ML20138R000
| ML20138R000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1985 |
| From: | Williams J TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 1219, IEB-80-11, TAC-59874, NUDOCS 8512300192 | |
| Download: ML20138R000 (65) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-346 TOLEDO License No. NPF-3 EDISON Serial No. 1219 JOE WituAMs. Jn.
s ava m ru -
(4191T49 PY)0 December 17, 1985 (4im 49 sm Mr. John F. Stolz, Director l PWR Project Directorate No. 6 Division of PWR Licensing - B United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Stolz:
On March 12, 1985, the NRC issued an Information Request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) (Log No. 1716). This letter requested Toledo Edison (TED) to identify the actions and schedule planned to impicment the NRC Structural and Geological Engineering Branch (SCEB) Staff position for 75 masonry walls. These walls had been qualified by TED under IE Bulletin 80-11 (Log
! No. 1-362) utilizing the energy balance technique at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1. The Staff position does not accept the qualification of masonry walls by the energy balance techniqun.
On April 25, 1985 TED representatives met with the NRC Staff and presented our proposed approach to resolve this issue. The NRC Staff requested that we provide a formal submittal of our method of qualifying these walla by
- linear clastic working stress analysis, and address four specific issues raised in the meeting.
In our September 23, 1985 submittal (Serial No. 1183) we responded to
! cach of the four issues and provided our report titled " Masonry Wall
! Re-Evaluation Report to IE Bulletin 80-11. Davis-Besse Nucicar Power l Station Unit No. 1". We also indicated that all of the walls except one
! (Wall 5367) had been demonstrated acceptable by the working stress approach.
I We proposed to modify Wall 5367 and utilize our Integrated Living Schedule Program process to schedule the modification.
l Further analysis of Wall 5367 has been performed utilizing a two-way
- finite element model and the actual reinforcing steel strengths from l material test reports. This further analysis demonstrated that Wall 5367
! is acceptable by the working stress approach. Accordingly, we no longer plan to modify Wall 5367.
Enclosed are five (5) copics of Revision 1 of our report titled, " Masonry Wall Re-Evaluation Report to IE Bulletin 80-11. Davis-Bossa Nuclear Power Station Unit 1". This revision reflects the further analysis performed for Wall 5367.
AD = 0, (pttTCttrigLO llte emjyp
' " i " ' """ ""O UD12UUUl*/2 8D121/
- PDH 0
ADOCK 05000346 PDR e/ f/8p3
- Uc'jC,',4m roe i., m l
THE 70Lt00 EDISON COMPANY E0fGON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVINUE TOLEDO, 01410 43052 1
. - _ _ _ - _ _a
</ , l
'Dockst No. 50-346- .i
- Licenza No. NPF-3 )
Serial No. 1219 1 December'17, 1985 l 3.Page 2 1
' \
- t
'In addition, pursuant to the NRCs request of November 13,'1985 (Log l No'. 1860) and 10 CFR 170.12(c), enclosed is a check for the amount of
$150.00 for the application fee. l Very 'truly yours h$f> *
.,n I
JW:DRW:CLM
.cc: , DB-1 NRC Resident Inspector r i s
- (~ g i
L4 ,
2" tr
)
{
l i
3
,t I
J%
a J'
r.
,k k j --
4 L.
r ,
,7 L. f Docket No. 50-346 ,
License No. NFP-3 Serial No. 1219 December 17, 1985 Masonry Wall Re-Evaluation Response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 4
Revision 1
- - , * . , , -- - ,,-,g -- -- - , .y-_y--,.m_, p.__ w- . , . - ,
f
. 6 Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Identification of Walls 2.2 Construction Details 2.3 Analytical Procedures 2.3.1 Seismic Analysis of Structures
. Input Time History
. Mathematical Models 2.3.2 Application to Masonry Walls
. Elastic Analysis 3.0 ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS 3.1.1 Input Time History 3.1.2 Modeling Techniques
. Boundary Conditions
. Plate Action
. Effect of Cutouts 3.1.3 Response Spectra Modification 3.1.4 Moment Combination 3.1.5 Material Properties
. Vertical Reinforcing Steel
. Horizontal Reinforcing Steel
. Masonry and Concrete 3.1.6 Conduit Loads 1
y,
. e 1 4.0 DISCUSSION OF REVIEW 4.1 Criteria for Review ,
4.2 Summary of Results 4.3 Review of Specific Walls by Plate Analytical Techniques 4.4 Application of Results to OBE 1
5.0 CONCLUSION
S
6.0 REFERENCES
.e e
i 4
2
- e e
L.
. e '
i 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In response (Reference 1) to IE Bulletin 80-11 for the Davis-Besse !
2 Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, the capacity of 169 concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls were re-evaluated. Ninety-five of these walls were qualified by the working stress-elastic analysis technique. The remain- l ing 74 valls were qualified inelastically by the energy balance technique. ,
The NRC staff in their Safety Evaluation Report (Reference 2) found the t
walls re-evaluated by the working stress method acceptable. However, the staff indicated the use of the energy balance technique is unacceptable without further confirmation of the methodology. Three approaches were suggested in the Safety Evaluation Report that could be used to re-evaluate the affected 74 CMU walls. In suunnary, these approaches are as follows:
- 1. Supplement the energy balance technique with a comprehensive test )
program.
)
l I
i
- 2. Re-analyse the walls by linear elastic-working stress methods and '
l I
repair the walls as needed.
- 3. Use a rigorous non-linear analysis technique, supplemented with confirmatory testing.
i i
l i 3 ,
4
V:
The second of these available alternatives, use of linear elastic methodology, is being adopted for this study.
The criteria established by Toledo Edison for the re-evaluation in response to IE Bulletin 80-11 required that all CMU walls be initially evaluated using elastic methods. The re-evaluation criteria concentrated on a simplified approach which (1) could be utilized for all CMU walls, (2) could be applied by different engineers with uniformity of results assured and (3) minimize the need for separate decision making for individual walls. Such an approach was necessary to expedite the total re-evaluation effort within the time limits specified by the bulletin, and simultaneously maintain necessary control and uniformity in the results. This approach was utilized to guarantee that each step of.the analysis could be easily demonstrated to yield unquestionable conserva-tive results. The methodology and criteria to accomplish these objec-tives had several substantial conservatisms beyond those normally imposed j
on CMU wall design, or necessary to meet udnimum licensing requirements.
l '
i Those CMU walls that did not satisfy the elastic criteria were then re-evaluated using the energy balance technique. The energy balance technique has been successfully used in seismic design applications for many structures other than nuclear power plant,s. Since the energy balance technique utilizes the results from the elastic analysis, similar conservatisms exist for both techniques. On the basis that the energy balance technique was a recognised and acceptable evaluation method, the l philosophy was to adopt a conservative elastic criteria recognizing such l 4 0
b
s 5
. e an approach may artificially indicate some of the walls exceed allowable stresses. However, those walls which may have high reported stresses could be shown to have adequate reserve strength by the energy balance technique and therefore be considered acceptable.
On the basis that the energy balance technique is not acceptable to the NRC staff without futther documentation, the original elastic working stress analysis was reviewed in comparison with current acceptable licensing positions. Generic conservatisms which exist in the analysis wereidentifiedandinsomeinstancesquantified,sokhatamoreaccurate estimate of actual wall stress could be determined and compared with the original evaluation. This approach is consiste'nt with the intent of the second alternative included in the Safety Evaluation Report. Using this-approach, the 74 CMU walls originally analyzed using the energy balance technique were re-evaluated using linear elastic-working stress methods.
The conclusion is that all of the 74 valls are within allowable stresses 1
in accordance with the acceptable licensing criteria.
2.0 BACKCROUND 2.1 Identification of Walls A summary of the walls qualified by the energy balance technique is provided in Tables 1, 2 & 3. Included in the tables is the ratio of the maximum calculated reinforcing steel stress (f,) obtained from the elastic analysis to the allowable stress (F,gy). The wall capacities are controlled by the reinforcing steel stress in all cases. This assures 5
u 8
. e proper ductile action of the walls. The ductility ratio as determined by the energy balance procedure is also provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
All but one of the 74 valls are located in areas 6, 7 or 8 of the auxil-iary building on the floors between Elevations $45 and 643 with approxi-mately 68% of the walls in area 7. The remaining wall is located in the intake structure at Elevation 567. Plant grade is Elevation 585.
In the NRC Staff evaluation (Reference 2) of the Toledo Edison response to IE Bulletin 80-11, a total of 75 rather than 74 CMU walls are identi-fled as being evaluated by the energy balance technique. A comparison of walls indicates the additional wall is Wall No. 2297. This is a cotaposite wall comprised of two eight inch masonry wythes and a two inch space between the units which is filled with concrete. The wall was originally analyzed as two independent eight inch thick walls spanning ,
vertically which produced a maximum ductility ratio of 2.07 and an overstressed top connection. Prior to final submittal of results to the NRC, a finite element analysis was performed using a composite thickness in order to obtain realistic reactions for the design of the modifications to the top connection. The finite element analysis produced a maximum tensile stress in the vertical reinforcing steel of 13.04 kai and a maximum tensile stress in the horizontal reinforcing steel of 4.3 kai. All ansonry stresses also passed the working stress criteria.
6
t.
2.2 Construction Details Substantial QA records accumulated during the construction phase verify that the materials supplied were furnished in accordance with the applicable specifications. These records also show that regularly scheduled inspections of the walls while under construction were also performed. Theinspectionsverifiedthatthecorrectmafterialswere being employed, that both vertical and hcrizontal reinforcing was properly placed and that the cells were correctly filled with concrete.
Tests were performed in accordance with applicable ASTM standards to verify minimum material strengths and the actual test values are discussed further in Section 3.1.5.
The construction details for the subject CMU walls are summarized in Table 4 and shown in Figures 8 through 25 of Reference 1. Vertical ;
reinforcing for walls constructed of eight or twelve inch block consist of two number five reinforcing bars at sixteen inch centers. These bars are located on opposite faces of a grouted cell, as shown in the referenced figures, to produce a doubly reinforced masonry section. For double wythe shield walls thicker than one foot-six inches, vertical reinforcing is increased from the two number five bars at sixteen inch centers per wythe. Depending on the wall thickness, reinforcing is as great as two number eight bars at sixteen inches in each wythe. Specific reinforcement requirements are included in Figure 24 of Reference 1.
Horizontal joint reinforcement for eight and twelve inch block construction consists of, as a minimum, extra heavy truss wire 7
reinforcing at every course. Four inch thick walls are centrally reinforced with a number three reinforcing bar in every vertical joint.
All reinforcing is anchored at the CMU wall boundaries. At concrete slab interfaces, vertical bars are lapped (approximately 24 inches) with matching size all thread bars anchored with self-drilling expansion sleeves as shown in Figure 1 (taken from Figure 14 Reference 1). At steel beams, vertical bars are lapped with twenty-four inch long matching size all thread bars secured by sleeve nuts welded to the beam as shown in Figure 2 (Figure 15 of Reference 1).
Horizontal reinforcing is lapped w th number three all thread bars at interfaces with concrete walls or columns as shown in Figure 3 (Figure 20 of Reference 1). The number three bars are secured by self-drilling expansion sleeves at concrete boundaries. Special details employing "Z" type rigid steel masonry wall anchors are employed at wall cornare and wall tee intersections as shown in Figure 4 (Figure 12 of Reference 1).
e 2.3 Analytical Procedures 2.3.1 Seismic Analysis of Structures With the exception of several cases involving pressure loads.or
' pipe reactions acting on the CMU walls, the only lateral load which affects the performance of the CMU walls is the result of seismic considerations. To understand the behavior of these walls to lateral load it is therefore important to understand the basis ,
l i
8
' L.
a of these loads as obtained from the seismic analysis of the structures housing the CMU walls.
4 Input Time History Two parameters are necessary to define seismic ground motion for the purpose of exciting a structure such as the Davis-Besse auxiliary building. One parameter is the magnitude of the earthquake which is conveniently expressed by the maximum pe,ek acceleration, in terms of gravity (g). The second parameter is related to the frequency content of the earthquake and can best be represented by a design spectra. The design spectra, adjusted to a specific peak earthquake acceleration provides the entire definition of the earthquake necessary to proceed with a seismic analysis of both the primary structure (auxiliary building) and secondary system (CNU walls). Based on the methodology selected to conduct the seismic analysis of the masonry walls, it is necessary to obtain floor response spectra at appropriate building locations. At the time the Davis-Besse seismic analysis was conducted, a necessary intermediate step required an input time history to e7. cite the structure. Since the earthquake motion is j completely described by the design spectra, to assure conservatism, it is necessary to develop a time history having a response spectra which envelops the design spectra. The 1935 modified Helena, Montana E-W component time history was employed to envelop the modified Newmark Spectrum. As shown in Figure 5, the time history provides an irregular spectrum which exhibits i 9 ,
l
_]
- t. l
- f substantial exceedences at various frequencies throughout the frequency range, as compared with the modified Newmark Spectrum.
The resulting floor response spectra reflects the irregularity of the time history design spectra but is smoothed by enveloping and broadening for design use. By utilizing this approach, the upper bound characteristic of the jagged time history design spectra is 2 included as an additional conservatism in the floor spectra development. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in areas of the spectra away from the structure natural frequencies. Since the enveloped smooth spectra is used to obtain loads for the masonry walls, these conservatisms are directly reflected in the wall moments.
Mathematical Models Mathematical models of the auxiliary building, which were dynamically excited by the input time history, are shown in Figure 6. Since the building is separated into individual areas by seismic joints, individual models were developed to represent ,.
the response of the various building areas. Since the structure is founded on rock at Elevation 545, with the rock having a shear modulus in excess of 5900 ft/sec., the analysis conservatively assumes the foundation as a fixed boundary. The portion of the auxiliary building structure at area 6 is supported on caissons founded in rock at Elevation 558 and extending to Elevation 585.
Lateral soil springs between Elevations 567 and 585 represent lateral resistance to deflection provided by the structural
. 10
~
o backfill surrounding the caissons. The intake structure seismic model is not shown. It is a cantilever with four masses and a fixed base, since the structure is founded on rock at Elevation 546. Each of the three auxiliary building models was excited in both horizontal directions as well as vertically.
2.3.2 Application t$ Masonry Walls Elastic Analysis The structural response of the masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic inertia loads is based on the elastic behavior of reinforced masonry in flexure. See Table 5 for a summary of the 4
elastic analysis. A FORTRAN computer code BLOCKWALLS was developed to analyze the CMU walls for the effects of external and seismic loads. This computer program, which was described in detail in Reference 1, analyzes valls as simplified three degree of freedom beam models. Use of a three degree of freedom model was verified by comparison of representative results with solutions from a nine degree of freedon model. This comparison shows excellent correlation between results from the three and nine degree of freedom models.
Seismic response of the walls is determined by the modal analysis technique used in conjunction with the response spectrum method.
Final inertia loads are based on dynamic response of wall section properties (effective moment of inertis) obtained by an iterative 11
v
-_y L
I r
solution technique. A convergence criteria verifies that the i assumed section properties result in similar inertial loading for i
two successive iterations.
The analysis is conducted by selecting the most severe vertical wall strip, which is limited in width to three times the nominal wall thickness (3t). Depending on support conditions, the top of the wall is modelled as either free or pinned. A pinned boundary condition is considered at the base of the wall except in those cases where the top is free. In this case, the bottom is con- l sidered fixed to satisfy stability requirements in the analysis.
All external loads within the 3t strip, as well as portions of wall and attached external loads not otherwise supported in the vertical direction but outside the 3e strip, are imposed on the i selected wall strip. However, the contributing stiffness and load carrying capability from adjacent wall areas outside this strip are not considered. Stresses are evaluated using the working stress method of analysis. The calculated stresses are checked against established allowables based on the Uniform Building Code, i
1970 edition. <
3.O _ANA;VSISCONSIDERATIONS 3.1.1 Input Time History As previously indicated, a modified Helena E-W component time history was used to excite the various buildings, which under OBE 12 l}
'l and SSE seismic conditions were considered to display 3 and 4% ,
critical viscous damping, respectively. In addition to the conservatisus generated by the enveloping technique employed for
! the floor response spectra discussed in Section 2.3.1, additional conservatisms exist in the input time history. this can be best illustrated by comparison of the floor response spectra from the original analysis to analysis results obtained later (in 1980) using (1) the criteria imposed by Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and (2) a g level increased from the site licensed level of 0.15g to 0.20s. A typical comparison of floor response spectra for these two analyses, shown in Figure 7 demonstrates that even for an increased g level, the Reg. Guide 1.60/1.61 response is less than that obtained from the original analysis. For the specific structure and floor level shown, a reduction to 80% of the 1 original response was realized. Of course, the amount of reduction varies for other structures at different floor levels. A i
detailed review of the two analyses provides the reductions shown
, in Table 6. The analysis using Reg. Guide 1.60/1.61 criteria imposes response from a synthetic time history shown in Figure 8.
- This analysis was not conducted specifically for this issue, nor does it represent a licensing commitment. Rather, these analysis results were requested by the ACRS during licensing activities to demonstrate that the analysis of record provides conservative results even if a 0.23 earthquake were to be considered. In the i
l 13
spirit of honoring the previous interests of the NRC staff and ACRS, the evaluation presented in this report is based on the results of that analysis, imposing a 0.23 earthquake rather than the 0.15g earthquake and using Regulatory Guide 1.60/1.61 criteria. Otherwise all the licensing commitments of seismic analysis originally imposed on this site are maintained.
3.1.2 Modeling Techniques Another area where substantial conservatiras exist in the re-evaluation presented in Reference 1 involves the modeling techniques used to analyse the walls.
Boundary Conditions All previous analyses assumed pinned conditions at all boundaries except for. cantilever conditions which were assumed fixed. However, as indicated in Section 2.2, except in the rare case where the wall is not attached at least partial restraint exists on all sides. Evaluating the actual stiffness of the end connections compared to that of the wall, and conservatively using the minimum expected moment redistribution, at least 20% of the maximum moment at the center of the wall will be transferred through the top and bottom supports. The result is that the effective moment which the wall experiences is reduced to at least 80% of that obtained when assuming pinned boundary conditions. Both top and bottom connections were checked to assure that the existing details will allow adequate transfer of at least 20% of the wall moment.
14 4
3 l
I i
In some instances, due to the dimensions of the wall, it was more appropriate to analyze the wall as a horizontal strip rather than a i l
vertical strip. This approach was used when it was obvious that due to I
the relative stiffness of the horisontal versus vertical spans a majority of the load would be transferred to the adjacent horizontal walls. In a j manner similar to that for the vertical strip analysis, all of the load was conservatively assumed to be transferred in one direction.
Anchorage details at the edges for horizontal spans are sufficient for moment distribution. Borizontal reinforcing steel is either anchored into existing concrete walls by lapping with 3/8 inch diameter by two foot long all-thread bars 2nserted into expansion shields or inte existing CMU walls by lapping with "Z" type rigid steel masonry anchors. The result is that moment distribution is realized such that an actual reduction of 67%
of the original moment is experienced on the section as shown in Figure 10. Maximum moments occur at the connections rather than the mid-span of the wall.
l Plate Action ,
A second conservatism resulting from the strip analysis is the disregard of plate action. More specifically, the width of the strip in these analyses is limited to three times the nominal masonry block thickness.
I To evaluate the conservative nature of this assumption, a finite element analysis using the BSAP Computer code was conducted on a wall panel representing typical dimensions of those found at the Davis-Besse Station i I
(see Figure 11). To maintain a conservative basis for this study, the
! 15
- 1
._ l
panel was considered pinned continuously on top and bottom with both sides free, to minimize the amount of lateral load transfer. The results show that the effective width of a single direction vertical strip similar to that used in the original re-evaluation would have to be increased from 3e to 15e (12 feet) to produce the same moment and to approximately 19e (15 feet) to provide deflections similar to the finite 4
- element model responding to a concentrated load at the center of the
, span. The finite element model had orthotropic properties representing a proper ratio of the vertical to horizontal stiffness of the CMU walls.
Although this study provides no specific reduction factor which can be directly applied to the previous re-evaluation results, it does provide 1
j clues regarding conservatisms in the original analysis. The approach j
used in the original re-evaluation was to locate the 3t strip at the most severely loaded portion of wall, artificially and conservatively forcing the applied loads to be transferred only through the designated strip to wall boundaries. Very often the most severe wall section occurred i
because of a relatively large concentrated load or an adjacent blockout.,-
Although adjacent less loaded portions of wall are available to transfer 4
a portion of this load, its availability was conservatively ignored in the original strip analysis.
Ferhaps a better means of determining the conservatism existing in the strip analysis is to compare the strip analysis results with that of plate analysis results on the same walls. The Davis-Besse Station has 30 walls which were analysed by both strip and plate methods. Many of 16
these walls are not included in the 74 valls under consideration, since the plate analysis previously conducted, using the BSAP program, in accordance with procedures acceptable to the NRC staff as outlined in Reference 1 resulted in the walls being qualified by elastic analysis.
As shown in Table 7. results of those 30 plate analyses range from 3% to 84% of the response dbtained from a strip analysis. It is estimated that the application of a plate analysis creates a reduction of at least 15%
to 20% due solely to the redistribution of loads to all four wall boundaries and an additional reduction of approximate'ly 20%, or greater, due to a more accurate distribution of concentrated loads. Bowever, this estimate has not been confirmed by analysis. Substantial reductions also occur in some cacas by defining a more accurate wall natural frequency, beyond the peak of the floor response spectra. In summary, a plate analysis, although more complex and time consuming than a strip analysis, provides more realistic results with substantially reduced responses.
Effects of Cutouts In addition to other considerations, the plate analysis also considers blockouts in the wall. Therefore, reduction factors imposed on the strip analysis method were obtained from a comparison with plate analyses which included all types of blockouts. The finite element mesh sizes vary with individual walls in an attempt to provide adequate models that produce representative results. Although this modeling technique may not capture l
extremely local stress concentrations, it provides sufficient information f
17 i
I
~
l l
l l
to access the overall behavior of the wall around the periphery of I blockouts to evaluate the adequacy of existing designs. i 3.1.3 Response Spectra Modification As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the vertical strip used for analysis is selected in a manner that maximizes force (mass) and minimizes available stiffness and strength, thereby producing a lower bound wall natural frequency and capacity. Since the actual wall natural frequency may be higher than predicted, and to assure that the seismic loads are conservative, the floor response spectra for masonry walls were modified i
as shown in Figure 9. This modification imposes the peak acceleration levels at all frequencies below the peak frequency. It is reasonable to expect that the wall natural frequency may be higher than predicted by the analytical methods selected since the stiffness denoted by the strip ignores contributing stiffness from the perpendicular direction in plate action. However, accompanying the increased stiffness is increased strength. Thus the potential for substantial overconservatism exists.
If the vertical strip is representative of actual conditions and produces natural frequencies below that of the peak natural frequency, the seismic "g" level force can be substantially overestimated, resulting in a vast underestimaticu of the wall ability to resist a seismic event.
Conversely, in those cases where the actual wall natural frequency is higher than predicted, the modified floor response spectra account for the higher seismic loads, but the accompanying increase in wall strength is not considered. Thus the capacity of the wall may be substantially 18 l
n:
underpredicted. Since the magnitude of these two effects vary from wall to wall a conservative generic reduction factor to account for this phenomenon is not practical. Nonetheless, on a case-by-case condition, additional conservatism exists.
3.1.4 Moment combination An additional conservatism occurs in the BLOCKWALL program related to the treatment of external moments. Specifically, the combination of external moment and maximum seismic inertial moment are combined as an absolute sum regardless of their location on the wall. Thus if a peak external moment is applied at the top of a wall and the peak inertial moment occurs at the bottom of the wall, stresses in the wall are evaluated for a bending moment equal to the absolute sum of the two.
Since conservatissa associated with external moment applications vary from wall to wall, depending upon the magnitude of external moments imposed, a generic factor cannot conservatively be applied to all walls.
Again, on a case by case application this conservatism can be demonstrated.
3.1.5 Material Properties Another area where valid conservatisms can be defined is the comparison ,
of actual to assumed design strength of materials. In accordance with good design practice, the capacity of the masonry walls is controlled by flexure due to the strength of the reinforcing steel. In the original 19
t i
re-evaluation, the minimum specified yield strength of the reinforcing ;
I steel was used as the basis to establich allowable stresses. P i
Vertical Reinforcing Steel l Table 8 presents a summary of yield and tensile strengths taken from certified material test results for all the No. 5 reinforcing bars used for masonry walls at Davis-Besse. The miniaua yield strength of the No.
5 ret,nforcing steel is 50.6 kai as compared to a minimum specified of 40 kai. A minimum yield strength of 50.6 kei, regardless of bar size, was used for all re-evaluations with the exception of CNU wall 5367. CMU wall 5367 is a four inch thick wall with one row of No. 3 reinforcing bars. Certified material test results for No. 3 reinforcing bars, used in masonary wall cos..truction, show a minimum yield strength of 53.6 kai 1 (Reference Table 8A). See section 4.3 for a further discussion of CMU wall 5367.
Since the allowable stresses used in the re-evaluation were based on a proportion of yield strength, the capacity of the walls with No. 5 bars 1 or larger are at least 25% greater than considsred in the calculations.
This increased capacity of the walls can be expressed in terms of reducing the effective loads by a factor of 100/125 = 0.8, due to the linear aspect of the analysis. Therefore, the effect of the increased load capacity due to higher strength reinforcing steel is the same as reducing the loads to 80% of their original level, if the well capacity is assumed to remain at its design level. Similar factors can be calculated for the larger diameter reinforcing bars. The minimum compressive strength, as determined by tests, of the masonry material.
20 m w. sees s v., .. e s e,. e .e s m e w e.e -a, - __ _ _ __ , _ _. . er
- e s I
9 L
masonry mortar and concrete fill is higher than the minimum specified of 2500 pai. A reduction factor to be applied to the loads to account for this increased strength could be calculated. However, since the wall capacity is primarily controlled by flexure, and reinforcing steel continues to control the design capacity even if the actual strength of steel is considered, further consideration of concrete or masonry strength is secondary.
Horizontal Reinforcina Steel Reinforcing steel in the horizontal direction is DUR-0-WALL. DUR-0-WALL joint reinforcing as employed at Davis-Besse is an inherently ductile material. The ductile nature of this material permits the selection of allowable stresses which approach the minimum specified yield stress for extreme loading conditions such as the SSE.
Figures 12 and 13 show stress-strain relationships (from References 3 and
- 4) for cold-drawn wire typical of that used in the manufacture of masonry joint reinforcias (DUF-0-WALL). The tests reported in References 3 and 4 were performed on welded wire fabric (WWF) w: sting the following wire properties:
- a. Flain wirest i
ASTM A 82 Standard Specification for Cold-Drown Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement i t
i
)
21 0
L
- b. Deformed wires:
ASTM A 496 Standard Specification for Deformed Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement The joint reinforcing at Davis-Besse consists of 3/16-inch (0.1875 inch) diameter longitudinal deformed wire with 9 gage (0.148 inch diameter) plain web, both conforming to ASTM A 82. Therefore, the i stress-strain curves for plain and deformed wire (ASTM A 82 and ASTM A 496) shown in Figures 12 and 13 are representative of DUR-0-WALL wire. These curves are based on stress-strain data selected from References 3 and 4 for wire size approximating tha diameter of the 1
longitudinal DUR-0-WALL wire (3/16 or 0.1875 inch). A comparison of the minimum required physical properties for ASTM A 82 and ASTM.A 496
! wire in this size range is shown in Table 9. The requirements are
.similar except for the band tests, which are less rescrictive for the deformed wire (ASTN A 496). A comparison of Figures 12 and 13 however, shows very little difference in stress-strain character-istics for deformed and plain wire. Both sets of curves reflect ,
ductile behavior similar to that for ASTM A615 reinforcing steel.
Masonry and Concrete The results of tests performed in accordance with applicable ASTM standards show the following. The concrete used as fill in the cells of the masonry units had a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi at four days, the masonry mortar had a minimum compressive strength of 3300 poi at seven days, and the assonry units had a minimum 4
22
L compressive strength based on not area of 2900 psi. All the tests results show all of the above described material to have compressive strengths above the minimum specified of 2500 psi.
3.1.6 Conduit Loads A substantial portion of the external loads imposed on the CMU wallsofthedavis-BesseStationoccurastheresultofseismic considerations from conduit supports. Lacking specific information within the time frame required to submit a formal response to IE Bulletin 80-11, it was generally assumed that all conduits were loaded to maximum allowable fill. How.ier, large quantities of conduit are known to have auch less than the maximum allowable fill. To quantify this consideration, a statistical analysis based on a reduced sample size, randomly selected, was conducted. The result (shown in Figure 14) is that if at least four conduits are present, there is a 95% confidence level that the average fill of conduits is no more than 30%, or approximately 75% the assumed conduit load considered in the re-evaluation. If the wall has six conduits, the confidence level increases to 98%
that the average fill does not exceed 30%. As the number of conduits increase to 20, the average fill reduces to no greater than 25% fill resulting in a load of approximately 65% of that considered in the re-evaluation. Although this indicates that
'r additicaal conservatism exists in many of the walls, it was not
! considered in the wall by wall re-evaluation.
23
L l
4.0 Discussion of Review 4.1 Criteria for Review Since the energy balance technique has not been accepted by the NRC to qualify masonry walls but substantial margins were known to exist in the analysis, the alternative to maintain an elastic analysis as provided in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report was adopted as reported herein. Many of the conservatisms identified are generic in nature since groups of walls exbibit the same properties. A simplified but acceptsble approach is to quantify the generic conservatisms in the form of a consson reduction factor applicable to a group of walls.
These reduction factors are then directly applied to the controlling reinforcing steel stresses as determined in the original
.re-evaluation used to prepare Reference 2. If the revised reinforcing steel stress is less than 90% of the minimum specified yield stress the wall is acceptable for the SSE consideration. In general, the SSE load case controls the design. Exceptions will be discussed later.
Conservatisms have been identified in the following areas:
o Seismic loads M) - Input time history 24
L.
o BLOCKWALL analysis M) -
Boundary conditions imposed on the analytical model Use of modified floor response spectra Addition of absolute sum of external moments to wall moments obtained from inertia loads 0%/h -
Use of vertical strip analysis based on 3 times the wall thickness OWI) o Use of minimum specified yield strength for reinforcing steel ao Use of 100% design conduit fill Of these factors, the items identified by a ( ) were utilized in re-evaluating of the 74 walls previously accepted by the energy balance technique.
4.2 Summary of Results Results of the evaluation are presented in Tables 10, 11 and 12. These results show that, with five exceptions, all walls meet the elastic acceptance criteria. Five of these walls are the subject of further I detailed analysis.
25
1 L -
4.3 Review of Specific Walls by Plate Analytical Techniques CMU walls 1038, 2371, 5157, 5197 and 5367 were re-evaluated using the i computer code BSAP. The results are presented in Table 13. Benefit was' made of several items as discussed previously and as outlined below:
. The floor response curves generated for a 3 input of 0.2 in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 were employed.
. The minimum yield strength of the vertical reinforcing steel was assumed to be 50.6 kai for walls 1038, 2371, 5157 and 5197, and 53.6 kai for wall 5367.
. Partial fixity was calculated and input for all boundary conditions.
. CMU wall 237I was walked down again and more precise attachment loads from conduit supports were calculated. ,
. A multiple mode response spectrum analysis was employed in which the results of the multiple modes were combined in a SRSS fashion.
As can be seen, all reinforcing bar and masonry stresses pass elastic acceptance criteria and further demonstrate the inherent conservatissa in a strip versus plate analysis.
, 26
E: '
4.4 Application of Results to OBE The re-evaluation concentrated on the acceptability of the walls to withstand the SSE, in combination with other necessary loads, since this represents the most severe loading environment that will be imposed on the walls. If the walls are shown to withstand the SSE and not damage any adjacent safety-related equipment, safety will be ensured. However, f
in accordance with the criteria included in the SAR, load cases including i
g the OBE are to be considered.
)
As expected, the wall responsa to the OBE is less than that for the SSE.
As discussed in Section 3.2.1, a 1980 seismic analysis was utilized in the re-evaluation. That analysis considered only the effects of an SSE.
Rather than conduct separate analyses, the response from the 0.2g Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 analysis was adjusted downward to g --
simulate the OBE earthquake. Linear scaling of the results is valid since structural response is linearly proportional to the input motion.
These adjustments include corrections for (1) earthquake g level, (2) acceptable damping level of t,he main structure and (3) allowable damping level associated with the masonty3 wall.
Since the re-evaluation was conducted for a 0.23 earthquake and the OBE is specified as'O.08g, a reduction factor 0.4 can be applied to the SSE results.
4 The second factor accounts for the differential peak amplification of the building motion at a given floor level due to the difference in allowable 27 c.. w, , . . _ _ _ . , , . , . , _ . , . _ , _ - - _ . _ - . , , , , , _ _ , _ ,
L:.
=
building damping. The SSE analysis using Regulatory Guide 1.60 input motion considered 7% damping for reinforced concrete structures in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.61. However, only 4% damping is allowed for the OBE. Reference 5 provides peak amplification factors for the control points of the Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra as a function of building damping, reproduced as Figure 15 herein, At control point B (9 H,) the amplification is 2.84 for 4% damping and is 2.27 for 7% damping. Thus tne reduced damping would be expected to increase the peak floor response in the building by a factor of 2.84/2.27 = 1.25. A similar amplification occurs at control point C (2.5 H,), but above 9 H, the ratio of amplification reduces.
The third factor accounts for the change in amplification from a difference of 7% to 4% damping on the masonry wall. This was obtained by comparing the peak response of the 0.2g analysis for 4% and 7% response spectra curves. The results are summarized in Table 14, and indicate a general trend of increased 4% damping amplification with building eleva-tion. With one exception (peak amplification of 1.50) the 4% damping ;
results in a peak amplification of 1.45 over the 7% masonry wall damping consideration.
i
. Combining all of these factors, the OBE response is expected to be 0.4 x 1.25 x 1.45 = 0.725 times the level of the SSE response. This is an upper bound response for the OBE. For example, the inclusion of soil structure interaction would have increased the damping levels of both the OBE and SSE so that the ratio of OBE building response to that from the i
. 28 i
c.
SSE would be reduced. Additionally, the amplification factor provided for the masonry wall damping is valid only at the peak of the spectra.
At all other frequencies the ratio of OBE to SSE will be reduced.
Since the ratio of computed to allowable reinforcing steel stresses for OBE to SSE is 25/36 = 0.694, the possibility exists that in a few cases the OBE may be the cbutrolling load case by a small factor. Comparing the reduction in response to reduction in allowable stresses from OBE to SSE, suggests that in certain cases, the ratio of computed to allowable stresses could be approximately 4-1/2% greater for the OBE case. All 74 CMU walls were examined to determine if OBE stresses exceed allow-ables. With the exception of the five cases where on initial re-evaluation the SSE allowables were exceeded, walls meet the OBE allow-ables. Reanalysis of these five walls as specified in Section 4.3 has I resolved the concern regarding these walls.
1
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The purpose of this study was to review the original elastic-working stress analysis conducted on the subject 74 walls to identify 1
conservatisms in excess of those necessary to meet minimum licensing commitments.
A number of conservatisms were identified and are summarized in Section 4.0. For some of these items, a " generic" lower bound level of conservatism can be easily and clearly identified for a group of walls.
29 b
For other items, a wall-by-wall review is necessary to quantify the amount of conservatism. In keeping with the intent of the study, and for clarity in presentation, only the following generic items were quantified, o Use of a mare current definition of input time history and associated damping factors (Reg. Guides 1.60/1.61).
o More realistic boundary conditions for the vertical and horizontal strip analysis.
o Use of correction factors to simulate plate analysis.
o Use of as-built reinforcing steel strength properties.
In addition, for certain walls correction factors were introduced to update analysis results so that they are consistent with the criteria originally imposed on the response to IE Bulletin 80-11. More specifically, although 4% and 7% critical damping is acceptable for analysis of CMU walls for OBE and SSE conditions respectively, the original re-evaluation results of some walls reported in the response to IE Bulletin 80-11 considered only 2% or 4% damping. Likewise, a correction factor was necessary to correct results of the original analysis using the Helena earthquake time history for OBE to SSE considerations. Contrary to the Regulatory Guide 1.60/1.61 analysis, and normal expectations, the peaks of the OBE floor response spectra in the 30
a b
original seismic analysis were, in general, conservatively equal to or greater than the peaks of the SSE. However, the OBE allowables were lower, so that in those cases the OBE naturally would control. A factor of 0.7 was conservatively applied to adjust the original OBE results to SSE. In this manner, further evaluation would continue on an equal basis. Note that the discussion in Section 4.4 differs in that it evaluates the difference between an OBE and SSE using Regulatory Guide 1.60/1.61 input.
Considering these factors as applicable, for each of the 74 subject walls, all but five walls are acceptable. Further detailed analysis conducted on these walls as reported in Section 4.3 bring these walls I within acceptable stress levels. The result is that all walls in question meet the acceptance criteria as specified in the Toledo Edison response to IE Bulletin 80-11 for elastic-working stress analysis.
31
REFERENCES
- 1. R. P. Crouse Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.
Subject:
Response to Item 2b and expanded response to Item 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1. Toledo Edison, November 4, 1980, Serial No. 1-169.
- 2. Safety Evaluation Report, Masonry Wall Design, IE Bulletin 80-11, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1. Docket No. 50-346, Structural and Geotechnical Branch, Structural Engineering ilection A.
- 3. Investigation of Stress-Strain Characteristics of Plain Wire, Wire Reinforcement Institute, Wiss, Janney, Eisener & Associates (September 1969).
- 4. Investigation of Stress-Strain Characteristics of Plain Wire, Wire Reinforcement Institute, Wiss, Janney, Elstner & Associates (October 1969). .
- 5. Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants, N. M. Newmark, J. A.
Blume and K. K. Espus.
32 .
I
~ ~
h: . . .
TABLE 1 REVIEW OF WALLS EVALUATED BY ENERGY BALANCE PROCEDURL ENERGY BALANCE BY VERTICAL WALL STRIP WALL BEIGHT THICKNESS DUCTILITY fo ELEY. AREA NO. (ft.) (in.) BATIO Fall C0teENTS 545 7 1087 8-0 12 0.71 1.03 2% OBE (1). CANTILEVERED (2) 545 7 1147 8-6 12 0.93 1.03 545 7 1197 15-0 8-8-8(4) 1.18 1.30 .
545 7 1227 18-6 8-8-8 2.04 1.95 4% SSE (3) 545 7 1237 18-6 8-2-8 2.87 3.49 22 OBE 545 7 1267 18-0 8-8-8 2.07 1.97 4% SSE 545 7 1337 16-7 8-8-8 0.95 1.05
~
545 8 1038 18-0 12-24-12 3.0 2.58 545 8 1348 13-6 8-8-8 1.14 1.26 4% SSE 545 8 1428 13-6 8-8-8 0.83 0.91 4% SSE 565 7 2057 10-0 8-2-8 1.08 1.72 2% OBE 565 7 2067 10-0 8-2-8 0.71 1.02 2% OBE 565 7 2087 17-0 12 1.03 1.65 2% OBE 565 7 2107 18-1 12-12-12 1.10 1.22 ~
565 7 2147 18-1 12 1.45 2.21 2% OBE -
565 7 2177 18-1 P-2-8 ,1.08 1.19 565 7 2237 18-1 12-6-12 0.74 0.78 565 7 2247 17-1 12-6-12 0.96 1.07 565 7 2257 18-2 12 1.94 1.88 565 7 2277 18-4 12 0.93 1.48 2% OBE 565 7 2317 15-5 12 1.00 1.11 565 7 2337 10-0 12 1.17 1.28 Cantilevered 565 7 2367 18-2 12 1.76 1.77 565 7 2447 16-10 12 1.48 1.55 565 8 2018 17-0 12 0.99 1.60 585 7 3227 16-10 12 2.19 1.90 585 7 3257 16-11 12 1.16 1.84 2% OBE 585 7 3267 17-0 12 2.61 2.07 585 '7 3307 14-4 12 1.71 2.49 4% OBE 585 7 3367 17-0 12 1.80 1.69 585 7 3407 14-9 12 2.81 2.39 603 7 4917 9-6 8 1.50 1.58 623 7 5017 11-5 8 2.17 2.03 623 7 5107 11-5 12 1.35 1.45 623 7 5127 14-0 8 2.10 1.99 623 7 5147 13-11 12 1.49 1.56 623 7 5157 14-0 8 4.30 3.07 623
- 7 5187 14-0 .
8, 2.56 2.25 623 7 5197 14-0 8 2.48 2.21 623 7 5277 14-0 8 2.88 2.42 643 7 6087 14-2 12 1.36 1.46 585 6 305D 13-0 12 1.36 1.46 585 6 307D 13-1 12 0.79 0.85 585 6 313D 8-6 12 1.30 2.02 2% OBE 576 Intake 2371 13-4 8 3.64 2.79 Struct.
Notes (1) Or181aal evaluation based on OBE case considerin8 2% masonry wall dampin8 (criteria allows 41).
(2) Or181asi evaluation considers wall section as a cantilevered beam with bottom support fixed and top free.
(3) OriSinal evaluation based on SSE case considerint 41 masonry wall dampin8 (criteria allows 7%).
(4) 8-8-8 indicates multiple wythe well with outside 8" reinforced masonry units with center 8" concrete fill.
k
, L. ._ . .
l .
TABLE 2 REVIEW OF WALLS EVALUATED BY ENERGY BALANCE PROCEDURE ENERGY BALANCE BY HORIZONTAL STRIP WALL SPAN TRICKNESS DUCTILITY fe ELEV. AREA NO. (ft.) (in.) RATIO Fall COMMENTS 545 7 1157 5-0 8-8-8(4) 0.83 0.91 565 7 2077 9-0 *12 1.17 1.29 565 7 2167 7-0 8-5-8 1.98 1.91 ,
? 565 7 2227 7-4 8-8-8 1.05- 1.17 S
565 7 2267 6-2 12 1.10 1.22
< 565 7 2427 8-5 8 0.97 1.08 585 7 3167 4-6 12 1.03 1.14
- 585 7 3177 11-10 12 0.98 1.08 4 585 7 3187 3-3 12 1.07 1.15 585 7 3347 14-5 12 0.86 0.94 585 7 3397 8-4 12 2.35 3.33 2% OBE (1) 585 7 3417 6-5 12 2.00 1.86 4% SSE (2) 4016 5-4 12 0.77 1.28 4% OBE l 603 6 603 7 4647 3-4 12 1.40 1.26 CANTILEVERED (3) 623 '7 5367 6-2 4 4.54 3.16 643 7 6107 8-10 12 2.41 3.39 2% OBE Notes (1) Original evaluation based on OBE case considering 2% damping for sesonry wall (criteria allows 4% damping).
(2) Original evaluation based on SSE case considering 4% damping for masonry walls (criteria allows 7% desping).
(3) Original evaluation considers wall section as a cantilever beam with one side fixed and other side free.
(4) 8-8-8 indicates multiple wythe wall with outside 8" reinforced sesonry units with center 8" concrete fill.
e
U' TABLE 3 REVIEW OF WA),LS EVALUATED BY ENERGY BALANCE PROCEDURE ENERGY BALANCE BY TWO WAY ACTION HORIZONTAL VERTICAL WALL HEIGHT SPAN THICKNESS DUCTILITY fs DUCTILITY fe ELEV. AREA NO. (ft.) (ft.) (in.)" RATIO Fall RATIO Fall 585 6 3036 16-5 13-0 12 - 0.62 0.88 1.39 (1) 585 7 3277 15-8 9-0 12 0.95 1.04 - 0.53 585 7 3287 16-10 8-0 12 0.95 1.06 -
0.89 585 7 3297 14-8 9-0 12 2.64 1.61 - 0.84 585 7 3357 14-8 22-10 12 0.98 1.09 - 0.61 603 6 4036 18-5 13-5 12 - 0.52 2.72 2.34 603 6 4046 18-5 10-0 12 - 1.01 0.76 1.16' 603 6 4796 603 6 4886 18-5 13-0 12 1.20 1.31 2.46 2.21 603 6 4896 603 7 4867 8-2 1-8 12 1.40 1.26 - 0.39 585 6 304D 12-8 12-0 12 1.64 2.62 -
0.75 (1) 585 6 311D 23-1 10-3 8-2-8 0.89 1.54 0.85 1.34 (1)
(1) Qualified for OBE 4% Masonry Wall Damping. Remaining walls qualified for SSE 7% masonry wall damping.
9 TABLE 4 MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS . .
MASONRY UNITS: ASTM C-90 GRADE N-1 (MINIMUM SPECIFIED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ON GROSS AREA = 1500 PSI FOR GROUTED UNITS AND 1350 PSI FOR PARTIALLY GROUTED OR HOLLOW UNITS)
MORTAR: ASTM C-476 TYPE PM (MINIMUM SPECIFIED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH = 2500 PSI)
GROUT: ASTM C-476 (MINIMUM SPECIFIED STRENGTH = 2500 PSI)
REINFORCING STEEL: ASTM A615 GRADE 40 (MINIMUM SPECIFIED YIELD STRENGTH =
40000 PSI)
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
VERTICAL REINFORCING 8" BLOCK 12" BLOCK 2f 5 0 16" 2f 5 9 16" HORIZONTAL REINFORCING DUROWALL EXTRA HEAVY TRUSS TYPE PER ASTM A-82 SPACED AT 8" ANCHORAGE DETAILS:
FLOOR: LAPPED WITH ALL-THREAD BARS IN EXPANSION SHIELDS WALLS: LAPPED WITH ALL-THREAD BARS IN EXPANSION SHIELDS CEILINGS: LAPPED WITH ALL-THREAD BARS WELDED TO FLAT PLATE STACKED BOND
- - - . - - - - - - - - , , , . , - - , , - _ , , , ,-n, --
.,n_,,_.. - ,_,,,.----.-.,-w.,-,-, -,._n--- ., -_n,,._w--
- U TABLE 5 ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF MASONRY WALLS METHODOLOGY (UTILIZED COMPUTER PROGRAM BLOCKWALLS) o ANALYSIS CONSIDERS WALL AS 3 MASS BEAM WITH FIXED, PINNED OR FREE END CONDITI0 tis.
o STIFFNESS DEVELOPED FOR BOTH CRACKED AND UNCRACKED TRANSFORMED SECTIONS.
o NATURAL FREQUENCIES AND MODE SHAPES COMPUTED.
o FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA READ INTO PROGRAM.
- USED TO ESTABLISH EXCITED LEVELS FOR EACH MODE o MOMENT AND SHEAR DISTRIBUTION DETERMINED BY SRSS.
o MAXIMUM HOMENTS, SHEAR, MASONRY COMPRESSIVE STRESS AND REINFORCING STEEL STRESS COMPUTED.
o RESULTS COMPARED WITH ALLCWABLES.
e
0 TABLE 6 SEISMIC LOADS REDUCTION FACTORS FOR USE OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 (.2g) TIME HISTORY PEAK AREA DIRECTION NATURAL FREQUENCY REDUCTION FACTOR 6 N-S 6.7 0.8 E-W 6.8 0.6 7 N-S 7.0 0.8 (1)
E-W 5.2 1.0 8 N-S 9.1 0.6 (2)
E-W l'1. 2 0.6 (3)
(1) REDUCTION FACTOR OF 0.85 FOR 1XXX AND 2XXX LEVEL WALLS (2) REDUCTION FACTOR OF 0.9 FOR 1XXX AND 2XXX LEVEL WALLS (3) REDUCTION FACTOR OF 0.8 FOR 1XXX AND 2XXX LEVEL WALLS (4) 7% DAMPING USED FOR REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 ANALYSIS 4
~- - - - , - , - - , , - , , , - -~,7,._ _ , , _ , _ , _ _ _ , _ - _ _ . , , -
u - .. .. . . . .
TABLE 7
- COMPARISON OF PLATE TO STRIP ANALYSIS WALL NO. HEIGHT / WIDTH REDUCTION FACTOR 1068 0.76 0.60 2207 1.27 0.36 2217 1.10 0.06 306D 1.10 0.19 308D 2.44 0.07 309D 2.55 0.08 310D 2.44 0.08 3247 1.49 0.84 3357 0.64 0.79 338D 2.61 0.08 4046 1.85 0.09 4 4137 0.65 0.03 5137 2.32 0.04
- 6037 1.90 0.27 6097 4.54 . 0.27 3016 1.29 0.41 4 3026 2.68 0.41
- 3036 1.27 0.41 3287 2.10 0.30 i 4036 1.38 0.29 2.68 0.42 f80 1.43 0.18 8
4896'
- 5207 0.74 311D 2.26 0.06 3237 1.57 0.72 2297 0.81 0.21 j 4026 1.62 0.60 I
4 i
. -. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _____.,_,.,___,_m__. .
7 e
O o e TABLE 8 MILL TEST REPORTS FOR MASONRY WALLS No. 5 REINft)RCING BARS ASTM YIELD TENSILE QUANTITY OF STEEL SPECIFICATION (KSI) (KSI) REPRESENTED (TONS)
A-615 Grade 40 70.0 113.2 41.9 A-615 Grade 40 50.6 79.7 41.9 A-615 Grade 40 51.0 80.0 15.6 A-615 Grade 40 54.5 86.5 19.8 A-615 Grade 40 56.8 88.4 20.3 A-615 Grade 40 55.5 90.6 20.9 A-615 Grade 40 55.5 87.1 10.4 ,
A-615 Grade 40 54.2 88.4 41.7 A-615 Grade 40 .51.0, 76.1 31.3 56.8 88.4 31.3 A-615 Grade 40 275.1 TONS total
l TABLE 8A MILL TEST REPORTS FOR MASONRY WALLS No. 3 REINFORCING BARS
- ASTM YIELD TENSILE QUkNTITYOFSTEEL SPECIFICATION (KSI) (KSI) REPRESENTED (TONS)
A-615 Crada 40 53.6 81.6 0.3 1
A-615 Grade 40 $3.6 81.6 0.9 TOTAT. U TONS
- y y TABLE 9 ,,
COMPARISON OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR ASTM A 82, AND ASTM A 496 WIRE Plain Wire Deformed Wire ASM A 82 ASW A 496 Minimum Strength (ksi)
Genersi Yield 70 75 Ultimate 80 85 Welded Wire Fabric Yield 65 II 70 75 II) 80 Ultimate Bend Test Requirements Bend Angle 180 degrees 90 degrees Pin diameter one wire Two wire diameter (2) diameters I3)
(I' Wire eine W1.2 (0.124 inch diameter) and larger (2) Wire size W7 (0.299 inch diameter) and smaller I3I Wire sine D4 (0.276 inch diameter) and smaller
~ . .
(.
TABLE 10 SUI 0tARY
~
VERTICAL STRIP ANALYSIS REDUCTION FACTORS ADJUSTMENT ,
TO MATCH j ACCEPTANCE SEISMIC REDUCED WALL fe SEISMIC CRITERIA TIME BOUND MAT PLATE fe NO. Ta'11 ORIENT DAMP. SSE RISTORY COND. PROP. ANALYSIS PRODUCT Fall 7
2237 0.78 E - - - .8 .8 - .64 0.50 307D 0.85 N - - .8 .8 .8 - .51 0.43 i 1428 0.91 N .75 - -
.9 .8 - .54 0.49 2067 1.02 N .7 .7 .85 .8 .8 - .29 0.30
, 1087 1.03 N .7 .7 .85 Cant. .8 - .31 0.32 1147 1.03 N - - - .8 .8 - .64 0.66
! 1337 1.05 E - - - .8 .8 - .64 0.67 2247 1.07 E - - -
.8 .8 - .64 0.68 l
2317 1.11 N - - - 78 .8 - .64 0.71 2177 1.19 E - - - .8 .8 - .64 0.76 l
i 2107 1.22 N - - .85 .8 .8 - .54 0.66 j 1348 1.26 E .75 - -
.8 .8 - .48 0.60
- 2337 1.28 N - - .85 Cant. .8 - .68 0.87
- 1197 1.30 E - - -
.8 .8 - .64 0.83 305D 1.46 E - - - .8 .8 - .64 0.93 1 6087 1.46 E - - - .8 .8 - .64 0.93 i
, 2277 1.48 N .7 .7 .85 .8 .8 - .27 0.40 4 2447 1.55 E - - - .8 .8 - .64 0.99
) 5147 1.56 E - - - .8 .8 - .64 1.00 4917 1.58 E - - - .8 .8 0.84 .54 0.84 2018 1.60 N - - .9 .8 .8 - .58 0.93 2087 1.65 N .7 .7 .85 .8 .8 - .29 0.44 0.86 i 3367 1.6' N - - .8 .8 .8 - .51 l 2057 1.12 E .7 .7 - .8 .8 - .29 0.54 1
2367 1.77 E - - - .8 .8 0.84 .54 0.95 3257 1.84 E .7 .7 - .8 .8 - .31 0.57 l
2257 1.88 N - - .85 .8 .8 0.84 .46 0.86 1 3227 1.90 E - -
.97(2) .8 .8 0.84 .52 0.99 1227 1.95 E .75 - - .8 .8 - .48 0.94 1267 1.97 I .75 - - .8 .8 - .48 0.95 5127 1.97 N - - .8- .8 .8 0.84 .43 0.85 t 313D 2.02 N .7 .7 .8 .8 .8 - .25 0.51 5017 2.03 I - -
.93(2) .8 .8 0.84 .50 1.02 i
3267 2.07 N - - .8 .8 .8 0.84 .43 0.89 2147 2.21 N .7 .7 .85 .8 .8 - .29 0.59 I
5197 2.21 E - -
.93(2) .8 .8 0.84 .50 1.10(1)
^
5187 2.25 N - - .8 .8 .8 0.84 .43 0.97 3407 2.39 I - -
.48(2) .8 .8 0.84 .37 0.87 2
5277 2.42 N - -
.79(2) .8 .8 0.84 .42 1.01 3307 2.49 E - .7 - .8 .8 0.84 .38 0.87 1038 2.58 E - - - .8 .8 0.44 .54 1.39(1) 2371 2.79 N - - .8 .8 .8 0.84 .43 1.19(1) i 1237 3.49 W .7 .7 .85 .8 .8 - .27 0.93 I 5157 3.07 N - - .8 .8 .8 0.84 .43 1.32(1)
I i
(1) See Table 13 (2) Reduction based on comparison of floor specific response spectra ,
x y
TABLE 11 SUle(ARY HORIZONTAL STRIP ANALYSIS REDUCTION PACTORS W,,'11STMENT TO MATCH ACCEPTANCE SEISMIC REDUCED WALL fa SEISMIC CRITERIA TIME BOUND MAT PLATE is NO. Ta'11 ORIENT DAMP. SSE HISTORY COND. PROP. ANALYSIS PRODUCT Pall 4106 0.77 E - .7 .6 .7 -
.- .29 0.23 3347 0.86 N - - -
.7 - -
.7 0.60 1157 0.91 E - - - .7 - -
.7 0.64 2427 0.97 E - - -
.7 - - .7 0.68 3177 0.98 E - - - .7 - - .7 0.69 3167 1.03 N - - -
.7 - -
.7 0.72 3187 1.07 N - - -
.7 - -
.7 0.75 2267 1.10 N - - - .7 - -
.7 0.77 2227 1.17 N - - .85 .7 - -
.6 0.70 2077 1.29 E - - - .7 - - .7 0.90 4647 1.40 E - - - .7 - - .7 0.98 2167 1.91 N - - .85 .7 - .84 .5 0.97 3417 2.00 N .75 - -
.7 - .84 .44 0.89 3397 2.35 E .7 .7 -
.7 - -
.34 0.80 5367 3.16 E - - - .7 -
.84 .59 1.99 (1) 6107 3.39 E .7 .7 - .7 -
.84 .29 0.97 (1) See Table 13 g 9 I
l
TABLE 12
SUMMARY
i TWO WAY ANALYSIS REDUCTION FACTORS ADJUSTNINT ..
TO MATCH ACCEPTANCE SEl3NIC REDUCfIvh REDUCED TIME BOUND MAT FOR PLATE fs WALL CRITICAL h SEISMIC CRITERIA NO. DIRECTION Fall ORIENT. DAMP. SSE HISTORY COND. PROP. ANALYSIS PRODUCT Fall 3277 H 1.04 E - - - .8 - - .8 0.83 1
3287 H 1.06 E - - - .8 - - .8 0.85 H 1.09 N - - - .8 - - .8 0.87 3357 7 1.16 E - - .6 .8 - - .48 0.56 4046 1.01 4867 H 1.26 N - - - .8 - - .8 V 1.39 N - - .8 .8 .8 - .51 0.71 3036 H 1.54 N .7 .7 .8 .8 - - .45 0.69 311D 5 1.61 E - - .75 .8 - - .6 0.97 3297 4796 2.21 N - - .8 .8 .8 0.84 .43 0.95 4886 V 4896 2.34 N - - .8 .8 .8 0.84 .43 1.00 4036 V E 2.62 E - .7 .6 .8 - - .34 0.88 304D i
l :
l
e s
o .
TABLE 13
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW OF SPECIFIC WALLS BY PLATE ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES WALL NO. VERTICAL SPAN HORIZONTAL SPAN MAX. REBAR MAX. MASONRY MAX. REBAR MAX. MASONRY STRESS (KSI) STRESS (KSI) STRESS (KSI) STRESS (KSI) 1038 0.15 0.01 2.47 0.01 237I 19.87 0.48 20.79 0.16 5157 1.05 0.09 11.62 0.09 5197 16.47 0.40 10.07 0.08 5367 6.63 0.16 , 38.68 0.36 1 S
L * .
TABLE 14 RATIO OF PEAK ACCELERATION OF OlU WALLS '
SETWEEN 42 AND 72 DAMPING -
AUKILIARY BLDG. NORTH / SOUTH EXCITATION EAST / WEST EXCITATION AREA ELEV. DANPING RATIO DANPING RATIO 4% 7% (34%/s7%) 4% 7% (s4%/37%)
(Feak Accel g's) (Feak Accel s's) 6 585 2.4 1.9 1.26 2.6 2.25 1.16 603 2.9 2.5 1.16 3.0 2.7 1.11 7 545 1.25 1.25 565 0.85 0.67 1.27 0.9 0.6 1.50 585 1.3 0.95 1.37 1.35 0.95 1.42 603 2.05 1.45 1.41 ~
2.15 1.5 1.43 623 2.9 2.05 1.41 3.2 '
2.2 1.45 643 3.8 2.6 1.45 4.2 ' 2.9 1.45 8 545 1.25 1.25 565 0.75 0.58 1.29 0.75 0.58 1.29 9
9 e
~ -
1 2 .
/ $ r
/
J.
7
.. 4
?S < M' ALL.7AREAD DAR ' /
IN ANCHOR . LOC ATA... /
)/ " l l40 .MATCHl. YEA *
. 7dE!NE.5 d
/
.h Foe retup.Su Fics 25 ,p
/ / .
V
/
.8 hw .d
[
B* : # / 4 floor LEVEL v d '
a i
' ca i ,y . g. . .sy. ' '
E9"g PHl LIPS RED HEAD ,. .
SELF D4fLLING ANCMDR ..~
CR APPRoysp a00%.
SE CTION' e FLOOR LEVEL FIGURE 1
- 7: .
- - i-BEAM -
CONT.' COMPN Mthf ' !
SKAANT (TYP) - p D_ _. o I
3.'t . - f MIN
.h/rsursvsim..
! kV . ,
'S5 4 Vh6L, THREAD BAR IN "
't ELEEVE NJT - LOCATE .To -
'T -
- y c c m s t a r u i s w .. . .
- c. . .
-- =
/ $.,,.
s.
e voe use est via n eN N
. i - - ' '
- r. .., .
/' .,
tM ,'
+.y .
t 61CTIOhJ e STEN BEAM -
FIGURE 2 l
b a . .
1
j,<
CS h 14* ALL '7HREAD._ME_ ' -CONC 'Y/ALCOff' COL ~..
IN ANCHOR 9 24" C C - #. 1
.. . t ..
j, . . e. . .. Wo".2lr.PHILUPlb 9EDMAD~
j ,,.,/ / 4 , / / / fp f.g'/ /k / / ' 'if ..
. SELF..pRILLING ArsCHoe DR APPROYED:EQQAC.
- "N
- '~ ,
- , fA. . ,;' . <t ,
/ <, ~
y f A
/ +r.j. ..
.. . . / . ' // . , / Ji i i
- g. . - '
Moerm
- A W
G*-
FOR REINF SEE. Fkin. 25 ,
1 PLAN) *P CONC WAUC."DR COLUMN . _
WJTER5E.CT10KI .
FIGURt3 .
~
f g CORNKIL '.*51AR YERT
'_/ ff // /(p i j /rV/
, '/r: 'we. /k// /T >p- ,- - w._ __M _p4 +. - tc .iY' -
$s.Y i////W,r f///7/*/ - -
. .C Y/
t-
/.
.o .-
3 I
'r,.'y-/ ' '
HEcdMANN MASONRY
- WALL ANCHOR No 172. / ' c; GQ* .
/
t'. TYPE RsGID STu ANCHOR- J 6 :'\Tl 0 l W C. C. .
. / ,e,
, s
- ,e p i- .
702. REIMF SEE F10 TS 3 / \ D ,/
A ll,
A
/ I /
A
' d
,- eos
. it /// / -
u PLAhJ 3.. WAUL" ~ CORNER , ,
- FIGURE 4 .
e
-"'^^" ~ - , , _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/-
~
t 0
e
- . y F
_ 8
.3_
SE gI an .i ,
,/
E
~ .,
- f 5
- .>-7 '
lE- .Jme . .em , * /
w E. ____
4 E .
3 S
. ' , - ~~ )
- 9
- W
-/ - '/
5-a -
w 5
'- 5 m i=
$~~=!' -
.t _rs .
I '
%s b . e s
E e
I5 - . _ , '.
3
\s '\
EE s , \\ .
\\
5 1.84 ,
a-
. O D S S 3 9 9 9 9 (s.3) geo!1yll31333v O
e
r-I,WIS BESSE g 2 - <
tu11LIAftY SUILDlHE _ y y, y SEISNtC le0ELS .
'/ s EL.660-O" E L.659'-3" .
E L.651-3* ,
EL.6 4 T-O" E L.642*-6*
EL.64 i-O' EL.621-0" EL.522'-6" EL621-O* .
~
EL.611-Ef EL6O$0* EL601-O' E L.6 02'-6" ne _,
- EL.5 84-O" /N EL585'-O' (% __ Ki,7 EL5860*
')
Q)
EL576*-O' Ka a .,
EL5671 0* EL56$0*
Es l EL565'-O" '
EL.558 6 1 E L5 4 5'-O" E L54 5'-6 AREA 7 AREA S AREAg ,
FIGURE 6 .
-. . ._ _ .-_-.__.m, _._.-- - - . . . a ._ .. ._____4__.a . _ . _ . . _ = , _ ..__m.___m__, ,
e 4
8 W g Q
- 8
. w .
en i
+ 4 ,e 4 4 4
. . e- .
"* 4 '
$w
$ e p '
f,' l 3
+ x 4 at + + + -
k l l W- e -
b E e . .
- f, E o
+- + #
W,f : [2
- E
- c-
.. 1 4
+
.e o -
g i
gg -
g t
i E ,g,; l -
- =
I l
l
. g*g g
l , t;" I i E
- - . 1. l4 + 4 .s
.. i i
1 5
t: g l . .
l+
I h
I 4 + + .S
- a
- 1+ 1 4 + + e E - l 1 -
c' ; i l .
- b. '
I l .
E -
l l 5 l 4 + + *M
. !+ 4 i I I i i 1 .
11V 3 d _
sisnVNv 1VN191NO JO % 08 _
1
. _ . . _ , _ . . - - . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . , _ . - - _ _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . - . . . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ . . . . _ . -
' **'M W W e
% 6 D 9
~'
R. 6.1.60 TIE .HISTORY e
9 G
) '9 I
t._ -
a r 7 f
- 77. \A A
.2
&404X79[H1 o .
20 30 40 60 100,0 A A 1.0 2 3 4 6 6 ICD Q1 .2, - .3 A FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE 8 l
I
~
g a 6 9 l
, I e '
%a .
g{, -
asm '
a g
.a -
- u. h t 1 t -
\
\
t
\ -
t
~
5 '
5 ,a.
4
,e 6
WALL MODELING TECHNIQUES
~'
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS -
MOMENT MOMENT MOMENT 3 84 g -7 0*/.(1)
_ 100 % _ 20kg _ 80%_ _ 6 7 /. _g - 3 3 */. ( 2 )
MOMENT -MOMENT MOMEN1 EVALUATION MODEL VERTICAL STRIP HORIZONTAL STRIP
- -Q )
V -
ACTUAL CONDITION $
FIGURE 10 (1) Anchorage is two 3/4." 9 inserts with two 3/8" 9 all-thread rods lapped with each layer of Dur-o-wall.
(2) Anchorage is one "3" type rigid steel masonry anchor lapped with each layer of Dur-o-wall.
m ,2 s O
. EFFECTIVE WIDTH OF VERTICAL STRIP -
I I
I i
l l l -
1 .
1 IH O RE.*"O I VERT. .
l 1-l .
<N l l
l s i l l 's
- I s I l l i s, I l s l l l 's
- 8 l l s N =
l l sl o I
I
-4 l
1 I i 1
I l l
I I
- r. I e'o= l l
l e I
I EFFECTIVE WIDTH OF ONE WAY VERTICAL STRIP TO PROVIDE SAME'-
l DEFLECTION = 15'-0" EFFECTIVE WIDTH OFcONE WAY VERTICAL STRIP TO PROVIDE SAME MDENT
= 12'-0" ~
FIGURE 11
l
.e - -
. m 4
- a. su s * < .
. 388 -
t
- * === ..
- 5 i
=
I,
=
j':11 i
x
\ w 5
-: E E -
. g ,
5 .:. .
. .e;- .
3 5
. ~
= -
E I e
=
,8 m
g . t
. g=
-a y ,
i 1;
w ;
. Jm*a :
- l m
s
- i t
- 5 5 8 3 ,
2 ISM - $53ES
L -
- s. ...
S . -; .
m
" == E
= I3g=EE -E--- .' - E
, Re n
, g g .. - ,
, w.3 E
JE" . -
. g m
~I g.
E.k! - -
s .
. ng C
11 .
i 8 n C
=
E -.
- 5 -
M wm
, 5U i- ' l I- ^
i -
t e B - S S S E
. ,- ISM - 553115 -
I
i
, s .
CONDUIT SUPPORT LOADS
~
AVERAGE FILL PERCENTAGES h
41 4o -
0 25 -
985 RELIABILITY t ,
so - -
u 8
^
d 25 -
[ 1 h
W L 951 RELIABILITY 20 -
15 -
1 I
t 10 , i , i , i , i , n . t . I . t . I - I .
10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 15 20 l
l IAIPSER OF CONDUITS
. . . . - - - \
FIGURE 14
.l4
i ...
' \T \
g 8
\ '
7 ~
6 . 3 3 3 .
~
!" \ \
5 '
, \ \ \
- 3 =
g 8 - -
\
, \ i l
t a
8
\
\ \ \
.( O.0
\
. 1I i ) '
Q7
\ \ \
O.6 0.5 .
\ \ ,
\,
0,4
. ' k -
k -
i l
'D Bk C\
b ,
1 2 3 4 5 6 ,
i ATMLIFICATION FACTOR
~
.._ AU.PLIFICATION FACTORS AT CONTROL FREQUENCIES FO.R ,
DESIGN SPECTRUM '
FIGURE 15 m
_ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - -