4
- . ?
i . . 4 i J , 1 4.te -
. . -. .- ..- 1 1 - -
i . l . . ., .- . 4 l.
. . q . r . .- . .
i p.yg . ..
- g. .
. ... . . i... .. . ..... ... .. .... .... ...9 .......... ..................
] . . .
, l . . . .
j
- I . *
} .
..w. .
7g,m .. . .. ,. . . . .. .. . .
.. t. . . . . ............ .
4 , i
= .
l .- 1 s 3 l C . . . . . j 8 .I . . . . . 1 d ;( - - - - - - i,
'i
.vr2.89 i-
- l-r -
4
- o
. i. ( .
l 1 . . . . . . . )j .q,pg .....r ....i. ........ ..... t i
. . . . .. .. . j l
-G 96 -
a.m
-! 9.ru 81.t5 12.De 16.se 28.98 2's.es 26.es 32.se
. IlrE t%c) ,
4 i . . 1 - t sn
. SR Figure 7.8 Top Actuator Displaceanent Cosumand . -
E a A 1 0 (A , 4 .i I
) -
4 4 g 1 , i . ,
t
, . 1 s
t
. TER-C5506-405 C ,
H y i
. . I
. . . . . a.
. . . . . N /
......... ..... ..... ... .. ,M
- . . a.
....l.........*......
. E e
_4 b i . _M- _ .= _ - .-
- ;at as.
3 p
. .... . ....... ....... Ka g
F -
. -- y.~.
. e
. . o. ,
g 2,. R. e .t .
-we y a e
* . s q* -
, e .
n_ -
, ta v. u
. - s e.
- O
'e,.
== g ,
- " u a
e,1
-N
- 4J . Ii
-_. _ _ _ _ m u w._, _ _
. m- 4 h- - - -
G., e,= c. y a== - - --- c h m p .
. m .-w -.-.. ,
, ~~.. , - - . - - ,
-- l
.- p F;
- sram-a-- --
g . y, .
- - . _ , . . _ . e y ei
. c-l
. - ,1.t 9g '
_ . . . - - ts. g ygp= --. _ w a.nrv.a ._ ._. = . . ._ _ 3 a O.
- r L
_ _ .p
.-_N
-p*W
~w A
es ese e are rup ^ cw CD s- te . v.. t m 6 m ~
' th Wlit.Hyl3.3."Y ' '
.l W
4
.c. _ . =
i
. .. 1 n
Trn-essos-40s l .. E
.a .p .g .p 4, ;. ; ;.. , $ ...[ ;... .
. , .. . p. .;.
. ....;....;.. ;.. . q f. .y 4;9p. . ..
_ ,_. 7 p.p._p. . p, . . . ..
.! ..i._ .4 p4. -
I .._p.,i.,...,...,...,,.,......;.4 i p.i 4 ; ,. t_
._; 4 pt ! ! , p4 4 p4. p.p.._. 44..;_4'.;.j...;;.4.;_
.. 6 ..I. I
.I. . I. I I. . .I .I I
I.. I. I I. .I. .I. . I.. i 1. I I.
- I
. . . . .I I I
. . ..l .. ,
I I . I I I I I I e I I ! 8
.I I I I I I I I I I I I9 It a: 1
{.{ ) l..[.{.7 )8 ( 4 l { ) g q g { ) { B 4 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 4 8 8 8 6 8 8 4 3 4 8 s' ( j {. e e s a 8).(.[ . : : J. l. .l {. ,.p
- : : a i : : : : a a : ,
I I I I I I8 8: I I I I I I I4 4I I4 tI I 4ne i I : I a t I t t t 9 9 1 8 8 8 8 8 t t t t t i 6 t 9 9 8 9 9 s - i""I t r*I"* l""I*I e "I s 1 l*" 1""I*t'""Lr "is 91"a 8" t T"r*"
- 9 8 9 8 8 8 % e a e 8 s t 9 t 4 I I I I a.: .I I *3I / 8 I 1. : i I
. o t t t *8 I
8 8 I 8I FI 0I tlt8 I8 I8 I 8 I 4
& 3 4
I 8 8 8 i M
* *I I
. ~I e. . ~I . .I I .I. .I .I I. <I._I I sI .I. I .I.I1 .l.I I.{..I e
I I I
. .I .
I I I a e a e e I I I I I I I a : e a e s I I i I ! !a e I I I I I I I I I I k s e e s a e
! I I e a Ig IIs IgaI aI ei i Ie I a e I I I I I I .I I I I I I &
e e s t i e a . e s e e i I I I .
. I I
- I I I I I I f I !. :l I I I I '
a a s e a e os : I. : : : 9 : : - I i ! I I I I : I I I ' I . : I I I I I : I *3 I4 8I 1 t 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 9
.I
.. 4 . 8.8 .-,._i m :
8 8._ t s 84._4f...l. 6 e e 3.. . 3 -l 4._I i_. ,
~f ~,f-
~9-- -t- f -f,-f-f-f-ft l .l- [*fa[~f*
ta e : ~ ~~ r~ ~ i- . t~ts j~~f-f ,, , ~f-f-[~f-t-f-f-[+ ~ta , t-s w P I
! ! - ! 64_-s-Q** p. .p4 4. !. p.p.i 4_p4: 64..' .:. 4 p : ! ;. t._p l .
~
4 p.t 64 4; 64 64.4 . ;_ ! 4 p ' , !.4 4 64 4-i. l. . 4 ,
. 1 I .I _I I: I- I: .I.
. . . I. _I I. ,. I...
I i l i I I .e 1 I I
- .I. i.. e.... M b
L. . , - - I I I I I I.I
- 8 8 I I I I 8I1 I .
1 I ! ! : I i 1 : 1 1 U .
..I.. . 8g. ,I-4.-4....:.
g 4 4 .g. 8 .; 8 8 e 1' t t t I t 8 8 f B &
- ..; . .g... 3 .
- . .-i l. l 1 1 I:. g ,. ..
4
- 4. . . t . . .t 4... . 4, ,
.g. .s....g
. . . . .. . . . o
.)
j 1 1 I .l l I I I I l 1 1 1
. .,,..tp.;. t ..;...; .: ;.. .cq. ;. .. ; 4... .p.j. .p.3 .; ..;...;.. .t ;..1, Il. p pg .
e
. . . . , , . . . . , . , , , , . . . t . .
I 1 1 I 8 I t .leT,* aI rI
.! l sI .It : 1t I Ie e s a < ! 8 ; :
e is.. - 4,, e a . '.l . e e
. I . : I.
I
... I..
. :.... : I .e.'.
' I I I I 8 i
I I I e i
. g .I ..s..!. ...I . .I.. . .I..I. ..I. . ..I .,6 ..
gg e I I t i I* 8I I8 8I8 I I I I I I i 6 I 8 4 8 8 9 I I : I I 9 9
**8 I
9 . I i ! 6
"%.j,wb,%
I i 8 3
- I & I I I ie '
8 8 8 h e , e e s : a : I I. * , t : s .s . .*N' a e a e e g g 6 O as
. I : !
e s a . f l _s : e
- e I
.i
.I 8 a e a a I I I i .
'at. . s s : .s :,a g
g 3 + (- I or l l :
.. . . .I l.iiiI
.l .. 4. i. 9 ...l l.. 4 l .l..l .! . 4._f...l
.I B .I I
.I .I I I l
I I .i
. i r .i..4............>..
8 I
+8
.o .
5.... 2 . .. ... , ., ..., .t...2.... ....... .:.- ...,
. - ,. ;. . . . .... . ..a. 2..i 8'
n, .
.!.. 4. L. !. 4
+ .p 1 4 .;..p.64_p4..p.p.
.p.;..i..;..(. p.p.;.. :.. ;. 4.. .i. i ;p4.4.-64...p.p4.
.4..'l_ . 4 { p ;t;...h 64...; .
rP I I I I I I I I I I i 6 I I II I i * '8- *I'
- I * *I " ' *I* *.* *\l * * *I*
- 3 g
Im i 'I t & 8
*"*-'******'****'"****'I I : 6 I i I . ? e **=**********'I f I I 6 t
- I : :
- f r.
L p . >..J- .. 4 4 .
.l...{.
0
- t 8
. p..;. 4 9 1 8 4
..t ..'1i *.v . l .l. I t
.t i 8 t
8 I f I 8
- . 4 a. i
- 4. t
- i
- 4* -** ' tg i
g
. 1 t 8 8 8 t I $
g t 0 t f 8 8 . 8 g 9 I I i ' ? I I I f I I I I I & I I 4 I I I I I I 3
.p.;.
, , , , .p.: , , ;,...;. ;....;..-;... , , ,;....;...;.
, . . . ; ...;. ;.. .; 4, . .; , .:.
. t:.. ,y( .
y a i I I I t t 8
. I I I I ! ! I I I i l 1 I I I 1 I 8l t Ik9-
- 3 8 $ t 3 3 e 3 : t t t t 8 0 8 g
..I . I.. .t....I.. . .I .... f....I.. .i ....i...%...
3 l l l
.. . .. .. . . . .. t. . . .. .! .I .. . .n... .. ..i. .. 8. .. 8 . ...$ . I.. ...f 8 .I r .' -I *I aI -I : :ei 8 : :
r.; e I i 6 : I ! . . 6 ! I I I { e s
- a * . .
, iir i i i i I I I I . ,i i i , ,a . .
i , i L: t ' t t t I f I I 3 $ r f f 3 F 3
& 8 8 e l lI 1 ' : l l l I I 1 I I ' I ! !
8 I I 3 8 t i e i 1 a e i a t I l 8I8 I i I I! I l 6 I I a l I f : I I i 6 1 + l 8 8 I i i I I e i ! 8 l t t a f . t t - i r a s a I f t 8 1 i f . .l t - u N. E. N. b. N. .h
"];
. @ W!Wh3"llrt'
... I
.i
g TER-C5506-405 K 7 Top of Wan D 85 Grade 40 Rebar. l
- /
/
/ #6 Grade 40 Robars. -
(r
/ '
W10 Suffened Spreader Beam (Strong-back).
- y..g
. g n .
~ '
a$ .
' .',' {. .' . :,'.* :.
a -
. t,*
. ,,." . a - -
, .: n' _
- ,g.. :.. w 3- 3; 3 _
y-
. .. i i
(* *.s 7 e ., i i-l
~
a
' %).h' t
3/4" O Bolt at 16* (avg.) '
\\d 86 Grade 40 5* Embedded.
6 Bolts total. t' Rebars. e -
.i, m_ ,
n Figure 7.11. Fuel Storage Sullding Test Specimens Connection Detail at Top of Specimens - s l
TER-C5506-405 third of the well. One sample of grout and mortar from each group was then tested at the age of 7 days, 28 days, and within 48 hours of the full , intensity dynamic test. . - Two specimens of the reber from each test wall were also tested (h3TM A-370-75). . .
, 7.6 IOf-LEVEL PULLBACK TESTS The objective of these tests was to evaluate the damping of the uncracked and cracked states of the test walls. The tests were performed by othtically displacing the test panels and than releasing them in free vibration motion.
The$ogarithmicdecrementmethodwasusedtodeterminethedampling. level. > 7.7 FULL INTDSITY DYNAMIC TESTS Fuilintegrityoftheprescribedseismicinputswasappliedto.thetest panelviat'woalituators. As previously discussed, the instrumentation
.- consisted of the following: .' - .
o 7 accler,ometers
~
, o 11 wire potentioneters -
. o 22 DCD!s s e 20 strain gages. ,
. In addition, the stroke (displacement) and load time histories of the two , actuators were measured. q The test measurements were used to correlate with the results predicted J by the analytical procedures. q . l) . su. 9 0 esp _- O een o 9 e
)
O m .<:s io 6-6a i y s
. ~
S
- e e
t INF0WTION ON TH15 PAGE ]$ PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHEM CALIFORNIA EDIS0N COMPANY , e 9 4 e a t e e e a a 9 , v' ' ~
-84 ,
4 0 b . 1 '
. TER-C5506-405 m 9 e
4 e INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY D e . e 6 6 e e u e e 88 4 , '. . e e e 8 n O
's
(, .
7-6 D 6 e l
~....... D ee a * !
, j, O I l
I e
- e l
I i e a INF0lWRT!0N ON THIS PAGE 15 PROPRitTARY TO SOUTHEM CALIF 0MIA EDIS0N COMPAMf i e I t S I g .. . , e l l O o l I l
.. 1 4 *. . ,
e
' S e e e e e e a gemm e mees segname aessee 43;. .
.i
-+-
B. - . o
. TER-CS$06-405 9
i e
' e 4
INFORMTION ON THIS PAGE !$ PROPRIETARY TO S0tJTH O k' . e e a 4 4 i 0 t g' ' e 4 g
g - 8 e g e 7 5-C5506-405 . e e oge 8 e
- 4 e
I e IWOMTION ON THil PAGE 15 PROPRIETARY TO SOLITHEM CALIF 0mlA EDISON COMPA 4 i f I e l 48 i 4 4 5 e. ee e b a [
- O e
.. I, J
___ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - ._ __ n_ -_ .1
9 8 O 8 e
. TER-C5504-405 ,
A 9 8 9 i et. 0 e e s 6 g s t 4 e INF0mpim M THIS PAGE 15 PROPRitTARY TO SOUTHEM CALIF 0MIA EDIS0N COMPANY 48 4 e se a 5 4 e a 6
,e G
O 6, g
>g OO O
O e 0 e e l,
_ . . ~ - h TER-C5506-405 n.g s INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALI
? - Q 3 .
Y p 6-4 w l g e *. . m i 4,
]**
B 9. CORREIATION ANALYSIS o e b o e 5 k'NF010RTION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, COMPANY , 6 e O e 4 e 9 k
- e a
d' .. - - --. - - - - - ----- -- - -
.n. - ~.
. TER-C5506-405
. Table 9.1 Analytical Results of Wall FB-5 8
Center Displacement anches) Maximum g 9.03 Dl Minimum -
-9.93 l
. C 1 Masonry Stress (ps0 ,
765 . d, I
' Steel Strain Ratlos !
)
- Center -
18.7
- 1 End -
20.7 - Plastic Hinge Langth .
. .Conter . 18' ,
l Ene r 3l a
' . : h, Table 9.2. St== nary of Wall Test Results *
-U
,g
,,, , ., . - . .. _ ,. . . - . - -- - -- -M INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY A g m
*O 9 . #6 she S
I
*J
'd
_ _ I _ . . __ _-
. l e
- j s
+' l l a ' l TER-C5506-405
- a. e e
1 e INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY O g .. . I' i ee 4 .
*9 e e
- g.
4 4 8
, 3 l
l e e D 0 9 9 9* e e
- O e
S e e o O
, _INFORMATIONONTHISPA5EISPROPRIETARYTOSOUTHERNCALIFORNIAEDISONCOMPANY O
e e e 0 ed. Y e I' e . aO 1-e 9O _ .. .. . . - a , ---o-- -
. o 8 9 4
W . TER-C5506-405 4
.e.
. i e
e , INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISDN COMPANY o g . . e i l 1 l l g *. . [
~
r .. 1 I
- P-77 P' -
i l Trm-c550s-40s hl e e
- o 4
e 6 INF010RTION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 9 e e .e , e e q. O e .
- O e .
h w a^ g , , o + o _
h$ O %OO8O 9 08 O 5 9 e
$ y 9
2
. TER-55506-405 .
4 e e e 9
- e 6
4 4 e INF010RTION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
- e
*L, e
e O O 9 8
't ..
O e e il .
- _ g.
- n - -
n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TER-C5506-405 Y' p e et e , e
.
- t e
e S 6 e 4 9 INFDIURTION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0N COMPANY S 9 g .. e e
~n g.
I l e D e.
~
e e
. .3 i
t .
- sa
5 I+ -~ *
, TER-C5506-405
= -
6 6 e INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY g .. . O 9 a 9 l . 4'* e e e
' S l
- o
- _ i -_, _
.. .. 1
. 1 TER-C5506-405 l
10s . CONCLUSIONS l Based on the review of the test results and the correlation study - prepared and documented by Southern California Edison Company, the following j conclusions were reached: . . o Test results demonstrated that the walls were able to withstand the ? design earthquake levels specified for the San Onofre plant. g o Test results demonstrated that a well-anchored reinforced coherete "j masonry wall could sustain inelastic deformation. The test walls did 'I
. exhibit a ductile mode of behavior. ,
. o Test results demonstrated that although the wall's mid-span -'
displacement was noticeably high the overall wall conditions were
. reasonably good. Except for the bottom joint, no. extensive crushing $3 of face shell or spalling was reported. The anchors were well" :l
, behaved, wall stability was maintained. It was also noted that the L4
- - test input motion for the critical walls representing the fuel 2l storage building was significantly higher (i.e., on the average at ,
least 25% higher) than the specified designed motion which was an indication of available margin associated with the specified design -
. .otion. .
o In general, the analytical procedures were able to capture the behavior of the test walls. However, due to differences in the input fh values of the test and the analysis, several parameters in the correlation study did not exhibit good correlation. It is judged that the model was tested and examined extensively during the model formulation phase and the fact that it captured the general response of the walls indicated that the methodology is very promising. Ecwever, it is judged that additional study should be conducted before using it in future applications. As a minimum, the following
.g. parameters should be examined:
$1
- Adjust the steel strength of the rebar in the model to reflect If the actual test results. .
- Adjust the input loadings applied to the model so that they are hy comparable to those of the test inputs.
- Adjust the off-center location of the rebar in wall IB in the f.'.
model.
- Adjust the length of the plastic hinge in the model. 3
- Refine the model so that it could predict the permanent set of the wall.
TER-C5506-405 , 8 ' Naw computer runs with the above adjustments to the model will definitely lead to conclusive evidence about the conservatism of the methodology. Two scenarios are envisioned:
- a. If reasonable correlations are achieved: the methodology is proved ,
- . to be conservative ar.d acceptable. .
- b. hfreasonablecorrelationsarenotachieved: modifications need to incorporat;ed into the analytical model.
f' j . . . . Detailed discussion on this subject is given in Appendix B of this report. o Despite the' assessment given above, the fact that the test walls did 7 exhibit their capacity and that a ductile behavior was realized in p . the tests serve as an evidence that the San Onofre walls will perform their intended functions in postulated seismic environment. fu o With regard to the seismic analysis of the fuel storage building, the O" , 7 methods used in the analysis of the following structures were reviewed and found acceptable: structural steel framing, reinforced ^ concrete fuel pool and base mat, reinforced concrete slab at h elevation 42 feet, and the roof deck. O 16 . o > L a-m Iiw i* f i TER-C5506-405 h
- 11. REFERENCES
- 1. .K. P. Baskin, SCEC (Southern California Edison Company)
Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC M
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation January 11, 1982 *
- 2. D. M. Crutchfield, NRC Letter to K. P. Baskin, SCEC b
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Request for Additional Information ~ February 17, 1982 - U
~3. K. P.'Baskin, SCEC Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC Q
~
El
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation . April 30, 1982
. 4. K. P. Baskin, SCEC Letter to D. M. Crutchfield,' NRC K
Subject:
Masonry Wa11' Evaluation - Masonry Wall Test Program - July 19, 1982 D.. M. Cru'tchfield, NRC
- 5. -
h
-Letter to K. P. Baskin, SCEC '
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Request for Additional Information
.- . September 29, 1982 _
~
- 6. D. M. Crutchfield, NRC -
Letter to K. P. Baskin, SCES .
~
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Request for Additional Information January 3, 1983 .
- 7. K. P. Baskin, SCIC Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC '
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Masonry Wall Test Program November 22, 1982
- 8. K. P. Baskin, SCEC Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC q
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Masonry Wall Test Program lj March 3, 1983
- 9. K. P. Baskin, SCEC
,3 Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Pretest Analysis April 8, 1983 T'g
. O i
d M
. - - , ,----,m--- - , - . - - - - -
TER-CS506-405
- 10. M. O. Medford, SCEC Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Hasonry Wall Test Program ' April 12, 1984
. 11. H. G., Harris and A. A. Hamid ,, ~
Q Ed
" Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit l -
Masonry Wall Test Program Results and Correlations" -
- Franklin Research Center June 11, 1984 ,
- 12. Action Items Documented from September 5 and 6, 1984 Meeting .
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Masonry Wall Test Program
- 13. M. O. Medford, SCEC . _ ,
Letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC .
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Masonry Wall Test Program
,0ctober 27, 1984 -
- 14. M. O. Medford, SCEC ,
. .. Letter to,J. A. Zwolinski, NRC ..
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Masonry Wall Test Program ' December 20, 1984 '
- 15. K. P. Baskin, SCEC .
Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC
Subject:
SEP Topic III Seismic Design Considerations, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 December 8, 1981 se ' h 16.~ Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures Detroit, American Concrete Institute, 1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 ,-
- 17. J. Scrivener, " Reinforced Masonry - Seismic Behavior and Design," l
- , Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 4 Vol. 5, No. 5, December 1972 k
- 18. W. L. Dickey and A. Mackintosh, "Results of Variation of Effective Width
- p. in Flexure of Concrete Masonry Wall Panels," Masonry Institute of l U America, 1971 1 I
p 19. K. P. Baskin, SCEC D . Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Fuel Storage Building (Vol. 4)
- ,., April 30, 1982 ul.
D 20. K. P. Baskin, SCEC , Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC
- f.
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Fuel Storage Building (Vol. 5) J. 'l September 30, 1982 i ,. .
_, _. _ = _ - - _ _ _ -- TER-C5506-405 2; 1 u
- 21. K. P. Baskin, SCEC Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC -
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Balance of Plant Structures Seismic ; Evaluation Criteria e February 23, 1981 . 4 O
- P
- Q g.
.s 3
t *
, e
. .- 3 6
$ =
s.
- g
. . '?
Y v A b 6 N 9
., i
'. c E . , . - .
E . . .i l
. .. l 8 -\
- ) .1 I
. . O<
, , , . . , -l e .
, . \
- l, APPENDIX A' *
. . '4
.- :. \ -
. . .- -l ,
E SGEE ' CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATIdN (DEVELOPED BY THE STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAD ENGINEERING BRANCH [SGEB] OF THE NBC) ,, I. . f,... _
.c : .
-. ~
. s .
E
- a s . .
/ .
l - - u. .s . . s.
~
. ~ .. . .
8
,. m > . .
.s , 3,-; ., ,.,
s.. - ..,
< s. , ~~ ; - ._,. .
.~;9. - -:
r' > E ., s.* ,.
-r -
I
- =J' , . e. . -
..-s. : f*,. . a. .- . . . . .
.,g 1 * .
l .
.r. .. . . . .
\ l
.' p s- .
t eL b .
^9
'a FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER a CIVISICN CF ARVIN/ cal.5 PAN 20tn & RACI STREETS. PHILADELPHIA 9419103 n.
i . i I TER-C5506-405 .
. . r.
CONTENTS
..- l I '
- l I
Section / Title Page
. s.
B .. . 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
. A-1 -
e9 i 2 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS. . . . .. .
. . . .. A-1
- a. Service Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . A -
.b. Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe-
I Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental
.. m. ..
Conditions . . .
. J. .. . . . .
. . . A-2
-i 4
- 3 ALLOWABLE STRESSES . . . ..
. . . . . . . . A-2 g r
4 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS'. . .
. . . . . A-3
[: - *
- c* - .
5 REFERENCES . . . .-
.. A-4 i-
- - n.
, a M ." n i.l .'q . .?- y. . ..e . tf.,
- -- n. v .
..s..*
- p. .
. . , a~. . .
.;,. ; ' :: . .- .. . G.e . -v;- . -
..r. . . 4- .z
.. J. ' - 1 .: . .
.,- .g ,. . . . .
g r.- .
. y
.. ..3,,
n g . d . ' y . . .y . ...:- . > .. ,...g- .- o;pe. .. ., I: . . .
~. yg _.49 3
. .ra'.s .)
~~ e ..
~ * -
. - M;
. w,
'*. ,, 'i n
.r
. . .t e s. v ..
. y.
r
, .f M *a .
w . t L. L s . in . m 111 1 m
l TER-C5506-405 .
~ '
- 1. General Requirements .
The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection $ I 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. , . B . . The use of other standards or codes, such as ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is also acceptable. However, when the provisions of these codes are less B conservative than the* corresponding provisions of the criteria, their use ~ should be iustified on a case-by-case basis. ' a l In new construction, no unreinforced masonry' walls will be permitted. For , I operating plants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by the " E 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. ,j,, ,,.
- y
- 2. Loads and Load Combinations -
4..
.f
.. .q, .
l The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normal ,. 1 loads,' severe environmental loads, extreme environmental loads, and . abnormal loads.- Specifically, for operating plants, the load combinations l provided in the plant's FSAR shall govern. For operating license ' applications, the following load combinations shall apply (for definition -y of load terms, see SRp Section 3.8.4II-3). .. .. . l * ' ' t
-dn
?>
~
' ~
(a) Service Load Conditions
. . .e-j . . . . , .
. .. p-y.;.H.&g . v. 9,~ .
.....g "g (1) D + L .1, ' ,74 : ;..-
4 *- p l (2) D + L + E . .:f[, kqj' 3 (3) D + L + W -%
. C.'
If thermal stresses due to T oand R aare present, they should be .,: 8 included in the above combinations as follows: - l . (la) D + L + To+Ro (2a) D + L + To+Ro+E n h (3a) D + L + To+Ro+W . I Check load combination for controlling condition for maximum 'L' and
. for no 'L'.
Y[t ' 6 .1-g_t
L .' . L . ..
~
'g '
. E
. TER-C5506-405 1'
(b) Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnomal/ Severe Environmental, and j g Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions 1 (- (4)'D + L + To + Ro+E .
~
f - (5) D + L + To+Ro+Wt * .
~
(6) D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.5 Pa * (7)'D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.25 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Ym) +,o 1.25 E ./- r (8) D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.0.Pa + 1.0 (Y r + Yj + Ym) + 1.0 E' .: *g' E In combinations (6), (7), and (8) the maximira values of Pa, Ta *
.lRa*Yja Tr, and Y m, including an appropriate dynamic load j factor, should be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to .
. -justify otherwise. Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the .
I'- corresponding structural acceptance criteria should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Y r Y'* ' and Y,in (7) and-(8). Whenconsideringtheseloads,localsackien 4
~-
, strength capacities may be exceeded under thes's concentrated loads, T
.provided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related system. *- -
s y _,;d
. Both cases of L having its full Ealue or being completely absent should be checked. - -
W, f~ A? :. ( _.
~,.
1
' ^
- (.. . { *: ,
- 3. Allowable Stresses .O @
.- . y(
s Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following modifications / exceptions, shall apply. -
, , '*,*'_I ..-
. mg. "
(a) When wind.or seismic loads (CBE) are considered in the loading combinations, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted. l (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.
]
(c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by E test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loading 6 conditions. For reinforced masonry walls, all the tensile stresses will be resisted by reinforcement. 1p (d) For load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal, abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme environmental p conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the ,i factors shown in the following table: -
- A-2 e
, TER-C5506-405 '
- i . .
i Type of Stress Factor I 1 ~ Axial or Flexural Compression 2.5 -
~ '
. ' Bearing - '2.5 -
. - r. - -
Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy .
. ,. , 2.
Shear reinforcement and/or bolts .
. : 1.5 '
t pj' ;. .
, g. - . . ,, .,. . . y J. Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1.5 ,, . ,
~
. , . Shear carried by masonry 1.3
, .- ., . . . .~~ .. . .. -:. -
Masoriry tension perpendicular
~
- n. .,
to bed joint , .
~~ -
i,
,.'* for rei,nforced masonry 0
, _ , '9- .
. for unreinforced masonry 2 1,3 5 .
W. .. Notes . [ -(1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial ' -
.spalling of masonry unit. . .- ,.
2 . y, pp ' r
. .(2) See 3(c). ,,
,.7 , ., . i n :-: . .
- 4. Design and Analysis Considerations :- . '
#- . . . . . . v. -
m .
. ,x.,
E (a) The analysis should follow established principles of engineering - mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices. L., i, 3 . J (b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper .f 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, O 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 leads. _, .( f) Interstory drift effects should be considered. A-3 a
i s. h TER-C5506-405 3 (g) In new construction, grout in concrete masonry walls, whenever used, ? shall be compacted by vibration. . 4 (h) For masonry shear walls, the minim.un reinforcement requirements of
- I ACI-531 shall apply.
(i) Special consItructions (e.g., multiwythe, composite) or other items not covered by the code shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their acceptance. .
, (j) Licensees or applicants shall submit QA/QC information, if ,available, y
for staff's review. -
~
In the event QA/QC information is not available, a field survey and a . h test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented 4 to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings and specifications (e.g., rebar and grouting). , , , (k) For masonry walls requiring protection'from spalling and scabbing due to accident pipe reaction (Yr), jet impingement (Y$ ), and missile impact (Ym ), the requirements similar to those of SRP 3.5,.3 shall e apply. However, actual review will be conducted on a case-by-case'
. basis. ; , ,
;, ' .y_ -
- 5. References -
x.:. *
~
a , , .
.- . .s '. . .
(a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.
- w. . . t'.
(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 S Buildings - AppIled Technology Council ATC 3-06. *
. a (d) Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing N Concrete Masonry - NCMA August, 1979. ,
(e) Trojan Nuclear" plant Concrete Masonry Design Criteria Safety , Evaluation Report Supplement - November, 1980. 3 cc A-4 ,
,. -s -
..-; ,-' . ~.
E.. Ii . . I
.. .t . '
E *
. .=
. #. . .;. l I
APPENDIX B . 1- . E-
.1
" TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING q STATION (SONGS) UNIT 1, NASONRY WALLS"
. [.
. t. . . . %.
Prepared by Drs. H. Barris and A,. A. Hamid ,. of Drexel University .' ~'
.s'.
+.'. .< l..l E..-
. . .t !
, , . ,a
. 5, . .'. . c
}
- } .
.W. -
..l
,. . L .-
- 8. .*.* . *
- z. ;~ - .
s
-:7;,
.o,.'
=
_ ,;..z._ .y
.. 3,.
s
.sr. .. .
s .-
.' ?'$ *, .
- l':. **
- B .,f'
'::W r
' I( '
r*
.7'.
- h.'
-M.?
,,E' N i.n
*-tb' , .,
- ,- :.w ~ f. .
?, . - c ..
- .'. f.- ..,
- Of. l. , *-
I
. %. i -
',7#: Q. t9 .. . .
... .y
.'ys' . %
'r. . Y.,
** .. [. . f .* . ;'s.
y,.'.
'? t '.
~
. .']; :~ *- .' *g;.
.t:
.. ] '+ 2 ',
- 3 ;.. ; e.
...-[
.e 4 .-D.. .. ,., _
g ,
, - y , , g.[ ; . .m .
. .. . . . .h a .. .g. T .d..h - 4.-;as-
. +.6 .t
,.N.,s ) . $.
8 . q:
,u j ;
1-o
;f.. . . .
.?: . -
~
4.,
- - - - 3.:.
r.
. -v. .
- t.,
..y s
.p
- ,:i, * *
,'.);
8
- .L. .,
mn *
.l ts ,
9 . p' i.J FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISICN OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20tti & RACE STREETS. PHILADELPHIA.74 89103 07 1 ?t j . t , c>r . . , . . - . , - , . . _ . - - - , _ , -- , , , _ - . , - .,
l
~
l . l
. TECHNICAL. EVALUATION OF THE SAN ON0FRE I .-
l '
~
i - NuCLEAn GENrnATINs STATION (SONGS), UNIT 1
. MASONRY WALLS .
B .
- i
. '(
' 'i . -
~- -
. .e ..'
. .- j PREPARED FOR l c .y .
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER , . l .~~~- .~ PHILADCLPHIA, PENNSRVANIA . .
. a .. ,
l ', - -
. 1.f. . .. . .
.- .g .. : .,
. [ *, .r .
t
.v. o .
c - u.
. .i .:
4 s. - x .- ,. . . '
'7.
.: J..
PREPARED BY ~ aq .<: .. . r. ... DR. HARRY G. HARRIS r- . AND t,
.. gw A%o -
( ,' '
~
F .- . DEPARmENT OF civil. ENGINEERING u g .
. . . c. .
CAEHL UNIVERSITY y
+.-. PHILADELPHIA, PENNSRVANIA 19104 a
- e JuME 1,1985 e
.I 'a*
B-1
}
Technical Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit i Masonry Walls" .. [ l
- 1. Summary -
~
2. Background
- 3. Site Visitation k
4 Technical Evaluation of Full Scale Tests Under Earthquake Loading . , u 41 Test Specimens as They Relate to Actual Plant Walls . L. g3 42 Testing Procedure -
. 43 Evaluation of Test Results ,
- 5. Technical Evaluation of Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis
?
5.1 Modeling M 5.2 Analytical Results . G
, 3
.' 'T - '
r 5.3 Correlation With Test Results .
- v. . ., .
- .: . . - 9=
. 6. Conclusions -
.w . r.', .
; ;- 'E
?..
- 7. References
~
W ~ W:~' :~ "" * '" '
. . 4 a . .g t
e g
. a B-2 -
_-....._._______.m.- . -- , _ . - ._
. . . s E.
Technical Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), f
. Unit 1 Plasonry Walls'
. 1. Summary . . .
.[ ,
['.,-
. +. < ..
E ' > A technical evaluation of the 50NG5-1 masonry program reveals that . I . the development of a considerable new methodology in the non-linear t.
~...
dynamic analysis of masonry , structures undergoing out of plane ,;. . 8
. . c. . .. . .
deformations has been carried out by the licensee. In addition, the first full .
, ; .. .n I
scale testing program on actual reinforced block Walls under realistic _
. w: a . . .. c . .. ,: . .. .
' earthquake loads was undertaken. These very significant advances have . ,j ., '
E,. ' been evaluated in light of their impact on the qualification of the masonry walls for the plant in i$e$ tion a[ well as their impact on future ,
, applications. It is concluded that the verification of the 50NG5-1 masonry .;
I .' walls can be based on the successful experimental and analytical program.
/, Additional correlation studles must be carrled out, however, to fully-
'.)
. ..e. .n .
8 substantiate the applicability.. of the analytical model as a general g ., ., conservative analysis tool. ,,].,ig . k. ..
..,.,.'...', ..)
W ., .: .. . y,
. .: ' ,; q :;;;. s . .*~
g .
, . , i. (,1 .
'I ,
- 2. Background . .l I . . , . ..
l .. .
- In response to IE Bulletin 80-1I and the requirements of the -
h Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) Topic 111 - 6, Seismic Design , Considerations, Southern California Edison Co. embarked on a program of masonry wall qualification for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, q Unit 1. The approach taken was a multifaceted one involving retrofit U modification to walls as well as a non-linear dynamic analysis
") .
Li .
-' n-3
f substantiated by full scale testing under realistic earthquake loading. The analytical evaluation (Refs.1-5) was conducted by Computech Engineering l Services, Inc., Berkeley, CA for the Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, the designer and constructor of ,50NGS-1. The full scale verification testing is d,0cumented in Refs. 6-10. All of the above work (Ref.1-10) is . proprietar'/ to Southerh California Edison Company. However, the details to the analytical model used by Computech has been published in the open. l literature, Ref. I I. In reviewing .the above work, certain' concerns (Ref.12) were expressed by,the writers who are cdnsultants to the Franklin Research Cedter staff. A meeting to answer these concerns was held at the' Offices . of Computech E5gineering Services, Inc., Berkeley, CA on September 5,1984. -
,l A site visitation took place on September 6,1984 to inspect the masonry e-Walls. , ,' /
' o n
- r. "
- 3. Site visttat1on ~.' ? ~
E
'J
~
The site visitation of September 6,1984 resulted in a first hand g assessment of the SONGS-1 masonry wall program. Certain concerns were . expressed however, by the NRC staff, FRC staff and thelr consultants af ter l the site inspection. These concerns were to be resolved on subsequent information submittals (13) by Southern California Edison Company. r E g 4 Technfral Evaluation of Full Scale Tests Under Earthouake t.oadino D 41 Test Soecimens as Thev Relate to Actual Plant Walls b D The wall test specimens were designed and constructed so as to G match as closely as possible the walls in the Fuel Storage and other - d B-4
e l p, . buildings at San Onofre, Unit 1. , Each specimen was single wythe, ..
'. constructed of 8' nominal thickness hollow concre'te block with Grade B . .
, , 40 rebars. The vertical reinforcement is "7 bars at 32 spacing and the
? j horizontal reinforcement is *5 bars at 48 spacing.
The overall q
~
r
.. . dimensions were 24'-0 high and 8'-O' wide. These are the same
.[.
I , ;. reinforcement ratios and height as the Fuel Storage Building walls. The t
.,yFuell- 5torage Building ' walls. are continuous horizontally over [
. e i
, approximately 40'-0* between expansion joints and thus the test
. specimens are narrower than the actual walls. Vertical control joints !
- ... . .. ~ . . , . . . . . . :. . , ,
are spaced every 4 in the actual .. walls. The horizontal reinforcement , B~. 1
' across these jolnts was founito De c'ont!nuous at the various locations ,
where sampling was conducted (Ref.13). l
*i .f :
R W ,
. .'i
', 'Ti . '.' -
.- ?.
42 Testing procedure -.
, . , . y. . .j .g ' < .:. ; ~-'
l
. i. ;.. . -
, The wall tests were conducted .on a specially constructed 1 .
.:, " shaking table
- consisting of a 1* thick steel plate resting on a roller
, , .y
(
' ..t
' bearing system designed to provide mint. mum resistance to horizontal .,p i motion and to prevent uplif t of the wall base (6).' Each wall specimen $
e . - was subjected to a variety of damping determination tests and to the ~j
.a. . ;,
h full Intensity earthquake using similar input as in the analytical model. - L g The input time histories were obtained from the non-linear analysis of F , the Fuel Storage Building. A 10% increase of the test command signal ( was used in order to insure that the target spectra would be matched .
, during the test.
0 a > . k 4 3-5
.l ,
g
, . 43 Evaluation of Test Results -
E G
- og* ,,
, ?e t s
G g . e e O INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE 15 PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0 e g . . D O e
, e **
- em
- 9 I . '
B-6 - E m
a 6
. o- t *
- e e
- e D
- y e #
e , e e e e e g e 0 9
. * *e JJ- . e ,
e o O e INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY _ . I g d et , e O 3 e me-4 e. OO 4 **
- O e e 4
o B-7
..l Table 2. Summary of Analyt/calResults
, Center Displacement Gnches) B Maximum 9.03 s
Minimum. -9.93
; .- Masonry' Stress (psD '
765
. ; Steel Strain Ratlos . .
Center ' 18.7
. : '. End
.e .20.7
. .~ ,
- Plastic Hinge Length
; ?. -
u;..,. - ,. Center '~ f
". 18*
. '. .:.. 3
.:.. . - End '
- 9* -
r- a - . _ .-. .. ... _
. . h
,--------..--.--...._6,. .
e h
- INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON e
I 5-6
+7 3;
k sY,
- _ _ t
4 - g __ Y e e O O O h 9 4 9 9 9 9 INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN cal.ITORNIA EDISON COMPANY 4 . 8 I e O 4 h l
- e G
e..
- O
' B-9
g.
-9 O
. g INFORETION ON THIS PAGE IS PROPRIETARY TO SOUTHERN. CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
. .e .
*ng.
'n- .
e G . O e SO 8 _. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . - - * * =**- . .. * .. . _5
. 1 U
3-10 -
INFORMATION ON THIs PAGE Is PROPRIETARY T0 s0UTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIs0N COMPANY s _
'~
'= A- . .
tM g .- .
- 6. Conclusions
.It is concluded that the seismic safety of the SONGS-1 masonry walls has been adequately demonstrated by the verification testing program. A a}
small margin in the wall test loads was insured by increasing the test M command signal to the jacks by 10%. Although the analytical predictions ~i B-11 p
were very close for deflections, other parameters such as the length of the yleid hinge showed wide variations. H
. It is concluded that direct correlation between the test data and the analytical model can not be made because a reanalysis using the proper B material properties,' detailing and input motions was 'not carried out.
g Assessment of the conservatism of the analytical model can not be made at
. .. ' the'present time. Therefore, for a general' application of this method , h
. reanalysis of the test walls reflecting actual material properties, length of
~
~
yielding rebars, eccentricity of the reba'rs and input motion should be performed. - g
~.
9
- 7. References
- Q
- l. Computech Engineering Services, Inc., " Seismic Evaluation of g or
. Reinfor.ted Concrete Masonry Walls," Volume 1: Criteria, San Onof re -
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Report No. R543.02, January, 1982. d,
. . . . . c
- 2. Computech Engineering Services, Inc., " Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Volume 2: Analysis Methodology, h San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Report No. R543.02, l January,1982. -
g Y.i l 3. Computech Engineering Services, Inc., " Seismic Evaluation of l Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Volume 3: Masonry Wall .K Evaluation, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Report No. - f.!.: RS43.02, January,1982. Q. ,
'4. Computech Engineering Services, Inc., " Seismic Evaluation of l Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Volume 4- Fuel Storage Building, .,
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Report No. R543.02, ?, April,1982.
]
. L M
B-12 _ . - _ - . . - - - - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . - . . - _ . _ - .-.- _ l
~
[ , ; . 'I
. 5.' Computech Engineering Services, Inc., "Selsmic Evaluation of ..
~'
Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Volume 5: Fuel Storage Building- . Soll Backfill Condition Evaluation, San Onofre Nuclear Generating - Station, Unit 1, Report No. R543.02, September,1982. ; 1.{
- 6. Computech Engineering Services, Inc.," Seismic Evaluation of [,
Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Masonry Wall Test Program: [' .g 7.
~-
' Results From Testing Walls 1 A,18, and iC, San Onofre Nuclear f
N ,y , Generating Station, Unit I, Report,No. R557.09, December,1983.. .
. 7. Computech Engineering Services, Inc.," Seismic Evaluation of I. .; Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Masonry Wall Test Program:
y Test Results Summary - Wall No. 2A, San Onofre Nuclear Generating l
. +f;. . Station, Unit 1, Report No. R557.07, February,1984
... M
. y- .
.y
, 8. Computech Engineering Services, Inc., " Seismic Evaluation of %q f l
' . Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Masonry Wall Test Program: 'j.s
, - Test Results Summary - Wall Nd. 3A, San Onofre Nuclear Generating , ~t?
I' ~ Station, Unit 1, Report No. R557.08, February,1984
,9. Computech Engineering Services, Inc., Seismic Evaluation of- O N
Reinforced Conc'r ete Masonry Walls," Masonry Wall Test Program: j,. i $'J I, .. . . Test Results Summary - Wall No. 38, San Onofre Nuclear Generating "4
- a. . .
., Station, Unit 1, Report No. R557.11, February,1984 .
A
'.1 ' .$.. $
- 1 ... ;.; .. :
- ~ -
- " !!O. Comput'ech Engineering Services, Inc., ~5elsmic Evaluation of
, =.- Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Masonry Wall Test Program: 1 M
- j. .
Correlation With Analysis Results, San Onofre Nuclear Generating "'T ,in Station, Unit I, Report No. R557.10, February,1984
- 3'6 y 11. Kelly, T.E., Button, M.R. and Mayes, R.L,
- Seismic Evaluation of a{q Reinforced Masonry Walls, structural Engineering in Nuclear
. Facilities. Vol.1. Edited by J.J. Ucciferro, American Society of Civil ;i Engineers, New York, N.Y., pp 332-348,1984 .,
1.J 12. Harris, H.G. and Hamid, A.A.," Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear - Generating Station, Unit 1 Masonry Wall Test Program Results and : Correlations", Franklin Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, June 11, -]. 198 4 ,-
- 13. Letter dated October 27,1984 to J.A. Zwolinski, NRC from M.O. B Medford, Southern California Edison, " Docket No. 50-206, Masonry Wall Test Prry mii, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, g
^
Attachment:
Inspection of the As-Built Condition of the Masonry ' Walls", Octooer,1984. g ". . I g ** , e . .
. . 8 '
g 3 e,e * # g
. .: ..s
- .>:. y
, ,? ..*k.** .
' a . .
s #
. . . ~ ;#.I f. , +' , , , .
-.O....
. In C
u ..g'.. }- * . , .
^'
.:, , . . , . .. . '
- t'.*
s. 4 "1
' 1, o }t
. e*s
";.f .
- , 'd. '
- e
, s;. . ., .
t
.' ' .. u.
4 I "
- ../ g.
.r . . .
' \..-
9 8.
, . 't
. ..s.'.I f .,- .ri. '*.* .
'f42* ,.
*y .;W. . ..
e - -
.t*' .
. a lA.
.~
', * ';: - cp . ';d? %
f, g
- l
.. g se
;.d.}% * [s '.)., ,# v.
i
-j , 's . .
.?g
,, 7.
~ ,' . ?- .. . ,.l ' '. N.> .a ,
-gc ,
g
- v. - . . -
*sj
.M.,
. , . . rm s., - - j
*s. ,,* '
. y.,
.i
),
1 o
. 1
~g b
B-14 , a.
- 8. .
8 B
..l
. .. - i B . .
b *
.3; ,.
.4 e
" Qf 5 APPENDIX C !e 4
j
}l e/. 1 P
= - -
~ ,
EVALUATION *CF THE LICENSEE'S RESPONSES REGARDING THE NONLINE:Ut- .' ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY . t 6
. ..2 . -
B . .
~
. g.:
L
.s
.. . + .. ..
. . ,. g
. ., ?. . '. i. . - M, y a i . . .
.o
- s. .
- s. .
.. . . e i.
/
.m. .
,. . .r '
.E.
.* ' , i .-
*s
. .u v * - . h- -
, :{a
- y. ?'.s. .
. ., ,~.,
8 e
.'~.
b.
. /*.
.*;, .I s , ,.
4, 6 . *5 ;.
. . t !. . -'- ', * , . *
*. ;. ,7 .W. -,,,-
- a. %..
_*; . . . 4, .u.:.' .,.'
; ;- '*w s, 1
- 5* .
.(.
,/....
,s.,
,. s A.
, _- s. .
3,. .
.~ ...- .. . ,. ,9 f. ,
.: ;' g .Z ',* :. -.
f, m , . . , . e.. . . . . .
..s. .. . . ,. :
e , , ,g ..g . ,
- -4 4 W ,. . c . ,, -
g;., . ,{. , ;. . , , i 8 8
. . g *.
t?. .- .,". .:
. .,_ g
.,.., . .s.. .
, y, 2.: . e.
y . : a
.y ,
e, . . g
. r.. a
. x. . .. ..
I g ,
.( . -
m l' [1 l nq i a FRANKUN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISICN OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20trt & RACE STREETS.PHILACELPhlA.P4191C3
1 TER-C5506-405 . B This appendix contains the evaluation of the Licensee's ' responses [1]* regarding the nonlinear analysis methodology. .-
~
Question 1 , 1 During the entire analysis, the masonry face shell is assumed to remain elastic. There is a likelihood that the compressive stress at the face , shall may exceed the f'm value and spalling of the face may occur. There j is no grout core to stablize this situation. This aspect needs thorough - investigation in terms of the strength of the masonry, strain / stress magnitudes at face shall, and actual masonry block b'e havior during *
,' shaking. .i 3; ,
l'- ' (.- 4; '9, .. . , , . i. -
. .g n ,! . -
g Response 1 4 tG . . . .
- The Licenses stated that the form of.*the stress-strain curve for plain concrete shown in Figurd C.la from Hognestad (2) was slightly modified as ,
~ shown in Ficjure 'C.lb for the evaluation." The Licensee. also referred'to a reconsnended extreme ' fiber strain of O'.004 involving tInconfine'd concerate by ,*1, ' *
?-
. e i .-' . ;
B , Blume, Newark, and Corning (3]. ,
. ,.g - ?. .
9 ,
~
. Since there are no available test data on the shape of ti.., '
falling branch
~
i of the stress-strain curve for masonh /' face shall, the Licens'ee used the ~ N
. ~~
l stress-strain curve of plain concrete for the concrete masonry blocks with a
. . ~.e o . .t
.O t limiting strain of 0.004 for this evaluation. %.,...' ) m Thestress-strainrepresentatkongiveninFigureClbincludesthe . l following information: Q o The maximum stress specified for concrete in Figure C.la is replaced W with the specified minimum compressive strength f'm. . . s. . .. '., , e o The parabolic shape to maximum stress levels is replaced by a . straight line with an average slope of 2 f'm/Dn' where L'm is the , elastic modulus and is assumed to be 1000 f'm. - 7 At maximum stress, the strain is 0.002. i, o , o The slope of the falling branch of the curve is 0.15 f'm/(0.0024 - p: 0.0038) = 83.33 f'm. b . 7
- Numbers in brackets indicated references, which are cited on page C-13.
j C-1
~
,,7 .. .
TER-C5506-405
. -s g .. -- .
'z .
.t atsg -
~ '
/.*Cf,-(h,[ -
g -
-~.
. l :
~
.- l .', l .t l- t, .
.. n. == . ... .
e i 9 9 &
.' s . .,
. ne = sGir. noaan
., semin.e,
. .' 4 OS. Figure C.l.a,.. Idealized Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete -
.. g .
y.> yI.
. . s
, t ., _. '( . . . .
> o . .
a
- l -
+; ,
~
sj.. .
- e. f. .;.p c.
- '* '" v u . ,.: ,.- .!. .- . .; .
7 a . . 4 L - '
- s. .. . ;
?g;-
e- . gm .--...--- .
- - . . . . . . . , c. . A.
- g .
. s
,0.15t*m .;
E unear V.f,1 Unear 8 i-
- e. . I e e i .
s .. .. . e - g e i , e : - em
- I . te e s e s
' ' ? t m per Eo = 2r mesm o.cosa
.{
strain Em F L F Figure C.lb. Idealized Stress-Strain curve for Masonry h *
*L C-2
,. . . . - . - .--._----.--------..----,,,,--,----,------r ,-
TER-C5506-405 , Although no test data was available, based on the information provided by the Licensee, it is judged that the proposed limiting strain of 0.004 is , _l reasonably adequate. ,
~
x.. . . . Question 2 -
.I In the nonlinear analysis the concept,of modal and Rayleigh damping, '
which is applicable in the linear analysis, is used. The treatment of - E* damping needs additional justification / verification. In addition, the seven percent value used,also needs additional verification., Considering ,~
, the uncertainty in the treatment and the value of damping, at least a '
.i parametric study will be required to address the concerns in this area.
. : .; * . . r.-
Response 2 - '% j For all masonry walls being evalu' ted, a the damping ratio for masonry ~ was - 7% of critical. This value was specified in the San Onofre plant's criteria
- i- for cracked masonry (4]. This.value is a' Iso in conformance with the SGEB s .
t . criteria. ,. . : .
.. .. : ,t In elastic systems, the energy loss occurs through viscous damping which
'is proportional to velocity. However, in nonlinear systems, additional energy I dissipationoccursthroughhystersticmaterialre$ponse. ~
. ;. u
~
The damping is expressed in terms of mass matrix and stiffness matrix. I When the responses are in the elastic range, the frequencies of the normal modes or modal damping remain constant. When nonlinear behavior occurs, u.3
-.".\
x damping leve'Is will vary as degradation causes the frequency of the response to vary. To account for this degradation, an effective damping not to exceed , , the specified damping of 7% was selected. The Licensee indicated that in the San Onofre plant wall evaluation additional conservatism was introduced by specifying stiffness damping for the plane stress elements only. The gap elements representing the face shell and the truss elements representing the q rebars had hysterstic damping effects only (no stiffness damping). This is.a d conservative estimate as the deformations are concentrated in the mortar
- joints where a significant portion of the stiffness damping was neglected.
L Because the method of incorporating damping effects in the,model used by a the Licenw e is a standard technique and the damping levels are in ecmpliance with the SGES criteria, it is concluded the Licensee's response is adequate
- and acceptable.
C-3
c
. 2 7
TER-C5506-40'5
. ~
Question 3 .
,.}
The selection of the length of rebar assumed to yield in the analysis is arbitrary. At present there is no data to provide the basis for such .'J ' selection. Also, it needs to be verified that the parameter, Ljt, d related to cracked joint widths is problem independent. ,e!.] Rosconse '3 -
. 6
]
. . i :.
. During the study relating to the model formulation, it was shown that the
- effective stiffness of the wall in the non-yielding portion could be modelled d
- . ,. 1 using an effective moment of inertia. A parametric study was carried out, and J
. the results indicated that the variation in Ljt (cracked joint width)' caused ..a.
less than 5% variation in response (4].
' di..] ;
l . The Licensee indicated that a parametric study was also performed by 6 v.
.; varying the length of the plastic hinge (Lb) before the final" selection.
- C
.- , , . ". x
* ~ ~ '
Figure C.2 illustrates the model including parameters Lb and Ljt, and ,d
- s. . .; .
Table C.1 shows the results of the parametric studies. ~
- y. v .. ., '. ' 9.;., g '
The Licensee's response'is judged to be adequate. Fur'ther discussions on '
.. s the length of the plastic. hinge are given in Section 9 of this r.eport. .* I.' ,
. ar . , g..
Question 4 . . . r., m
.- .y W
p, . < . . ,y . The permissible ductility is only mentio'ned with respect to quantifi- . cation of maximda permissible strain in reinforcing steel. However, *T 3 . quantifications of the ductility is terms of force / deflection, . . moment / curvature (analogous to that given in Appendix C of ACI-349) need ,' a to be further examined and their significance discussed.
, [I.
l . h t Resoonse 4 . The Licensee presented the results relating to ductility ratios of the { { time history analyses and compared them with permissible ductility ratios specified in the ACI 349-80 code. i The ACI 349-80 allowables are given below: 7 o Displacement ductility F
. c
- 0.05 ,.
Md (f - f') 10 ..
~
C-4 .
(; . _ ' Q Q Q Q sek & kn. & & & & & & @ , . , _
= -
l _.. . 1 g . . CFeched Vielded _ Oreelled _ Egeluelsel Elsede I Egedustent M , m
- = = - -
1 1 . . i
- , gg lg .
[A 'J 'a , ' . * ($ ' ' ,-. g . 1 -o - < : : , - 1 *
'r e
. ct.'* . ? : - M, '
, . _ *a..
{ - - . . , g' a
/ l V/ / gll/ / ./
l Y '/~ l.
/l 'l
/ / / . r N
, n, ., t . . . . un . j W Elesment
~ -
Else40s Pieme Strees Eleanent M '. l ~ VeeMies sieher i
- . *~~, ".
,.Q*Gj. ., .. ,. ,. _
y_.,;.,.., , 1 - 4
- - . g .
i
. 1.c:<. ;.~ . . . . , .+ .. ,, ,
.d,
! Figure C.2. Incorporation of Ljt and Lb in Wall Model us i . *. ~1*;. , _ . gy iz ' ,. o, l
. . .. i
- a
.j O f un
\ , t l ;g ..
2 . . [ . a r g .
, . . E ,4 **. E .
-,,;, eEle_ [' '
, o a. -{
TER-C5506-405 0 g Table C-1. Effects of Variables in Ljt and Lb PARAMETER VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT Ons) STEEL. STRAIN . VARED VARABLE MA)0 MUM MINIMUM MATIO Joint Width 0.5" 9.58 -9.70 ' 20.5 ' Qt 1.0* 9.39 -9.87 20.2 2.0* (1) , 9.28 -9.38 19.7 - ; 3.0* 8.88 -0.14 18.7 Recar Length ' 2* 7.85 -7.83 124.0 . Lb 10* 9.18 ,,
-9.18' 34.2.
. 22' (A) 9.37
-10.04 . .
19.1-30' 9.71 . -9. 8 5 13.8 lg7
-f .. .-
s , g- ., .
.p 4 . ', t ',' ' *
, i
. a. . . . .
a . p .. . ,, .l . E
~- -- :. lf.. .. .:,. .. . ,;.,, . h, . .
.y . .
. . o Notes: I' '.
- 1. Ljt = 2.0 inches was used for the evaluation of the San onofre Unit 1 -
walls (benchmark). . U
- 2. Lb = 18 inches was used in the evaluation. Q b
C-6 m.
o . E E TER-C5506-405 7 . . D o Curvature ductility . Cu . t.
] . M m Cy '
where . O.",, . i .
. Cu = 0.003 + 0.5/s j
. ' .s }
(Notet s is the span distance in inches from the point of maximum H moment to zero moment) B . .. . c , . Cy a M - . . . EI I' . o; ..
. b< .
7.,
. M = moment at yield . . .
- E a modulus of elasticity * '
p
. I = moment of inertia' 4 ,
The displacement ductility ratio for the analysis was.obtained by . 5 dividing'the maximum deflection'by the deflection at the time of first yield
- at the center of the wall.'
1 .
.O.
"^
i.-
.J.i
.. 'e- -
B The curvature' ductil'ity ratio was obtained by dividing the maximum . . curvature by the yield curvatur,e.
?'
. .. ,, ,..,s -
, w . . . .: < . . . s,. .. . .. .,gi-ty Table C.2 compares the allowables with those obtained from the analysis. ,d; It can be seen from this table'that for all walls the displacement ductility i." ' ,
6' is less than 50% of the allowables. 4 t
'I
' I'(
y .:. The curvature ductility for El Centro records was less than the W allowables except for walls TB-9 and TB-10. The Licensee stated, however, ,. that the steel-strain ratio in all walls was less than the limit of 45 , a specified in the Licensee's criteria. , - Table C.3 provides values for the displacement, curvature, and steel-strain. Only the maximum values from the three earthquake records are given *
\ - in this table, i l
3 The Licensee's response is judged to be reasonably adequate and - satisfactory. L I, ,. . C-7
n - --__
. r i
TER-C5506-405 f Table C.2. NximumDuctilityItatios s SUILDese WALL PEN 88SS88LE MAXIMUM PFIOM AMA&YSES
. LA g / EL CDf7MO TAFT OLYumA Pe & Jg,g h pg f, )g h .
fumspeE 78-la le 13.s S.7* IS.s 1J S.4 3.7 7.8 TF18 10 . 17.9 3.8 8.8 S.1 8.3 SJ 3.4 TFS 10 . 17.s 1.s As S.e 4.3 S.4 s.7 . 79-8 10 17.0 1.9 4.8 S.0 SJ S.4 9.7 75-4 10 17J 1.8 AS 8.0 S.S ,14 9.7
, TPS 10 13.9 S.7 ISA IJ 3.4 8.7 7.8 79-4 10 13.9 3.7 18.8 IJ 14 3.7 7.8 TD=7e 10 14.9 3.7 14.8 TJ' 'S.4 S.7 7.8 Tb78 le 17.8 1J AS 3.0 SJ S.4 9.7 75-0 10 17.9 S.0' S.8 S.1 SJ SJ 8.4 75-0
- 10 ISA . A8 17.4 1.7 SJ 3.8 8.9 *
, ,I ,,
. TF10 10 13.8 , 4.8 17.4 1.7 8.3 S.4 8.9
. TF11 10 18.8 ,S 7 18.8 1J 3.4 ,
3.7 7.8 ,
. TD-13 10 13.2 3.8 10.4 1.1 1.3 S.4 8.3 EF, 8.4 VENTLATION VS=1 10 1.8 E E' 1.1 S.4 V9-3 le 8.7 1A S.8 E E 1.1 14 V9-8 le 47 IJ 8.4 .E E 1.1 14 -
- m. V9-4 10 4.7 1.8 8.8 5 E 1.1 S.4
, MEACTOR 86 1 10 ISJ . 1.9 48 IJ 8.1 1.8 4.3 Aux &lARY 33-3 10 ISJ IJ AS IJ 3.1 1.8 4J SFS 10 29.8 E E E E E E So-4 10 ISJ IJ As 1J S.1 1.8 4.3 S8 S.-0 it it i.
18 E E E E E E E E E E a< . S37 10 18.3 1.9 4.3 IJ 3.1 1.0 4.3 + ao?.s: .
- i. o.. e.me.i w ar a A S. eme.,e .eee ., ie A 1 S. Tuttane We'lls TF1 ene TbF are of vertette neignt. Sectons morted
'a' are 81*-4* negn one mese morned 'n' are 14*-t'. p O
4 'E' indicates eiestle roepense as oneuw in Velvme S. f
=
e c-4 ..
I E. . TER-C5506-405
. Table C.3. Maximum Ductility Ratios
.' v .
,1
. , ,. s 7, I
ML OfSPLACMSN7 CufwAT1JMS STSSL TWASING TS=la S.7 18.8 24.4
... ' 79-18
. A.S ,
S.4 18.1 ..* 75-8 8.4 S.7 13.8 . I' . f-
. 73-8 75-4 S.4 S.4 9.7.
S.7 18.C 18.8 . TPS .
. S.7 18.4 24.8
,. T h e ., S,7 14.8 24.8 ;
'. .cf . . TD .7a 3.7 .
13.8 34.4 .,
. 6 . 79-73 .
.S.4 S.7 13.4 *. .
. .'t'. ..T9-4 . 9': 8,8 .
S.4 13.1 . ,
.. 79-0 7' 4.4 17.4 88.5
.. . 79-10 44 .
17.4 24.8
. , TF11 .- S.7 -
18.8 24.4 TD-18 3.3 14.4 18.8 .l VSNTLATION VS-1 ',. 18 . S.8 . S.84 , ;
,1J 8.4 8.88 I .
.g'J 'h',.(.,VB-S
. . ' VD-8 '?
j
- 1.8
. S.8
- 3.48 1
... '. d ,,, ,, gg ggg jl
, : ~ . \'~
SF1 48 S.78 MEACTOR -
. .s., *
.IJ -
- .. y AumLML49 SS-8 4.8 3.78
. 'f.1J . .. .
89-8 S 8
...YMs 4., . ;., . ,.' ,5 ,
4.8 3.78 She . .' ' 1.9 . s. .
. e. ..
83-4 i. E 8 M*,
;' .E - ,
. 88-4 E E .
7 . 3D-7 1.8 - 4.3 S.78 ~'% . i .. .. . ,
. ~'1 I
NO73R .. ,
.~. . . . . .r i 1.
,[ . ,
g
. -Sie86esoment 8e ., 9, . seeimy le [ g= - '
, - See , ,e j, .*- l Tursene Weste TF1 and TFP are et verteele heignt Seclens morte8 hLas 4.
'e' are 31'-4' Mgn end these morted 't* ere 14*-8*, .
S. 'S' Indiestes edesse response se shown in Volume S. , i
. I m >
l t 1 M C-9
- . y J
J
~
V - . TER-C5506-405 1 Question 5 It is doubtful that the air bag used in test to load walls provides a uniform pressure on the surface of the wall as intended (Notes: Tests
]
performed by the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SD OSC). It is unclear that the wal1 he analyzed as a cantileve'r beam, *
. a compressed beam, or as a slab with different edge conditions. .
'].
.~. . ..
* ~' ~ " '
Resnonse 5 'l
~
' i
.. . ~
The Licensee indicated that the details of the Structural Engineers
. Association of Southern California (Sn OSC) tests (5) were provin' M to show that a well-anchored, reinforce masonry wall can maintain its structural ~,
. integrity even when the, wall deflections exceeded the wall thickness. The, 'J
, , results of these tests were not included as part of the model verification. -
= .
'The Licensee's response has resolved the concern' .
-' ~ '
, ; _; y
@ ggt {gp* $ ,
,. . e l
Details of computer codes are not'known. . Degree and order of accuracy,
- error propogation, numerical stability, integration schemes and all
- _ pertinent verification data for numerical analysis should be provided for h
.~ assessment of the computer codes. Are there any numerical damping induced to the solution. How does it compare with the system damping.
.. .. ... .g ,., .; .
f.
~
Response 6
. ,.]
The Licensee provided information for the following' subjects: - o Computer Codes - All analyses were performed using two computer codes: DRAIN-2D and ANSR-II. Bcth programs have been developed at the University of California, Berkeley and have been in public domain for a number of years. '$ o 4.;., m v of Solution For nonlinear probleme, equilibrium errors may occur at the beginning 1-of any time step. These errors exist because of material nonlinearity and they may be reduced by decreasing the time step of integration by iteration scheme or by use of the so-called @ event-to-event solution strategy. , 2 e
- C C-10 [
9
r
.\
E . U ' TER-C5506-405
- T'
- .f; 8 DRAIN-2D uses a combination of equilibrium correction and ,..
event-to-event strategies. ANSR-II was iteration and equilibrium correction. - ' E' o Numerical Instability -
. _1
..' t;. W I
The stabi'lity of a linear system is a numerical problem associated ,. 'd'
.with different integration schemes. For nonlinear systems, the source of instability is more complex and could result in an amplitude increase and hence an accumulation of energy errors may
. *e.-
I* occur. Each program has a number of integratio,n schemes to be used, which minimized the instability problem. ~ ' l o, Numerical Damoina 3 .....
.,.9 .. .
jg y The finite element method introduces high frequency responses which '
?-
6 : . ~are physically meaningless and should not be included in the final '
~
i solutions. This is particularly only the low mode response is of,true with theBcth interest. masonryDRAIN-2D walland whero ANSR-II - incorporated Newmark's numerical damping method to minimize the I .. ~ . . [ effects of the high frequency responses in the solution.' .9 F . . _- . . - :- h,')l Based on the above information, it is seen that both DRAIN-2D and ANSR-II i have included a number of features'to minimize numerical errors and these ", $. ,
.- sg.
- =. programs have been in the public domain.for a number,of years. It can be
. .. - 4 C B ~. concluded that concerns associated
with these programs have been resolved. ^
- .S
'. , f, .,~
. y - -
}_ .'$
$ Question 7
~
' I I b,* ' *' * - N * ' ' '
*Ii)'M M , *i . j. - -
f k Assessment of the impact of transverse load on in-plane carrying ,C 5, l@ capacities, and vice versa, is needed. .
,'t G -
. ;,: w . . h:
,. 5-
~
~~
re Response 7 - y .,.
, The Licensee stated that the possible combinations of in-plane and out-of-plane loadings were discussed in the Licensee's criteria (.see Section 4
]d of the report for further information). Because the major impact of the g out-of-plane loads is on the horizontal plane, it was concluded that the only
;' additional effect for the load combination was the compression in the face -
g shell caused by the in-plane loading. Di
*J Ihe compressive stresses and strains due to in-plane loadings were evaluated for the following cases.
n-m .
! C-11
.l TER-C5506-405 $
. .\
o Walls providing lateral resistance to the building j o Walls with connections such that the in-plane loads are caused by the
' weight of the walls.
.. 1 The Licensee. indicated that two worst case walls were calculated and the -
combination effects of in-plane and out-of-plane loads resulted in compressive stresses and strains' lower than the Licensee's allowables.
~ " '- '
Question 8 *
- i. . .
The local and gross effects attachments on the wall (such'as conduit, 'E
-'. piping and equipment) were not properly considered in the analysis. The" ';
evaluation of the effect of possible_ local damages and gross motion of 's the attachment,on the overall analysis of.the wall i.: needed. E
' ~
V '] Response 8 g!
. .f
-' dp 2 "
The I.icensee indicated that both local tnd global effects of attachments were considered in the evaluation.
.K ,' ,
<r
.~; .
' :.;f For local effects, the block pullout was included in the analysis and the ,.y allowable shear st'ress in the mortar joint surrounding the block was checked {
to assure no block pullout will occur. ' ~ N
. .. m -a. ,4 .
. . .. g. &
For global effects, the added weight of the attachments was included in
. ,B.
the finite element models at appropriate modal points.
'81 It can be concluded that the effects of attachments have been adequately w
accounted for in the analysis. '.
~'
1 E 7
. E 8
L., C-12 C y
h Ial , - TER-C5506-405 , E,.i REFERENCES : I 1. K. P. Baskin, SCEC .~. ~' Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC -
?
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation l April 30, 1982, ,. . .-;'
.. , 9
- 2. E. Hognestad, "A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced I Concrete Member," University of Illinois, Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin Series No. 399, November 1951 - -
J]
- 3. J. A. Blume, N. M. Newmark, and L. H. Corning, " Design of )!ultihistory B Reinforcad Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions," Portland Cement '
4
-Association, Chicago 1961 '
l'*- G
. s
. ,p
- 4. K. P. Baskin, SCEC Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC .
.q Subject': Masonry Wall Evaluation .
* ~
January 11, 1982 ..
. 5. W. L. Dickey and A. Mackintosh, "Results of Variation of Effective Width.
in Flexure of Concrete Masonry Wall Panels," Masonry Institute of "b" l America, 1971 _
. . , . .~.;. . -
I,
- - <* Q?
'~
, l ?,*.
i.,
- 4 ..s r nd.s 1+- Ap .C,{
R . .
. .'.;:n 1
D?,7 D
~
if *de
.O B .y .
GI e. s L 59 . W
.' C-13
B g , l B s
- r . . , ,
.. -y
- , i
.j
. . ,j APPENDIX D -
. 1
- . .1
..- . v kVALU TION OF'THE LICENSEE'S RESPONSES REGARDING THE FUEL STORAGE BUILDING ,
8 .- j e* ^,{ N.g . 5 .' , .' le; .s .N
;r ,> . .
- 1
.g * . -
. t
(.,,
*
- e a I' 5 . .
. .e s /*. ,
- - './)'.~ l' hE -
.c
.,, , *J .
. g. .
- e
.q. e ,- ..
* . = , .
.o; . .;
c, ,-
. s .s. - ' , ,
e 's , e . . 9. ; e '
- s.#,3 , . s.1e- .
+ -' s.
. .Q
~ . ' .' , ,: . '.,+,
r . .'. ',' jy ,.
.g.c.
3
*** * ., e ,Y$ '
'
- I
. l .' . .
.'.1h.*. .. . W ee %' e * -M* ,*
- M. fa *y mo t - , . ,
,, ggp
. 3 g e .
. e,V B ...
..t
.?
. > ,e t
to. .
. . :. i e6#
+ - - , , ,
4 .- e o .. i
.' n 4 ,
e 56 .p. . i e W
'a.
h e FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER h CIVISICN CF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20th & RAct $TRIETS,PHILACILPHIA,P4131C! t* J
g"
- g ,
1
. TER-C5506-405
. . ',\
- '. w .
E-This appendix contains the evaluation of the Licensee's. responses [1]* .,.. regarding the walls in the fuel storage building. , Question 1 .i ' - E d
- i. In considerating soil-structure interaction, how were the soil springs and damping ratjios distributed at the switchgear room wall footing?
lg m l l ;
+.g .
- .c g
Response 1 . . . ; [3 a I The Licensee indicated that the soil springs for the switchgear room were based on the tributary length for each node, of which there are ten (see s. 3
??
. Figure D-1). The values for soil springs were calculate'd in accordance with ';
;f; Reference 2. They are given below: .-
., ,', eh y:.
.' . Node
- Sprine Stiffness (kip /ft)
B. . (See Piq. D-1)
- Vertical N-S E-W .
; '[
150 $3930 ' 12380
- 12740
$ $S.1
~ p, * ; 690 ,'
151 0 1360 152 *
.
- 380
- 1360 750 ,
155
. ',1160 11490 0: .
"k 158 .
, 3. , ,3 ,c5460 0 ,14760 -
' l,
; 1220 161 0 9870 , ;
164
* : y .. ',;5290 -
, 22290 0
..t
'),
I ' % . 9 1940
- 168 4030 9760 . Qi 169 ., 31190 0' 2330 9 -*d?;'
170 . ,-f 660 2330 1290 ,; / 174 r7160 0 0 ' 6. I, - Ra
~,>#
g The damping value for' all masonry components in the fuel storage building : 24 for the design basis earthquake (DBE) was 7%. - Further discussion of soll properties and damping is given in Section 6 of the report. The response is satisfactory and acceptable. r b , 3
- Numbers in brackets indicate references, which are cited on page D-9.
d 9 .d D-1
TER-C5506-405 2 s, .
. m ., ,
4 s . a. . p.. .. - z. 9
. s_ ' ..
.4 <.
s
.t i .
.., ..; . ; -q w '; / . .
.:: . . z- .
y., . , , . a-N
. ~
152t p - 170gp g
.. . . t
;g .. . .
= = 8
.: .t:
- v. .'.
, .e -
- i '
Its i 1514 >
,i . . ,' ' # .
. . . '.).;
.m
, d k O A R h d <
.. .. . 150 155 154 3 i' 181 164 les . .
y 5
' -*s .
It y i.w Ir', l . s l Id
.h
'D4 W
E em Figure 0-1. Switchgear Room Soil Spring Nodes
- i 6 .
W.> D=2 . W
,~
8 TG-C5506-405 .
.\ :
'E Question 2 - How was the foundation slab at elevation 14 ft 0 in modeled in ths I. , three-dimensional seismic analysis model? ,.,. '.
.g l
n.s-. 2 .. .: ~ . .
. .y 9 .
The Licenses responded that because the concrete slab at elevation 14 ft' - ..o
+.
0 in had no structural connection to the. masonry walls or fuel pool, it pas ' . , "1 lI not included in the three-dimensional model for seismic analysis of the fuel ,-. storage building. li; ;. l . y<. ;.), .- This response is considered adequate. '-
'l'j
}. ,
l h
.O_
Question 3 -
. , , . . What is 'the' definition of the " effective length" of trie wall in the '
derivation of the out-of-plane masonry wall properties? S m *
.. . ', c, .- ..' ~ .
j/,- .. .
,f 3,j
.) .y id ... ,,, ,n,, 3 t . . . .
'., . j v, -' '
The Licensee indicated that the " effective. length" for a masonry beam v element is simply the tributory length, which is half the distance on either ' g side of the beam centerline to the next beam centerline or support (see rigure ,j W . D-2). t, b,* '
,( .;
This response is adequate and satisfactory. .
?
.'t Question 4 ,'.' .
L*' Horizontal and vertical analyses were separately performed, and the V
, response time histories were then combined. Justify the validity of this approach because both analyses were nonlinear time history analyses.
R Rosconse 4 - L . The Licenses stated that the vertical leids on the fuel storage building
} were resisted by the steel framing, whereas the horizontal loads were resisted by masonry walls. Originally (3), the horizontal and vertical analyses were 7 performed separately because there is little interaction between these two I systems. In the latest analysis (4), however, all three seismic cceponents >. were applied to the sarne enodel at the same time. .j ,
o-a
. . j
/
l TER-C5506-405 The response is adequate. This question is no longer applicable.
.l Question 5 , ..
Was the linear, elastic model developed for the frequency extraction only
. .and not for any response analysis? ,
Resnonse '5 .
, The Licensee responded that the elastic global model was not used for any component evaluation. It was only used for initial parametric studies and for extracting the modes of the system and for evaluating damping values of the structure'and soil system.
This response is adequate. O
,, Question 6
/p ..,f., ,
t .. Your conclusions stated that "The 'as-built' structure was subjected to ' earthquake motions of the specified DBE level of 0.679 Housner for San Onofra Unit l'and complied with the structural integrity acceptance (- criteria under this load." It is our understanding that only the El y Centro records were used in a structural integrity evaluation of the [', building, while Figure D.2 (1) indicates that the El Centro records do not envelop the 0.679 Housnar spectra. Provide your justification of the k
- accuracy of aforementioned conclusion statement. Our particular concerns 8 are.with the wall FB-7 and roof connections to walls n -6 and TB-7 , ,
5,,
~
Resoonse 6 The Licensee indicated that three earthquake time histories (El Centro g 1940, Olympia 1949, and Taft 1952) were used in the evaluation of the fuel a storage building. In the latest analysis (4], the two horizontal components of each of these earthquakes were frequency scaled (see Section 5.2.5 for
'further details) to envelope the 0.679 Hcuaner spectra. Also, wall TB-7 and the roof connections to walls TB-6 and n -7 have been upgraded.. Wall T3-7 has f been braced with steel members to take in-plane forces, and additional roof connections consisting of 3/4-in bolts through walls TB-6 and FB-7 have been installed. Figure D-3 illustrates these modifications. * ]d
. The response is satisfactory. Wall TB-7 and the roof connections to T3-6 [
~
and F3-7 have been shown to be adequate. 0-4 b
I Trn-essos-40s . t
. . + .
.- e L .
I
~ '
', _J4L lt L
. '?
- o
- g (Le(d . .
. .- ." y 8
I' ' ' ' EN D ' ." .' : :. , .I I i i ,
'h g '
Il
- 3. .d.j WAt.L ,. :.
.t_
i';,
- n :. -
.:.c
.,.l l. . l 'l CROSS 5 -
.,e .
B. I '
^
1 j i ., WALL 4 g . i .
. .. .l .
.< . .c.
. .J 1 i . i f, j. .l . :, :.v..
, i . . . .
. . .. .4 , n.i
. i . . . . I
. z.
. . ..n t .
.J e... y . ,. e,. . .
. . ., . ' .. ..r ,. o . ..
y,
. m. --
' LOCATION. . OF OUT-0F- R.ANE
- l. '
. .s...
. a(
,E
!. MA50NRY' WALL SEAM J'g
?
ELEMENT. . 3, .
'P -
1 ..p.
- .. ,- , ;, . ay u..
??-
WALL . ELEVATION :/. 2 1 I I O rigure D-2. " Effective Length" of Masonry Deam Element h L
.. D=5
"+ -4 -
4 TER-C5506-405 ;
} O
~
4 ,
=
l .{. .] .. e 'l
' I
.I . .
1 l ADOED N l l ] }
- ~
WALL FD-7 3 _
.d q
+. . . ,
le -
- g &
.. . . . hADOED CCWWN ,
' / l l t .
' ?' V l l l , ! .
+
-! l l l [
., . e. ' . .
~
l l ,
. r:- .
l
, ,. , 2-r.,
l p
]/7g
'. l .
...- '. 'N .
J e l f*.'to %~s*%.f4Cs'*C % 1- . N
. *oo = .* s *,e *
,c,:.o C .
'4.C'O.i
.r . c < s .
- ~
9
-e.
- ,i ,.
. dc' g
ADDED STMJT s=
. / -
1 1' g 5-
~
Figure D-3. Structural Modifications i a c3 D-6 . . .
.m
..___.,,-,-___.----_.,i_,_.___.__,m.__ -
..; i: . ,
; ~-
E. _ B " TER-C5506-405 . 5
~ '
Question 7 .
. T. .
Provide information on the reevaluation of the foundation. I- -. n' r-
~
c~ m 1 Response 7 ~
. ,M " '~'
, ..- f.. .
I . A susmary of the analysis of the foundation (fuel pool basemat) has been
.provided in Reference 4, and the results have been presented , .
in Section 7.1 of ' Reference 4. The maximum bending moment and shear stress in the. concrete basemat are far below the allowables: the maximum bending moment was
- evaluated at 75360 lb-in/in congared with a cracking moment.of 193150
, Ib-in/in, and the maximum shear stress was 25.3 psi i:cepared with an allowable ,
of 228.1 psi.. -
- r. .,. .:
'This response is satisfactory and acceptable. .
~
Question 8 . . -j *2
. .t... .
. Provide' digitized records of all component's of all time histories used in the analysis. ,- !6:
- A;..m .Q .
.. . . , E. . . ..
Response 8 ~ '
...: , . .a.7 - [ , .
. ..c. :.
The Licensee has provided the digitized records of all nine components of E the three earthquakes used in the analysis of the fuel storage building. 8 Question 9
@ Provide references used as a basis for the in-plane strain criteria for 5 masonry walls.
Response 9 g The Licensee responded that the in-plane criteria for, masonry walls were B based on Reference 5, a copy of which has been provided. This reference gives the results of 31 cyclic, in-plane shear tests on fixed ended masonry piers [ with a height-to-width ratio of 1. The tests were designed to simulate the boundary conditions of a shear wall in a complete building. The specimens m f} , represented three types of masonry construction: hollow concrete block, a F*9 L D-7
IT TER-C5506-405 { E hollow clay brick, and a double-wythe grouted core wall consisting of two clay g brick wythes. The specimens also included various examples of reinforcing and grout'ing so that these parameters may be taken into account. As a result of the tests', all specimens showed a shear mode of failure sometimes combined with flexural yielding of the vertical reinforcement. The ultimate strength always occurred when diagonal cracks developed over the full height of the pier in both horizontal loading directions. 7 b. However, as discussed in Appendix C and in Section 3 of the report, the in-plane load is not the governing case and hence, shear mode of failure will not occur. In-plane load was, however, combined with the out-of-plane lead in
,the analysis. -
This response is adequate. '
. . .v . . . . . y i Question 10 .
e i Provide details of the structural model for the fuel storage building and f the associated soil structure interaction parameters used in the model. '
;Y Response 10 .
'5 The Licensee provided copies of the ANSR-II program echo print of the model, the computer plots showing nodes, and relevant portions of the ANSR-II '-
User's Manual. Additional information on the soil-structure interaction parameters can be found in Reference 4. In general, these parameters included translational and rotational spring values and damping percentages for the base of the fuel pool and switch gear room. The spring values were based on T<Z w. the lower density ' soil adjacent t,o the fuel pool, which was identified during I construction work on the turbine building. The resulting spring values were h 50% to 80% of the values used in the original analysis (3].
**1 The response is judged to be satisfactory. Further discussion on this {g subject is provided in Section 6 of this report.
-O.
O l D-8 l
.f
.. . =
, TER-C5506-405 -
._ m.
' ~ '
REFERENCES f:, ., .
- 1. K. P. Baskin, SCEC ' '
Q . Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC
Subject:
Masonry Wall Evaluation - Fuel Storage Building , ._s . December 20, 1982 .
- - - -. S B ,
_2. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Balance of Plant (BOP) SONGS. Unit 1 J. ~o: ' Soil-Structure Interaction Methodo1,ogy Report, Revision 1, Crange, ' ^
. California, July 1978. ~ . i. - .: . .
- 3. Computech Engineering Services, Inc., "Sesimic Reevaluation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls, Volume 4: Fuel Storage Building," San Onofre ..
Nuclear. Generating Station Unit 1, Report No. 534-02, April 1982: Q
' (transmitted in' letter from K. P. Baskin to D. M. Crutchfield, dated i April 30, 1982,
Subject:
SEP Topic III-6, Seismic Design Considerations) -
~
.4 Computsch Engineering Services, Inc'., "Sesimic Reevaluation of Reinforced '
Concrete Masonry Walls, Volume 5: Fuel Storage Building Soil Backfill'
- lB , . ,. . Condition Evaluation," San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1, ' ,
. Report No. 534-02, September 1982; (tre amitted in' letter from K. P.
Baskin to D. M. Crutchfield, dated September. 30, 1982;
Subject:
SEP : . Topic III-6, Fuel Storage Building)
~
i:
. . y.
~
.s . .
,, Q s .*
S- Chen, Shy-Wen J. et ai., Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry' Single Piers, ' Volume 2 - Height to Width Ratio of 1, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of . California, Berkeley, California, December 1978 ,,
.- e. .
~ . . . . .n.
..e.,.. .
.;. g. . .: , .,. c ., . .s.
. . ., w..a .
'n
, s.
?
l :,
.a l'
( . i,, 0 1 , B l
-3 bl .
D-9 o y__, __ _ _ _ . - . . . ., , _ , _ _ _ , .
- e. :.
c .- .. E . l . m;. B ..
. . . 7,.
E , 8
. APPENDIX E -
. - 2
, . .: . 'S EVALUATION OF THE LICENSEE'S RESPONSES .
REGARDING THE TEST PROGRAN ,, e
-n p B .
-' . ~ . .?
. ~.; ..
2.
* .2.6.-
- 4. ;
. 9:.
. .. . ./
G .c
+ -
r... '. f . 1 . - . 1 , . s
. ,. . , .. i... ' "
- l c, - ..'?
.y . : ~ .. .. . ..,..,. s.. . . . . . .. ig. . .. .+ . . . .! .
.... 9~=
-,. = . .
- .a
} . . . . *i i ( - *Q1 s e.
. g .
p . C: . G
,f,,
1 f.J I. r..: l FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISICN OF ARVIN/CAI. SPAN 20tn & RACE STREETS.PHILACELPHI A.PA 191C3 e1 e ema
~
t ' -
=
TER-C5506-405 This appendix contains the evaluation of the Licensee's responses (1, 2]* to a number of questions relating to the test program. Although some 9 information provided in this appendix was already resolved by the tests, it is still worthwhile to discuss these issues because they provide useful- ,- -l ~ ,
* ~
background information relating to the test p ogra.e. [ ,
.3 ,..
~ j. . .
"'3 - . . -
=
t Question la (1] - A' E*, ,
} ..
'. .5 A discussion or assessment of the impact of not inputting vertical motion together with the horizontal one is needed to justify its omission in the ,
test procedure. Also, expand to include the omission of the other
- l4 horisontal motion (in-plane) in the test, in view of the fact that these T.
components of earthquake motion should be included in the analysis. , d
.~ .. : j. .
. .. ' c.;
E Question Ib [2]
- l.".
>-u.
E D* tai 1= af tha turbina buildins "all (nat ==1r =t th* tov but =1=a *t U. . . . . the sides) should be checked to show that they provide free boundaries in
-) , .r.
suchawaysoastopreventin-planeloadingl.
'c.
.y.
. Response la and Ib
- " - [ ~'
'\
- .7 ,. .,. :: pv With regard to the assesement of the impact of not inputting vertical .((
motion together with the horizontal : notion, the Licensee provided a method ,
- B which was used in the analyses.of masonry walls as follows
- 4 w@.$
- g .. -
e-At each time step for which deflections were greater than the wall 'h
- E
- g thickness, the overturning moments due to vertical seismic load and gravity -
k w.s were compared to the horizontal inertial' restoring moments. For a limited , y
. n_ ~
I number of time steps, the inertial restoring forces were less than the -
- ff overturning forces. However, these periods were of very short duration .-
- (maximum 0.045 seconds), and the Licensee concluded that they did not affect 'I l
l CJ wall stability. Therefore, as long as the actual deflections as determined - t l from the tests were the same or less than those from the analyses, the Licensee concluded that the vertical motion could tie ignored. 7
;.,
- Numbers in brackets indicate references, which are cited on page E-25.
. e =!*. ! 'l m
iu 1 z-1
TER-C5506-405 ,
.With regard to the in-plane horizontal motirn, the Licensee indicated -
that this type of motion is not pertinent for the turbine building walls since l
'the connection details at the top of these walls will prevent them from being i subjected to this component of motion. The Licensee provided details of a typical connection, which included the double pin connections, such that no . ;,
. L in-plane loading from the structure will occur. Although masonry walls in the
- reactor auxilary building were subjected to low in-plane, shear loads, the ,
Licensee asserted that this level of load has little or no effe-t on the a out-of-plane response of the wall, and therefore, the consideration of this component was not necessary for this test sequence. The fuel storage building i walls would be subjected to both in-plane and out-of- plane loads during a - DBE. The analysis of these walls included two horizontal' and one vertical , _. component of motion as reported in Reference 3. However, the physical
, limitations of the available test' facilities did not permit the inclusion of ,
] t:wo components of motion simultaneously. Therefore, the effect of in-plane load to out-of-plane response was not assessed ('due'to the limitation of test , .
machine). However it was considered in the analysis. The Licensees response ' b.. l is adequate and satisfactory. ~- 4 l
~~
Question 2 * ' Discuss the basis of your selection bf time history duration and demonstrate its adequacy considering the fact that the duration of motion may have important bearings on nonlinear analysis results. , z v Response 2
+#
The Licensee stated that the duration of the test input motions has been
. established with consideration of the nonlinear response of the walls. All .
the tir.e histories used in the testing of the wall panels were based on actual recorded earthquakes. The duration of the motion used in the test pecgram was 30 seconds for all test walls. . The Licensee's selection of the time history duration was based on the r* following factors: , a C E-2 L - 9
s . .. TER-C5506-405 n I o Based on the data. included in.a report of the SCE's letter to the NRC dated August 9, 1982 regarding free field ground motion, it was concluded that a mean design' duration of about 10 seconds is JU
.k I .
considered appropriate. Furthermore, it was concluded that the use of a 20-second duration would exceed the average maximum value of strong motion duration obtained from all sources in the literature. 6
?!
.fj g The Licenses stated that the duration of 30 seconds used in the test d g program was obviously adequate. '
j
.r: ,
ct o The results from the nonlinear analysis of the masonry walls indicated that the maximum responses of some key parameters, such as dj deflection and rebars strains, occurred within the first 20 seconds q. i. of the response. . 31; o Several earthquake motions have been developed and kept on file at ' I@b the Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC) of the University .pt l[ ,of California at Berkeley. These records have been modified to' fit W.
$ the physical capabilities of the actuators. These records include El [
Centro, Taft, Olympia, and Pacoima dam events and all have durations a n of 30 seconds. s .
.?
D. .. .
, y.
The Licensee's response is technically adequate. J' e.; .
.. . .3,. .... ,
M Question 3a (1)
, .- .i ; .2 li ,
Discuss the reason for not being ablin to input two distinct motions at ~ the two actuators levels as was implied in the proposal. If indeed, the . . . q input motions can't be distinct, assess its impact on the test findings , ,,.d' g and test conclusions., Appropriate ccmpensatory measures, if any are , . .. planned for adoption in interpreting"the data, should also be discussed. , T, .c kB Question 3b (2]
~
~
,h;$
Confirm that different input motions will be used at the actuators at top
- m. and bottom of the test wall. -
I
. ., -- , . j g Response 3a and 3b -
In response to these questions, the Licensee confirmed that the program C to develop individual control for the actuators has been successfully P s . completed. Therefore, the tests were performed as follows: 7 Panel type 1: The input time histories were determined frem a nonlinear O analysis of the fuel storage building. In the analysis, time histories at the top of the fuel pool and at the roof levels were retained and are being used as inputs to the
] ,
test. The motions are different for the two actuators. n 1 E-3
- l TER-C5506-405 d Panel type 2: The stiffness of the reactor auxiliary building is such that it produces negligible amplified instructure motion and thus the same ground type motion will be used as input for both top and bottom actuators.
, Panel type 3: For the, turbine bull' ding test walls, the out-of-plane .
, input to the top of the walls is determined by the ,
structural response of the turbine building, whereas the ;
- input to the base of the walls will be a ground-type
' action. The input motion at the two actuators will be different. . ,
e
. The Licensee's response is satisfactory. *
. s. -a .. .. ;. - .
^* - -
y
, Question 4a [1] . .
Describe how the closeness / similarity between the test walls and the x insitu walls are to be assured with respect to the construction material and boundary conditions. e . 3;
.- Question 4b (2]
i f-
~.
~ Due to the connection details between the wall and footing,'some~ '
M
'~ rotational restraint could be developed. "his could be amplified by the
- rigidity of the concrete footing and testing instrumentation attached.
r Therefore, the test wall may not behave as simply supported at the base as assunied in the analysis. The possibility of crack formation and steel 'g
.q
, yielding should be considered. Monitoring base deformation during
- testing is reconnended. This information could be very helpful in the ,
correlation between the analytical model and test results. Responses 4a and 4b . Id
]
The Licensee stated that steps were taken to ensure that the similarity .: of the test walls and the"insitu walls was as close as reasonably possible h even though the objective of the program did not necessitate this close ! similarity. To achieve similarity of construction materials, the original specification used in the construction of the insitu walls was used in the ! construction of the test panels. The implementation of the specification was M g , monitored by engineers, and samples of all construction materials were tested i as further verification of the quality and similarity of the construction y materials. With regard to the boundary condition similarity, t}ie Licensee indicated that the base for each of the test panels was dowelled into a ~
'?
E-4 W 1
- 'c
TER-C5506-405
~.
concrete base, using the same area of steel and embedment percentage as in the , insitu walls. This construction assured the same boundary conditions at the ;. base of the test panels as in the insitu walls. All of the walls considered for the nonlinear analysis had a pin connection at their tops. This [ -
%.g connection was typically a ledger angle or, in the case of the turbine , , ,{.i building (Panel Type 3), a plate. The test panels all had connections at the . ,((
top of the wall similar to that shown in Figures E.1 through E.3. The top [ j-[,( 9 . actuator was attached to the' steel member at the top 'of the panel via a pin G
' connection. Therefore, the top connection of the test panels was a pin, just -
[.
.. : .n.
g[ as in the situ walls. , ,
, , .,,. g?, g a .$
With , regard to the concern over the connection details between the wall 3m
. m B and footing, the Licensee indicated that the footing and the test system ,
provided a degree of fixity at the 5ase of the test wall which was similar to -
~
, ,, the insitu walls which all were dos?.'. led into their footings. To accomplish the monitoring of the degree of fixity at the' bottom of the test walls, _ ,
- .i >
strains and curvatures were measured as described in Response 9. -
'. i .'
, y -
. i.
The Licensee's responses are satis' factory and have resolved these . 4
- C 8 T concerns. Further informat. ion relating to this subject is given in Sections 7
= ,,g g, '
- . W
^
j a *
.. . ~-
-a . M < . . u.a.i. . .-s .T . : m. 4 g, .
.ep Question 5 - " - -
, -is t
Give detailed discussion about and justification foi major piping / equip-
- ment attachment simulation in terms of weights, eccentricities and locations of such attachments. Also discuss the methods in attaching these piping / equipment.
Resoonse 5 The Licensee stated that the items attached to the masonry walls considered applicable to the nonlinear analysis consist mostly of electrical i conduit and minor items such as grounding cable, telephones, small diameter a, :g copper tubing, and other similar minor items. Due to their light weights, all O of the above items other than the electrical conduit are not considered . relevant to the test program. In addition, piping is not considered relevant to the program since none of the masonry walls subject to the nenlinear analysis has significant piping attached to them. N o E-5
TER-C5506-405 ,( G 9 .S P , TCP OF WALL' -
, e;g
' '. m
- D If_g .,"
Wl0 N/TH
.L - '
g
$7/FFENGRS L z
..l.'. .l. - ---
t,o m z:g
..: -Q
- s. Q
\3/4"q soc r
~. n :
~
~.
~ .
- f. a'. :. . :l b,
(7YP/ CAL FCA FufL ,, 9
$70 RAG 8 AND ~
k. MEAC70R AUX /L/ARY 9
).:1.'E .. e u it o m o s ) .
~
\ \ g
,7 -
.4 x.
~
- ' ..*k .'k.-;. .. .. e . y r' '
m- e. - L". E. m Figure E.1. Typical Connection at Top of Test Panel . U
.i E-6
.c .
1 *
. ten-essos-40s l .
. 1 E .
. . ~
. 1
)
i
. TCP OF WALL .
.. . : .l l -
l' -
- 7-l
> . ~. ,
yl(
~-
e -
. - :~ ...
8 _:* ..
. Q,9 Q,7g -
~
$7/FFENEAS .
'~
- E .
. ~;
X-' - ,.....,...... ..
~.
3
.i, Q . _...
l .. .g .9 <7;, ,
\
g N . 0/4"$ THROUGM- .
. .. : 6047( TYP/ CAL FOR.
D- - - 9 . . *;
*..*:9 REACTOR Aux /UARY
~ 60/LC/NG ) .:
- . '.) ~
n
- , ; ., -,.x. '..
^~
C
.~
7.-
. ?. -
1 1 ,] .. .3
- s' -
..[
. ,,. ?y
] , ,.}}