ML20149L495

Safety Evaluation Accepting Util Implementation of IE Bulletin 80-11,Items 2(b) & 3

ML20149L495
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	09/21/1984
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML111660658	List: ML20149L495
References
IEB-80-11, TAC-42864, NUDOCS 8802240254
Download: ML20149L495 (1)

Text

'

. .i <.

s.

ENCLOSURE ,

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT .

MASONRY WALL DESIGN, IE BULLETIN 80-11 KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-305-STRUCTURAL AND GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SECTION A 4 The findings rcported in this Safety Evaluation Report (SER) are based on the attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER), Attachment 1, prepared by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as a contractor to NRC. This TER contains the details of construction techniques used, technical information reviewed, acceptance criteria, and technical findings with respect to masonry wall construction at Kewaunee Plant. The staff has reviewed this TER and concurs with its technical findings. The following is our sur, mary of the major technical findings: ,

i

. 1. As indicated in Section 3.-1 of the TER, the licensee's criteria,

~

as used in the re-evaluation of the, masonry walls at Kewaunee Plant, comply with. the staff acceptance criteria.

l

2. As all sixteen safety-related masonry walls at Rewaunee Plant are qualified by the working stress approach, without exceeding the allowable stresses, no modifications have been necessary to l these walls. I Based on the above findings, the staff concludes that the Items 2(b) and 3 of the IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented at Kewaunee and that there'is a reasonable assurance that the safety-related masonry walls at Kewaunee will withstand the specified design load conditions without impairment of (a) wall integrity or (b) the performance of the required safety functions.

I l

8802240254 840921 DR ADUCK O y5 i

.. . _. .- -. _ _ . - - - . _ - _ _ ._ - _ _ - . -, .. , . 1

_Ath.d e d i TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT .

MASONRY WALL DESIGN WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT  ;

NRC DOCKET NO. 50-305 FRC PROJECT C5506

, NRC TAC NO. 42864 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC43-81-t30 FRC TASK 260 l l

l l

Prepared by Franklin Research Center Author: A. K. Le, V. N. Con 20th and Race Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con  !

\

Prepared for Nuclear Re'gulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NPC Engineer: N. C. Chokshi August 15, 1984 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, expressed or impiled, or assumes any legal llability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any Information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not Infringe privately owned rights.

p_.

e6 4 012. C O C A _2d~

sh

. . . . Franklin Research Center A DMslon of The Franklin Institute Th. s nen rr. nasa P.,$<..y. pw... p.. istes tais) 44a.iooo

l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT MASONRY WALL DESIGN -

l WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NRC DOCKET NO. 50-305 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 42864 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 l NPe CONTRACT NO. NRC 03 81 130 FRC TASK 260 1

Prepared by l

Franklin Research Center Author: A. K. Le, V. N. Con 20th and Race Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con l

Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead N C Engineer: N. C. Chokshi

)

August 15, 1984 I

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 waanty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-  !

ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third l party would not infringe privatr iy owned rights.

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

I!.S.ff N N+rt bW Afh AM PrGeipal Author: Grcup Leader D'epartment Qlrectdr Date: f. /S-f 4 Date: # .15 - f S Date:  ? - l T - 7 4-b%

. . . . Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute The Bengrrun Franen rarm.ey. PMa . Pa 19103 (2151448 lCtN

4 4

TER-C5506-260 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Issue Backgrcond . . . .

.. . . . . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 1 2 REVIEW CRITERIA. . . . . . .. '. . . . . . 3 3 TECHilICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Evaluation of Licensee's Criteria . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Evaluation of Licensee's Approach to Wall Modifications . 11 4 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 APPENDIX A - SGEB CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RSI.ATED MASCNRY WALL EVALUATION (DEVELOPED BY THE STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL '

ENGINEERING BRANCH [SGEB] OF THE hRC) 111

% v-2 ,

\ Li,e Franklin ResearchmC, enter 4 rerw2gnrrramc

f TER-C5506-260 1

l .

i l

i FOREWORD

.i This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Centet under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Of fice of I'uclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The i technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by .

.; the NRC.

a l

i i l

i

]

4 I

i I

1. A v i' kg) Franklin Research Center

. _ _ - - - .

• W d % F~ ee . __

_,______l

TER-C5506-260 -

I,

1. INTRODUCTION .

1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW The purpose of this review is to provide a technical evaluation of licensee responses to IE Bulletin 80-11 (1) with respect to compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) masonry wall c,riteria. In addition, a licensee plans repair work on masonry walls, the planned methods and procedures are to be reviewed for acceptabit.ity.

l.2 GENERIC ISSUE BACKGROUND In the course of conducting inspectionn at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, ,

Portland General Electric Company determined that some concrete masonry walls did not have adequate structural strength. Further investigation indicated that the problem resulted from errors in engineering judgment, a lack of j established procedures and peccedural details, and inadequate design criteria. Because of the implication of similar deficiencies at other l operating plants, the NRC issued IE Bulletin 80-11 on May 8, 1980.

IE Bulletin 80-11 required licensees to identify plant masonry walls and  ;

their intended functions. Licensees were also required to present reevaluation ,

criteria for the masonry walls with the analyses to justify those criteria.

If modifications were proposed, licensees were to state the methods and I

schedules for the modifications.

l

1. 3 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND In response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation provide'd the NRC with documents [2-6] describing the status of masonry walls i at Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant. The information in these documents was '

reviewed, and a request for additional information was sent to the Licensee on February 22, 1983 [7]. The Licensee responded to this request on April 29, j 1983 (8] and January 31, 1984 (9).

i j +

,JS FranMin Research Center i

= % e n . r, - w.. w .

1 2 l TER-C5506-260 -

The Licer.see identified 16 safety-related masonry walls at the Kewaunee -

plant. All 16 valls have been analyzed. However, in response to the NRC list of questions (7), the Licensee has compiled information from five representative walls; the walls are as follows:

1. The walls surrounding the diesel generator day tanks - one for each diesel

2. The walls surrounding the NSSS liquid filter room

3. The wall between the maintenance mat erial storage room and the steam generator blowdown heat exchanger ar ea.

These walls are interior non-load-bearing walls and function as partitions and/or fire walls. Attachments to the walls are relatively few and impart negligible loads to the walls.

All safety-related walls at the Kewaunee plant are of single-wythe construction and reinforced both vertically and horizontally. The materials used in construction are as follows:

Masonry Units - Lightweight, ASTM C-90, Grade U-l Mortar and Grout - ASTM C-270, Type S Hor izontal Reinforcement - Extra-heavy Dur-O-Wal s' paced at 24 in on center Vertical Reinforcement - ASTM A-615, Grade 60, No. 6 Rebar.

1 l

)

1 A. .

. . Frankhn Research Center a-

l I

i l

TER-C5506-260

2. REVIEW CRITERIA

• The basic documents used for guidance in this review were the criteria developed by the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) of the NRC (attached as Appendix A to this report), the Uniform Building Code [10),

end ACI-531-79 [11].

In general, the materials, analysis, design, construction, and inspection of safety-related masonry structures should conform to the SGEB criteria. For operating plants, the loads and load combinations for qualifying the masonry walls chould conform to the appropriate specifications in the Final Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) for the plant. Allowable stresses are specified in Reference 11, and the appropriate increase factors for abnormal and extreme onvironmental loads are given in the SGEB criteria (Appendix A).

4-h ...J Frankjin Research Center swwan.*,w w.we

c .

TER-C5506-260

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

• This evaluation is based on the Licensee's earlier responses (2-6] and subsequent respense [8, 9) to the request for additional information. The Licensee's criteria (3) were evaluated with regard to design and analysis methods, loads and load combinations, allowable stresses, construction specifications, materials, and relevant test data. The Licensee's response to the questions contained in the request for additional information was also reviewed.

3.1 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S CRITERIA The Licensee's reevaluation of the masonry walls used the following criteria (3):

o The design allowables are based on the 1967 edition of the Uniform Building Code.

o The load combinations considered are the applicable loads in the_ Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The loads acting on the masonry walls are dead weights, minor piping and equipment attachments, and the operating and design earthquake loads, o Walls were modeled as a vertical span beam. Bo'undary conditions were assumed to be simply support, fixed at the bottom and simply supported, or free at the top depending on the construction details at the top or the bottom. Fixity was assumed when reinforcement was doweled into supporting concrete elements. Simple supports were assumed when the walls were supported by steel angles.

o Critical damping values of 0.5% and 1% were used for operating basis earthquake (OBE) and the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), respectively.

o All stress calculations are performed using working stress design.

o The typical analytical procedure is summarized below:

determine wall boundary conditions calculate the wall's fundamental frequency obtain inertial loading from the floor amplified response spectra

( ARS) compare computed stresses with the allowable values in the Uniform

. Building Code, 1967 edition.

~

4 .; .

.. ter

9 TER-C5506-260 .

Other than those areas identified in Section 4, the Licensee's criteria ,

have been reviewed and found to be technically adequate and in compliance with the SGEB criteria. The review of the Licensee's response to the request for additional information follows.

Request 1 With respect to loads and load combinations, the Licensee's submittals

[2-6) mention only that the primary loads imposed on the masonry walls are seismic loads. Indicate the load combinations used in the reevaluation of masonry walls at the Kewaunee plant and justify the difference between these and the load combinations specified for Class I structures in Appendix B, Table B.6-1, of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) .

Resoonse 1 The Licensee indicated that loads and load combination used for the reevaluation of the masonry block walls are the same as those specified in Appendix B, Table B-6.1 of the Kewaunee Nucleer Power Plant FSAR. The masonry walls for the Kewaunee plant are interior partition walls; hence, loads such as tornado, winds, and snow are not applicable loads for the design of these walls. No major equipment or pressure piping is attached to these walls:

hence, jet forces and pipe rupture loads are not applicable. The only loads that influence the design of the walls, therefore, are the self-weights of the walls, minor piping, electrical conduits, boxes attached to these walls, and the operating and design basis earthquake loads.

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

Request 2 Indicate how earthquake loads in three directions were considered in the analysis.

]

._w l

.... Franun Reseen:r. Center i

=> e n, n.we muu.. l

i

-l i

-l TER-C5506-260 .  ;

i Response 2 ,

l The Licensee indicated that floor spectral accelerations due to the

.. north-south component were combined with the accelerations due to the vertical ,

j component of the earthquake, and floor spectral accelerations due to the i!

i cast-west component were combined with the accelerations due to the vertical i

component of the earthquake. The computed stresses for the walls for each direction of earthquake were added by the absolute sum method. A review of i the FSAR indicated that the Licensee's criteria are consistent with the -

Kewaunee FSAR. Therefore, the Licensee's response is satisfactory and in l 4 i compliance with the SGEB criteria.

i Request 3 i The Licensee does not mention tornado or impact loads in any of its j submittals [2-6]. Indicate whether any walls are subject to tornado or  :

i impact effects. If so, provide sample calculations for tornado and j impact analysis.

i -

Response 3

)

, The Licenses referred to Response 1, which indicated that the masonry I

j walls at the Kewaunee plant are interior partition wallis and that loads such l t i j as tornado are therefore not applicable loads for the design of these walls.  !

No major equipment or pressure piping is attachet; on these walls; hence,.the i

]

jet forces and pipe rupture loads are also not applicable.

l

The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.  !

i r I

i Request 4 f

The natural frequencies of masonry walls are subject to uncertainty due r to variations in mass, materials, and other parameters. Indicate how j i '

these uncertainties were accounted for in the evaluation of the walls'

frequencies at the Kewaunee plant.  !

! l t l l

i -

a .

I l

l 1 4m '

W frankhn Research Center

, . , _ . . . _ . *'** R*'" *? ._.- _

- - . . ..- J

TER-C5506-260 F.esponse 4 The Licensee indicated conservatisms in the design of masonry walls. For example, the damping used in the original design was 0.5% and 1% instead of 4%

an:: 7% for OBE and SSE, respectively, as specified by the SGEB criteria.

Moreover, the calculations of the frequency considered only one-way action of the walls and therefore treated the walls as being more flexible than they really are (two-way action). The calculated frequencies for the one-way systems were 10% lower than the values for two-way action. The floor response spectrum curves for the Kewaunee plant show that in the range of the computed frequencies for the walls, the design accelerations have consistently been higher with these assumptions. These conservative assumptions indicated that adequate consideration has been given to these uncertainties.

The Licensee's response is adequate and in compliance with the SGEB criteria.

Request 5 If allowable stresses were increased by 50%, as suggested by Reference 3, justify this increase for masonry shear, since the SGEB criteria (Attachment A) allow an increase of only 30% under abnormal conditions.

If any existing test data are used to justify this. increase, the Licensee is required to discuss the applicability of these tests to the masonry walls at the Kewaunee plant with particular emphasis on the following:

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

The Licensee is also requested to identify the walls that would not be qualified if SGEB criteria were used.

Response 5 In response to this request, the Licensee indicated that the factor of I

1.5 used in the masonry wall design for the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) l i

loads was consistent with the plant FSAR. However, the Licensee stated that l

l l

.... Frankhn Research Center tomondreerww nww.  !

TER-C5506-250 .

upon reevaluation, the masonry walls reviewed for this response were found to ,

be in compliance with the SGEB criteria therefore, the Licensee's response is considered adequate and in compliance with the SGEB criteria.

Request 6

• Provide evidence that the contributions of higher modas of vibracion are about 5% of the total response and need not be considered in the analysis, as stated in Reference 3, Section 2.0.

Resoonse 6 The Licensee indicated that seismic loads for masonry walls were applied as uniform loads on the entire span. For the masonry walls analyzed as beams, the contribution from the higher modes is not significant. For the case of a unifornly loaded simply supported beam, the maximum bending moment is at its midspan. The even-numbered modes do not contribute to this moment under this assumption. Based on the formulas used to obtain natural frequencies and participation factors of a beam, the contribution of the third mode and fifth mode will be 1/27 and 1/125 times the bending moment due to the first mode, and this contribution is less than 5% of the firct mode.

It is aise noted that in many cases at other plant's, it has been found that the first mode usually contributes 95% or more to the total responses.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Licensee's approach is satisfactory and in compliance with the SGEB criteria.

Request 7 l

Indicate if the construction practice at the Kewaunee plant conformed to ,

the provisions specified in ACI 531-79 (11) for the Special Inspection l Category. Also indicate whether quality assurance / quality control I information is available to support this categorization, i

l

)

A :- ~*'

l

.. Franun a vmmaRes,earch Center n n. w mw#.

i 1

d TER-C 5 506- 260 ,

Response 7 The Licensee stated that the safety-related masonry walls at the Kewaunee plant were designed and constructed according to the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, 1967 Edition.

In a later response (9), the Licensee indicated that the quality control documentation method applied to wall erection in use at the time of masonry wall construction at the Kewaunee plant consisted of recording deviations in construction rather than attesting to proper installation. In order to confirm proper installation, a special nondestructive inspection of safety-related masonry walls was conducted to identify rebar size and the existence of Dur-O-Wal. The results of the inspection show that all the walls met the design specification.

The Licensee's response is considered adequate and satisfies the SGEB criteria.

Request 8 Justify the use of 50 psi for allowable masonry shear stress (no shear reinforcement), as specified in Reference 3, Section 3.0. ACI 531-79

[11] lists allowable masonry shear for flexural members with no shear reinforcement as 1.lIFf Tmwhich is only 40 psi when f'm equals 1350 psi.

Response 8 The Licensee reevaluated five of the 16 safety-related masonry walls as identified in Section 1.3 and found that these walls meet the ACI 531-79 criteria for masonry shear stress (i.e., 40 psi) .

The Licensee's response is adequate and in compliance with the SGEB l

criteria.

Request 9 None of the Licensee's submittals [2-6] mention whether the masonry walls at Kewaunee are stack or running bond. If any stack bond wall exists, provide sample calculations of a typical stack bond wall.

~~

/ ._

... Frankhn Research Cen'er a em a n. r,- mm,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ l

-j TER-C 5506-260 -

t l

I Response 9 l, t

h The Licensee confirmed that all safety-related masonry walls at the j 1 Kewaunee plant are running bond. l

\ -

The Licensee's response has resolved the concern of stack bond  ;

. .r construction at the Kewaunee plant.  !

I I ,

! Request 10 ,

• t J k 3

Interstory drift effects were not mentioned in any of the Licensee's

submittals (2-6]. Indicate how interstory drift effects were considered j in the analysis of masonry walls. Provide any criteria that may have j been used to evaluate interstory drift effects and justify su

h use.

1 .

r i

1 Response 10  ;

The Licensee indicated that masonry walls at the Kewaunee plant are partition walls. A 3/4-in gap was maintained between the top of the wall and ,

the ceiling. The walls were simply supported by steel angles in the transverse direction. These boundary conditions permit the relative motions

]

} of the floors without inducing stresses in the walls. Since the walls are  !

I t j simply-supported, the Licensee's response is satisfactory and in compliance  !

with the SGEB criteria. f j L e

! Request 11 l The ACI 531-79 Code [11] specifies that the minimum area of reinforce- f j ment in a wall in either direction, vertical or horizontal, shall be j 0.0007 (0.07%) times the gross cross-sectional area of the wall and the  :

minimum total area of steel, vertical and horizontal, shall not be less  !

j than 0.002 (0.2%) times the gross cross-sectional area. The Licensee is l

requested to clarify whether the reinforced walls at the Kewaunee plant j l

1 meet these requirements. l 3 i i

a i

i Response 11 j i

The Licensee stated that the masonry walls of the Kewaunee plant are i reinforced with standard or extra heavy Dur-O-Wal in the horizontal direction  ;

l t i for temperature and shrinkage control. The area of the reinforcement in the  !

1  ;

1 I J  !

1 t 71 i.= Franklin Res,earch [

l  % n, - - Center  ;

,, - - - ~ - - , , - . , , _ , . , , - , - , . - , , - - - - . _ ,- - , - - - , . . . . , - - ~-h

4 TER-C 5 506- 2 60 horizontal direction is 0.02% of the gross cross-sectional area. The vertical .

reinforcement varies between 0.154 and 0.45% of the gross crors-sectional area. The total area of steel, vertical and horizontal, ranges from 0.17% to 0.48%. Except for the walls around the material storage area, the total reinforcement for these walls exceeds 0.2% of the gross cross-sectional area.

The Licensee has indicated that the masonry walls were designed with adequate vertical reinforcements to carry the tension forces induced by bending moments. Since the analysis is based on one-way (vertical) action, adequate vertical reinforcement should be able to carry the induced moment.

Therefore, for all practical purposes, the Licensee's response is considered adequate and meets the intent of the SGEB criteria.

3.2 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S APPROACH TO WALL MODIFICATIONS The Licensee concluded that the masonry walls at Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant can withstand the loads and load combinations without exceeding the allowable stresses (3). Therefore, no modification is necessary.

l l

l l l

1 M.

• 11"

. . Frankjin Res.earch Center a c=% % , - .ws.

. 5

{ TER-C 5506-260 .

4. CONCLUSIONS ,

2 i

j A detailed study was performed to provide a technical evaluation of the .!

j masonry walls at Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant. Review of the Licensee's l

criteria and additional information provided by the Licensee led to the -[

t conclusions given below.  ;

ls ,

l The criteria used for the reevaluation of the masonry walls, along with lk 1

j the additional information provided by the Licensee, indicate that the

! Licensee's criteria are in compliance with the SGEB criteria (Appendix A). {

s j The only deviation from the SGEB criter

• is the amount of horizontal ,

I reinforcement and the total amount of reinforcement (combination of horizontal  :

and vertical reinforcement) of the walls around the storage area (see Response t a

i 11 for more details) . However, the Licensee stated that the vertical 1

reinforcement alone meets the requirements of ACI 531-79. Moreover, the J  ;

i analysis was based on one-way (vertical) action, and very low damping values t

vere used (see Section 3.1 for more details) . Therefore, for all practical j

purposes, the Licensee's design is considered satisfactory and meets-the SGEB 1

criteria.  ;

l l

! The masonry walls at the Kewaunee plant can withstand the loads and load

combinations without exceeding the allowable stresses. Therefore, no j J

j modification is necessary.  !

I l  !

l i

1

}

i h t 4

i

{

i ..  ;

1 i

i

[

i aff=22 ~12-  !

...J Franklin Research Center  !

nom.awnwn.%rwmm.

. -i

~

?

TER-C5506-260' -

I

5. REFERENCES .

i

l. IE Bulletin 80-11  ;

Masonry Wall Design '

NRC, May 18, 1981 ,

-l

2. E. R. Mathews  ;

Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC. Subject IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design - Kewaunee Plant  ;

- Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

July 9, 1980 .

3. E. R. Mathews and D. W. Sauer  ;

Letter to G. Fiorelli, NRC.

Subject:

IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry  !

I Wall Design - Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant I j Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

September 23, 1980 i

! 4. E. R. Mathews  ;

I Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.

Subject:

Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 for Kewaunee Plant -

Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

December 8, 1980

5. E. R. Mathews Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.

Subject:

Notarization of previous l submittals regarding IE Bulletin 80-11 l Wisconsin Public Service Corp. ,

W December 23, 1980 l

6. E. R. Mathews Letter to G. Fiorelli, NRC. Subject Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant -  ;

I IE Bulletin 80-11 l Wisconsin Public Service Corp. i January 26, 1961 l t

7. S. A. Varga, NRC Letter to C. W. Giesler, WPSC

Subject:

Request for Additional Information - IE Bulletin 80-11 February 22, 1983 i

1 8. C. W. Giesler i

! Letter to S. A. Varga, NRC i

Subject:

IE Bulletin 80-11, Seismic Qualification of Masonry Walls Wisconsin Public Service Corporation April 29, 1983 i i i i

I 1 1 J

l ~13" 4ur. Frankhn

.u Researth Center ,

. _ _ - . . - - . P* * * ':9" *** . - . - _ - . , , , . -

___,_..--,)

TER-C5506-260

9. C. W. Giesler .

Letter to S. A. Varga, NRC

Subject:

IE Bulletin 80-11, "Final Report" Wisconsin Public Service Corporation January 31, 1984

10. Uniform Building Code -

International Conference of Building Officials, 1979

11. Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 l

)

l l

I l

l 1

~ ~

/ ;_.;

.... Frankhn Research Center l

• w

1 l

l l APPENDIX A l

SGEB CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION (DEVELOPED BY THE STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH (SGEB] OF THE NRC) l l

l As 10 J' J _ _

Franklin Research Center A Division of The FrankJin Inst;tute

n. e.n m.n r,.nu.n e.r..., r,. p. mom a.ue .

r

. a *!

TER-C5506-260 [

i-f I CONTENTS '

Section Title Page 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 2 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . A-1

a. Service Icad Combinations . . . . . . . . . A-1 i

b. Extreme Environmental, Abnor:nal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental ,

Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 1

4 3 ALLOWABLE STRESSES .

. . . . . . . . . . . A-2

)

l 4 ^

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . A-3 S REFERENCES . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 i -

I

)

1 i 4 .

l l 1

l l <

i f

.]

l 1 .

1 t

., i I

1 1

i i

j i #-w 111

• jf) Frankhn a w wResearch.

w r- w.Center

- t l TER-C5506-260 3 J

1. G,eneral Requirements -

The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection related to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the applicable requirements contained in Uniform Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise, by the provisions in this criteria.

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 conservative than the corresponding provisions of the criteria, their use should be justified on a case-by-case basis.

In new construction, no unreinforced masonry walls will be permitted. For a

operating plants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by the provisions of these criteria. Plants which are applying for an operating

.! license and which have already built unreinforced masonry walls will be j evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

, 3. Loads and Load Combinations

! The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normel loads, severe environmental loads, extesme environmental loads, and abnormal loads, specifically, for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the plant's FSAR shall govern. For operating license applications, the following load combinations shall apply (for definition i of load terms, see SRP Section 3.8.4II-3) . <

(a) Service Load Conditions .

1 J (1) D+L J

a (2) D+L+E (3) D+L+W l If thermal stresses due to To and Ro are present, they should be included in the above combinations as follows:

(la) D+L+To+Ro j

(2a) D+L+To+Ro+E l (3a) D+L+To+Ro+W Check load combination for controlling condition for maximum 'L' and l for no 'L'.

l i l

4.1:.s A-1 R -

' aJ Franun

=> n.es,earch w ..ww. Center ,

a _ _,, _ -

TER-C5506-260 (b) , Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal /Severo Environmental, and

{

Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions (4) D + L + To + Ro+E (5) D + L + To + Ro + Wg (6) D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.5 Pa (7) D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.25 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Ym) + 1.25 E (8) D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.0 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Ym) + 1.0 E' In combinations (6) , (7), and (8) the maximum values of Pa, Ta' Ra' Yj',should factor Yr, andbe Ym, including used unlessan appropriate dynamic a time-history analysisload is performed to justify otherwise. Combinations (5) , (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural acceptance criteria should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Ye

• Yj' and Ym in (7) and (8). When considereing these loads, local section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related system.

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

3. Allowablu stresses .

Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following modifications / exceptions, shall apply.

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

(b) Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection category shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with the inspectior 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 test program or other means pertinent to the plant and Inading '

conditions. For reinforced masonry walls, all the ten'.i ' i stresses will be resisted by reinforcement.

(d) For load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal, ,

abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme environmental conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the factors shown in the following table:

AM A-2

.Jj Frankhn Research Center a c cast,r e w ~n

TER-C5506-260 .

Type of Stress Factor .

Axial or Flexural Compression 2.5 Bearing 2.5 ,

Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy Shear reinforcement and/or bolts, 1.5 Masonrytensionparalleltobedhoint 1.5 e Shear carried by masonry 1.3  ?

Masonry tension perpendicular to bed Joint for reinforced masonry 0 fc: unreinforced masonry 2 1,3 ,

Notes (1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial spalling of masonry unit. ,

(2) See 3(c).

4. Design and Analysis Considerations . ,

(a) The analysis should follow established principles of engineering ,

mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices. l (b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper )

considerations to boundary conditions, cracking of sections, if any, I and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls. l l

(c) Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis sha._ those for i einforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.

(d) In general, for operating plants, the seistaic analysis and Category I structural requirementa of FSAR shall apply. For other plants, corresponding SRP requirements shall apply. The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, materials, and other pertinent parameters used.

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

(f) Interstory drift effects should be considered.

gA A-3 jd) Frankhn Research Center a w wn.r - w .

l

c

. . i i

TER-C5506-261 (g) In new construction, grout in concrete masonry walls, whenever used, . ,

shall be compacted by vibration.  !

(h) For masonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of ACI-531 shall apply.

(i) Special constructions (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, for staf f 's review.

In the event QA/QC information is not available, a field survey and a  !

test program reviewed and approved by the staf f shall be implemented ,

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

• l to accident pipe reaction (Y r), jet impingement (Y ), and missile 3

impact (Y,), the requirements similar to those of SRP 3.5.3 shall i apply. However, actual review will be conducted on a case-by-case  ;

basis.

5. References (a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.

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

(c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for  !

Buildings - Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06. l (d) Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry - NCMA August, 1979.

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

I gh A-4 Research Center d.f Frankhn,n.

a tw . re m.u.