ML20148C025

Responds to NRC 781011-13 Questions Re Supplemental Structural Evaluation of Control Bldg,Particularly Shear Wall Capacity.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20148C025
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	10/13/1978
From:	Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
References
TAC-07551, TAC-08348, TAC-7551, TAC-8348, NUDOCS 7811010075
Download: ML20148C025 (17)

Text

. . . = - .- . . _ - _ . -

y.

4 7 NRC PUiC o

.x

[ q h  :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

g .

j NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION sNy

=

D h

! BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD w ,

i: In the Matter of )

) Docket 50-344 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )

et a1 ) (Control Building Proceeding)

)

l (Trojan Nuclear Plant) )

} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

4 j 1 hereby certify that on October 13, 1978, Licensee's letter to Director j

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, transmitting clarifications in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff questions of October 11 th rough 13, 1978, has been served upon the persons listed below by delivery to a messenger for service or by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail with proper postage affixed for first class mail.

t j

1 l Marshall E. Miller, Esq. , Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Wa shingt on , D. . 20555 1

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal '

Division of Engineering, Board 1

Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C. 20555

! St illwater, Oklahoma 74074

' Robert M. Johnson, Esq. l Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Assistant Attorney General 1 1

1229 - 41st Street 100 State Office Building Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Salem, Oregon 97310

, Joseph R. Cray, Esq. Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

1 Counsel for NRC Staff Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad

) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1214 l Washington, D. C. 20555 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W.-

Washington, D. C. 20036

, Columbia County Courthouse

_ Law Library Mr. Eugene Rosolie  !

Circuit Court Room Coalition for Safe Pcwer #

St. 11elens, Oregon 97051 215 S. E. 9th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97214 Ms. Nina Bell

.632 S. E. 18th Street Mr. Stephen M. Willingham Portland, Oregon 97214 555 N. Tomahawk Drive I Portland, Oregon 97217

___ _ _ L- . __ , _ __ _. _ ._. - _ __

( ]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Columbia Environmental Council John H. Socolofsky, Esq.

P. O. Box 611 Assistant Attorney General St. Helens, Oregou 97051 Of Attorneys for the State of Oregon 100 State Of fice Building Mr. John A. Kullberg Salem, Oregon 97310 Route 1, Box 250Q Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 Cregory Kafoury, Esq.

Counsel for Columbia Environmental Mr. David B. McCoy Council 348 Hussey Lane 202 Oregon Pioneer Building Crants Pass, Oregon 97526 320 S. W. Stark Portland, Oregon 97204 Ms. C. Cail Parson P. O. Box 2992 William Kinsey, Esq.

Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Bonneville Power Administration P. O. Box 3621 Docketing and Service Section Portland, Oregon 97208 Of fice of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Harold Laursen l Washington, D. C. 20555 1520 N. W. 13th l Corvallis, Oregon 97330

)

l l

w 1

\

4 I

a Ronald W. J on Corporate A torney Portland Gcneral Electric Company Dated: Oc tobe r 13, 1978

NDJ NRr' 14 a4 /

y A l'O lf T I. A N I) Gl:N iilf A I.151.11CTif l0 CO hi l% N Y . ,(d ' '

(%

ia s.w.s ALMON STREE T PORTLAND, OREOON 972O4

{*

g g

. ,iaiu e o c o o n w m , a

% ,, ff _g

,, , a ..

• jijs October 13, 1978 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations ATTN: Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Sir:

j Attached are responses to the NRC Staff questions of October 11 through 13, 1978, based on information provided by Bechtel in confirmation of telephone conversations between Portland General Electric Company, Bechtel and the NRC Staff.

Th is letter and attachments are being served on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and all parties to the Control Building Hearings.

S ince re ly ,

l 1

, .}

L.+ 6m g, C. Goodwin, Jr.

Assistant Vice President Thermal Plant Operation and Mainteriance CC/LWE/crw/jwTIA29

l i

i J

" ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR CLARIPICATION TO SUBMITTALS ENTITLED T

TROJ AN CONTROL BUILDING SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 ,

I and 1

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j DATED AUGUST 30, 1978

September 20, 1970

ADDITIONAL REQUEST $ 1 i

i

" Explain the ef fect of vertical earthquake motion on the shear l capacity of the major shear walls. Include the. load-carrying j effects of the structural steel framing.

l fi CLARIFICATION $1 j

~

The last two columns of the attached tables 1(a) and 1(b) dem-onstrate that the ef fect of vertical earthquake motion on the shear capacity of the major shear walls does not significantly reduce their capacities. The effect of the vertical earth-quake on the shear capacity of the major shear walls is taken into account through a reduction in the dead load. Consider-ing the ver tical stiffness of the Control Building, the aver-age vertical acceleration would be approximately 0.2g, which in effect reduces the dead load by 20%. To provide further conservatism in the assessment of shear capacities when con-sidering vertical earthquake motion, the dead load used to de-termine the capacities shown in the column " Alternate Capac-

) ities" includes only 80% of direct load considering the weight of the walls and one-half of the equipment weight, but no con-tribution from the slabs. The weight of the slabs was conser-vatively acsumed to be completely carried by the steel frame.

Even with the 20% reduction in the dead load and reducing the

' dead load to only the direct dead load, the capacities have not been significantly reduced from the more realistic capac1-ties given in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of the "Supp4emental Struc-tural Evaluation" dated September 1978. Information on the dead load contribution is given in Table 1(c). As can be seen by comparing these values with those in Tables 5-1 through

. 5-4, 7-7, and 7-8, the capacities are greater than the loads for the walls listed in Table 1(c) excluding all dead load contributions.

_1_

l Table 1(a) Force-Capacity Comparison, N-S And E-W Motion Elevation 45'-61', Fixed Base. SSE = 0.25g, s = 5% (Refer To Tables 5-1 Through 5-4 Of The

" Trojan Control Building Supplemental Structural Evaluation. September 1978")-

ALTERNATE ALTERNATE WALL SHEAR FORCE CAPACITY CAPACITY

~ CAPACITY CAPACITY '

NUMBER (XIPS) (XIPS) 'L0A0 (XIPS) ** LOAD 1 4110 5390 1.31 4980 1.21 2 780 470 .60* 470 .60*

3 560 490 .88* 490 .88*

4 2240 3810 1.70 3080 1.38 m5 5 3050 5970 1.96 5350 1.75

$E 6 340 110 .32* 11 0 .32*

mm d4 7 540 420 .78* 420 .78* I 8 290 60 .21* 60 _.21*

[=11910 {=16720 1.40 {=14960 1.26 i 9 1700 4730 2.78 4220 2.48 10 1680 5560 3.31 5050 3.01 11 510 240 .47* 240 .47*  !

12 320 420 1.31 420 1.31 i mE

+ 13 4620 9350 2.02 8600 1.86 Nh 14 450 170 .38* 170 . 38

• 15 870 760 .87* 7 60 a 87*

1

[=10150 [=21230 2.09 [ = 19470 1.92

• cannot Ratiosexceed less than 1.0 indicate the load is fictitious since the load the capacity. I

• • Alternate capacity evaluation is made only for walls governed by the basic critoria.

~

l

Table 1(b) Force-Capacity Comparison, N-S And E-W Motion Elevation 61'-77', Fixed Base, SSE = 0.259, 8 = 5% (Refer To Tables 5-1 Through 5-4 Of The

" Trojan Control Building Supplemental Structural Evaluation, September 1978")

ALTEPflATE ALTERNATE WALL SHEAR FORCE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY

^

NUMBER (KIPS) (KIPS) LOAD ~ ( KI PS )** LOAD 1 3910 5100 1.30 5100 1.30 2 560 190 .34* 1 90 .34*

x 3 3140 4520 1.44 4170 1.33 mo M

ax 4 1910 2240 1.17 2240 1.17 TT zz 5 470 650 1.38 650 1.38 6 600 750 1.25 7 50 1.25

[=10590 [-13450 1.27 {=13100 1.24 7 1670 4440 2.66 4440 2.66 8 3560 9340 2.62 8770 2.46 9 790 2820 3.57 2320 2.94 d

10 350 1380 3. 94 1380 3.94 5E 11 950 2390 2.52 2390 2.52 m :=

EE 12 1310 2390 1.82 2390 1.82

[=8630 [=22760 2.64 [=21690 2.51

• Ratios less than 1.0 indicate the load is fictitious since the load cannot exceed the capacity.

• • Alternate capacity evaluation is made only for walls governed by the basic criteria.

l j

Table 1(c) Alternate Capacity Calculation

. , . - - ~ . . . -_

ALTERNATE WALL Wj 0.25W Y W2 = 0.8W) V) 2 TOTAL 1 1227 982 4773 245 4978 m 4 2081.1 1665 2672 416 3088

. 5 927 742 5165 185 5350 y . . . . . . ._._._

~

$ 9 1774 1419 3868 355 4223 1 673 d] 10 841 4881 168 5049 13 2%8 2374 8010 594 8604 I r,. 3 1530 1224 3864 306 4170 y -

= _ _ = _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6; 8 1966 1573 8381 393 8774 y

d 9 565 452 2207 113 2320 Where: W; = direct dead load Y1 = 0.75VSchneider Vtotal

• V1 + 0.25W2 l

l

it J

i ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL REQUEST j FOR CLARIPICATION_TO SUBMITTALS_ ENTITLED n TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING

! SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 and RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

DATED AUGUST 30, 1978 September 20, 1978 ADDITIONAL REQ _UEST # 2 _ __

"As additional information to Clarification No. 2 2 ;, provide the ratio of the dowel capacity to the repor ted shear wall:

' capacity for the lower two stories of the western portion of the complex."

h

{ CLARIFICAtlON $2 '

P The' dowel capacities corresponding to each wall for the lower two stories of the western por tion of the complex are summar-azed in tables 2(a) and 2(b) attached.

N 1

4 e r

,' i

-(.

I:

4 Table 2(a) Dowel Capacity comparison (Elevation 45'-61')

CAPACITY (KIPS)

WALL V V REPORTED DOWEL V REPORTED 1 5390 3390 0.63 2 470 1220 2.60 3 490 1480 3.02 4 3810 4070 1.07 5 5970 6260 1.05 cs y 6 110 220 2.00 7' 420 420 1.00

'? 8 60 165 2.76-x 16720 17225 l

9 4730 8880 1.88 10 5560 3130 0.57 11 240 510 2.13 x

2 12 420 670 1.60 t3 0- 13 9370 8065 0.86 E

x 14 170 270 1.59 I tb l 15 760 782 1.03 )

21230 22307

.y i M 6 l q_-

i

l Table 2(b) Dowel Capacity Comparison (Elevation 61 '-77')

CAPACITY (KIPS) y 00WEL WALL V Y Y REPORTED DOWEL REPORTED

! 1 5100 3830 0.75

! 2 190 1020 5.37 z 3 4520 4790 1.06 T

O )

E 4 2240 2010 0.90 W

g 5 650 960 1.48 2 6 750 _1020 1.36 '

13450 13630 7 4440 8070 1.82 8 9340 9310 0.997 g ..

l g, 9 2820 4920 1.74 a

10 1380 1885 1.36 y 11 2390 8021 3.36 w

12 2390 E 0.87 22760 34281 1 J

e 1

1 i

g-

_ _,_ , , _ , . - _ - . . - - - - - - - -- *-'-~ ""**~ " ' ' '

ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR CLARIPICATI_ON_TO SUBMITTALS ENTITLED TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 1

and RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS PROM THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 30, 1978 September 20, 1978 l I

ADDITIONAL __ REQUEST #3

" Provide further information to the information included in Clarification No. 12 on the ef fects of ductility ratio and frequency shift on the Control Building floor response spectra i

based on the information presented in Appendix D. Consider these effects on the safety-related equipment, cable trays, and Class 1 piping systems in the Control Building."

C LA RI F I C A T_I_ON #3 in order to arrive at an extreme upper bound estimate of the ductility ratio and possible frequency shift due to the Con-trol Building inelastic behavior, the information presented in Appe nd ix D for estimating an upper bound displacement of the most highly stressed wall (wall 1) is used. Based on the shear ntress-strain curve for_the composite wall shown in Fig- j ure D-1, an idealized elasto-(perfectly)-plastic shear stress-  !

strain curve is developed. This curve has as its " yielding"  !

stress a value of 150 poi, which is a conservative value de-rived from the concrete " cracking" shear stress (280 psi) in ("

the PCA tests, and the block " cracking" shear stress (100 psi) in the Berkeley tests, as shown in Figure D-1. The elastic modulus of this idealized elasto-plastic curve is the lower bound shear modulus of 0.45 x 10 6 psi as reported in Appendix D. Based on this idealized elasto-plastic shear stress-strain l curve, the " yield" displacement and the total elasto-plastic l displacement on the top of wall 1 in the N-S direction sub-

{'

jected to the SSE load can be calculated using the response energy conservation technique as follows:

(-

I i

El. 93'-117': H = 288". V = 60 psi

=

0.4 106 (288) = 0 00 6

j j

El.77'-9)': H = 192", v = 115 psi 6

2 *~0.4 x og (192) = 0.049" "

El._ 61'-77': H = 192", v = 135 psi 6

3 " 0.4 05 092) = 0.058" El. 45'_61': H = 192", v a 215 psi 6y= 0.457F 150 4 (192), = 0.064" 215 1 1 6 ep 4 = [g,.43pp + .(215-150)2 0.45x106 l )Ii .T55)1(192) = 0.098" l Total elasto-plastic displacement:

6'E = a j+6 2+63+64ep = 0.04+0.049+0.058+0.098 = 0.245" Total " yielding" displacernent:

Y a = 6 3+63+6 3 +6{ = 0.04 +0.049+0.0s8+0.064 = 0. 211" I

Thus, the ductility ratio a for the N-S direction is given by:

p 6@ ,0.24S.

y 0. 2T) = 1.16 If, instead of 4

150 psi, the idealized elasto-plastic curve assunies the extrane lower bound block cracking shear. stress of 100 psi as its yielding stress, then the calculations for ductility ratio become,as follows:

9*- ,

.1

1 I'

. El. 93'-117': H 'a 288", y = 60 psi

6) = '0'."4-(288) = 0.04" i

El . - 77'-93' : H = 192", y = 115 psi 6{=0,510, 2) = 0.043" 0

• I O. 5 10b +

x0 )(1 )](192) = 0.049" El. 61'-77': H = 192", v = 135 psi j'O.45 06 (192) = 0.043" e 135 * (135 100)2 1 63p = 1.45x106 0 0.4Sx10u ( )(TUU)](192) = 0.06" El. 45'-61':

H = 192", v = 215 psi

= 0.043" 6{=0.4 Dr (

215 (215-100)2 1 1 op " ID3 M + 0.45x10' 4 (Y)Il00)](192) = 0.12" t

Total elasto-plastic displacement:

0 e 1 6'P=6(6p+6cp43 p = 0.04+0. 04 9+0.06+0.12 = 0. 269"

! Total "yieldin9" displacement:

6Y = 6,+6{+6{+6{ = 0.04+0.043(3) = 0.169" Thus, the ductility ratio for the N-S direction in this case is:

g , 6*P , 0.269 = 1.59 gy 0.169

- 10 _

o! !'-

r-ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION TO SUBMITTALS ENTITLED TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING SCPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 and RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM TH8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 30, 1978 September 20, 1978 l

ARIFICATION i _3 , con _tinued ~~

Using an uncracked elastic shear modulus of 1.59 x 10 6 psi and the effective wall thickness, the fundamental N-S mode fre-quency determined from the STARDYNE analysis is 6.8 cps. To ,

l correspond to the effective thickness used in the STARDYNE anglysis, thelowerboungshearmodulusforwall1of0.45x 10 psi becomes 0.6 x 10 psi after adjustment by the 9# ""~

to-effective thickness ratio of 4/3. If the 0.6 x 106 psi l shear modulus is assumed to apply throughout the entire struc-tural complex and this value is used in the STARDYNE analysis, the STARDYNE fundamental N-S fr i duced by a f actor of (0.6/1.59)gquency a 0.61, of giving 6.8 cpsa would f requency be re-of 4.2 cps.

A6suming that the extreme lower bound ductility ratio for the

most highly stressed wall 1, p = 1.59, applies to the entire structural complex, the freg reduced-by a factor of 1/(p)gency of 4.2 cps would further be= 1/(1. 59 )q = 0i quency of 3.3 cps. This is the extreme lower frequency to which the STARDYNE fundamental N-S frequency would shif t as a result of the ine]rstic behavi9r of the Control Building.

l Corresponding to the extreme lower bound f requency of 3.3 cps, i

j the' Control Duilding N-S pseudo-elastic floor response spectre would have a widened floor spectral peak covering the frequen-i l

cyrangeof3.0.to 1/(2p - 1) 3.6 cps, and a spectral peak amplitude of l

= 0.68 or the correcponding STARDYNE elastic 1 floor spectral peak amplitude. The original Control Building N-S floor response spectra have a widened peak covering the fre-uuency range of 4.2 to 6.0 cps. Thus, the extreme lower bound. pseudo-elastic floor spectral poak fr"quency band ex-tends 1.2~eps.below the original floor spectral peak frequency band by r - - , - - - - - - - - , , - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

1 -

ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION TO SUBMITTALS ENTITLED TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING

, SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 and RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 30, 1970 September 20, 1978

_CLARIVICATION # 3, continued The above information does not change the response previously i offered in Question 3(b) or in Clarification No. 18 with re- l spect to the effect on equipment, components, piping, and cable trays (including supports).

l i

l l

v f

A

\

.l i i

I

'g.

a ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL REQUEST

_FOR CLARIFICATION TO SUBMITTALS. ENTITLED TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING '

SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 l and RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i DATED AUGUST 30, 1978 '

September 20, 1978 l

AID _DITIONAL HEQUEST # ~~ 4 ___

" Discuss the influence of the vertical earthquake on the co-ef ficients of f r iction calculated in Clarification No. 22."

CLARIFICATION i 4 _

When the influence of the vertical earthquake is considered, the coef ficient of friction that is needed to resist the load, as explained in Clarification No. 2 2, a t 01 4 5 '-61' changes from 0.6 to 0.73. At el 61'-77', the previous coefficient of 0.17 should be corrected to 0.06. With the influence of the vortical earthquake incorporated, the lat er coefficient be-comes 0.08.

l l

, l

- l 1

1 ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL REQUEST  ;

FOR CLARIFICATION TO SUBMITTALS ENTITLED TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 j and RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 30, 1978 September 20, 1978 i

ADDITIONAL REOUEST #5 , )

Please provide additional data on results of the recent Berkeley tests performed en the six squat wall specimens.

CLARIFICATION #5 l

Test data for the six squat wall specimens recently tested at Berkeley l are summarized as follows: l (Calculated) l ph PV V V'n Test vu I Specimen _ (%) (%) u(Test psi) (psi) (psi) l IICB L-12-1 0 0.28 328 184 264*

llCBL-12-2 0.05 0.28 347 199 268* ,

llCBL-12-3 0.10 0.28 412 237 277* l 0.15 IICBL-12-4 0.28 358 218 273 ilCBL 5 0.20 0.28 374 215 272 IICBL-12-6 0.28 0.28 429 234 277 l l

( l vy = 0.75 (348 - 113 n7- ) + Th 4 l l

NOTE: For all specimens, il/W = 0. 5,11 = 40", W = 80" and t = 7-5/8" '

1

• Since pn <0.0013 the basic criteria does not apply (150 psi limit applicable).

l l

l l

l i

l l

l l