ML20150A614

Forwards Preliminary Results of Stardyne Finite Element Analysis of Trojan Control-Auxiliary-Fuel Bldg Complex & Assessment of Seismic Load Resistance of Bldg as Presented at 780828 Meeting. Lic. NPF-1

ML20150A614
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	09/01/1978
From:	Broehe D, Broehl D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-07551, TAC-08348, TAC-7551, TAC-8348, NUDOCS 7809150406
Download: ML20150A614 (44)

Text

_.

o.-o P o ttT L.o n G n.NE st.s t E L u cT u r e C o >t p.ow 2: s. A s v.c.,s-. mat a c e.e.o. c a s s o s an o 4 -

. 6 c. o <

.. t s s s., -

September 1, 1978 y

F Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 l

1.icense NPF-1 l

Control Building Proceeding Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN:

Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

Dear Sirs:

This letter and attachments provide confirmation of the information presented at the meeting with the NRC on August 28, 1978 concerning preliminary results of a new analysis of the existing Control Building structure ot' the Trojan Nuclear Plant.

Attachment I contains a summary of the presentation by T. E. Johnson of Bechtel on the preliminary results of load determinations using finite element analysis techniques and on the comparison of loads to capacity. contains a summary of the presentation by Dr. Ceorge Katanics of Bechtel on the following subjects that were also discussed at the mee ting:

1.

Preliminary assessment of fuel Building to resist seismic loads based on results of the STARDYNE finite element analysis.

2.

Transferring interal earthquake force from the structures to the rock subsoil.

3.

Evaluations of deflections and displacements.

As indicated at the meeting, this information is sapplementary to previ-ous analyses and evaluations.

^7 W J 5 D N Q ', 7 ne =

w..

, 4,J\\

6

M a'LA N D 3 tN t et.6 ELC

?*.0 0 0 u s a sv Mr. A..Schwencer September,1, 1978 Page two We are continuing our analysis and evaluation and plan to provide to you on September 11 the final resalts and the answers to the questions presented by the NRC at the conclusion of the meeting on August 28, and later confirmed in writing on August 30.

Sincerely, f

s c:

Mr. R. R. Engelkan Director U. S. Nuciaar Regulatory Commission Region V I&E

I ATTACHMENT 1 Preliminary Results of STARDYNE Finite Element Analyses of Trojan Control-Auxiliary-Fuel Building Complex r

Presentation to the NRC Staff by T. E. Johnson Bechtel Power Corporation Bethesda, Marylar.d i

August 28, 1978 t

i

t 1.

INTRODUCTION 2.

SUt<MRY 3.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND LOAD DETER!11!MTION 4.

CAPACITY DETER!4lflATION 5.

C0lPARISON OF LOADS AND CAPACITIES APPENDIX A Shear Capacity e

REFERENCES D'

g e

e e

I

LIST OF FIGURES 3-1 STARDYNE bbdel 3-2 Wall Key Plan for Elev. 45-61 3-3 Wall Key Plan For Elev. 61-77 3-4 Fundamental Fbde Shape At Top Of Structure North-South Motion 3-5 Fundamental Mode Shape At Top Of Structure, East-West bbtien 4-1 Shear Wall Capacity Criteria LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Shear Forces. N-S Motion Elev. 45, 8/17/78 (SSE =.259; 8 = 5") Flexible Base 3-2 ' Shear Forces, E-W Motion Elev. 45, 8/17/78 3-3 Shear Forces, N-S Hotion Elev. 61, 8/17/78 3-4 Shear Forces' E-W Motion Elev. 61,8/17/78 3-5 Shear Forces, N-S Motion Elev. 45, 8/24/78 Fixed Base 3-6 Shear Forces E-W Motion Elev. 45 S/24/78 3-7 Shear Forces, N-S bbtion Elev. 61,8/24/78 3-8 Shear Forces. E-W Motion Elev. 61,8/24/78 4-1 Capacities In N-S And E-W Directions (Elev. 45'-59')

4-2 Capacities in N-S And E-W Directicns (Elev. 61'-75')

'e i

1.

INTRODUCTION Recently, on August 17,1978, another seismic analysis was perfonned of the T'rojan Control, Auxiliary and Fuel Buildings Complex.

This analysis was extremely extensive using finite elements to model all walls and floor slabs.

The analysis indicates higher forces than previously predicted.

This document lists the results of the August 17, 1978 ant. lyses and the results of subsequent analyses.

Since the sophistication of these analyses ex-ceeds the reautrements of the existing ACI and Unif 6rm Building codes, it i. justifiable to use capacities based on recent testing.

~

The determination of these capacities is documented in deta.il.

The ca. pac'. tics are compared with the applied loads.to determine the available margins.

All information contained in this docu:ent should be considered as supplemental to past submittals.

In addition this infornation should be considered as preliminary in nature since it is presently still under revicw, evaluation and checking.

e 4

9 9

9

l I

i e

,. 3 i

I 2.

SUMMARY

The recent loads predicted by the STARDYNE elastic analysis using j

5-percent damping are extreme upper limits.

What these upper limit loads are compared to the capacities deter-l mined by the criteria discussed herein, there remains considerable margin in the gross or total condition.

The margin is less when f

considering the major shear walls.

Moreover, a structure of this

[

type has the inherent ability to redistribute loads if the force l

capacity of individual members is exceeded.

l p

?

i r

5 2-1

r 3.1 SEISMIC MALY'4S MD LOAD CETERMINATION The seismic analysis performed on August 17, 1978 utilized a finite element model and the STARDYNE c'aputer program.

This extensive model, which wa> Nveloped to evaluate the proposed modification, took about two months to prepare.

The walls and floors were simulated by finite elements.

Vertical springs were used to simulate the Control Building foundation level.

The seismic analysis was performed using the modal analysis spectrum response technique.

The model is shown on Figure 3-1; Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the Key Plan and the analyses results are shown in Tables 3-1 to 3-4 for an SSE of.259 with a = 5%.

The model was rerun using a fixed base for the entire structure since the foundation rock shear wave velocity is 5500 fps.

The results of this analysis completed on August 24, 1978, are shown in Tables 3-5 to 3-8 for an SSE of.25g and 8 = 5%.

The mode shapes at the cop of the structure are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.

As indicated by comparirg the two STARDYNE analyses there is only a slight reduction in gross Fear, shear for individual walls increased or decreased slightly.

For overall comparison, the history of various analyses are as fol?ows for SSE =.?Sg 0 8 = 5t:

ANALYSIS DESCR!pTICN N-S BASE SHE AR

1) Original Trojan analysis 14,200 kips

2) Original reduced by SRSS and night reduction 9,890 kips

3) TASS cceputer program

• 6,830 kips

4) STARDYNE flexible base 8/17/78 12,200 kips

5) STARDYNE fixed base 8/24/78 11,910 kips

• This analysis was made on 6/08/78 and used rigid floors and flexible shear wall elements.

3-1

.. >.\\...,{.. )/

\\

,i

\\

... \\

., V....y

.\\

\\:.,.,,L..

,x

\\../

..f

'/

/ v

/-

y q,. g 7',,-\\

l

<:'.I. ".$.~E.E,\\.;l

,, (

3g w

(ot,.Q.i/r~~~

r4' '%..k. kkN f

I E

.h'\\M\\%\\\\wmvh \\ x \\\\..

e 3

g

/

..\\ ..

y. n k

S

\\ <\\.. \\\\...

\\.

./

?.

\\ \\..

..\\

\\'

.. ~

Xl\\M,\\\\v Q-

"~

\\

\\ a n ~n\\,v \\

v._y\\

=

\\1'

\\

\\.

5l A / 4<\\. ^

' \\

L

• ?

\\s NS-Y\\1 5-

,x j-

'5 OT$.i\\.

/

2.

CG.\\;..i."'

,a{.-w/\\fKj U:

\\ \\X \\;A ' > ' 2 c,y;;.~.

t

/

\\,*-\\2{\\\\N\\ bh{\\'\\)\\\\.\\.k*

1

)\\

/

a\\

qie.uv. -

\\

.c m

g

.\\\\.,..\\.g\\\\.._q.c..

g p

..\\ y.

.,?. ;.:.

_g

\\.. ' ^;

/

/

o i

4l 44 51 55 60 GI G5 70 8

I i

i i

i i

l l

I A

l I

A _.. j.__

l l

+

I i,

l

~

l' l

l l

1 l

l l

g _

1 I

g _.

g - l7--.. _.

O, j

g O

g 0, s<- @u@

I y

Qt/'

s qj3

@ J_.

g. _.

G I

(9)

I

g. _

v_._. __..._. 7..

L..

_.. s. -

g_

I.

I

._._I f

v J,.-

y Figure 3-2 Wall Key Plan For Elevatien 45-61

Gi 66 70

&l 51 55

'8 1

I I

i

.g i

l h-I I

I i

L.

.y._.

.. -. _ l _._ _..

l l

l l'

1 Q

9.-

1 1

I i

I l

g -

I.

g -

g!

7.

. -. _g.

I g -

p. _. _

i-e 's 4

v. _

(n. _

p. _._

i i

g. _

s

-...-. i..

O O

I I

. __. _. _4. __ __. __ p _. __. _.

g_

i v

g__

s Figure 3 3 Wall Key Plan For Elevation 61-77

a

.c g

,,. ~

s v,

_m

pt

~y r - m i

t 1

i I

I g

.i

)

.I f~~ T' ~ ~ T q

i t

i l

i i

I I

.,i

, t __ _-..):

-3 a.

t i

l i

I g

i I

t __. 4

- -- 3 y_

g i

i i

i i

i i

i I

-f M

2 - 2 f = 6.8 cps n

i i

i i

I X3 i

I 1

I

,X1.

- ).-

6 g-i i

i I

g I

I i

I F.,

p i p ::. _ p h - h -a - p 5 - h I

~ g i

i l

I i

I I

r t

I i

l i

I g

t i*

1 1

1 I

w-- L - -

j U

[

I l

i l

i i

t I

I g

l i

i l

s

-X i

_ _.~

v- - - r --s----

1 i

u-l I

(

l l

I l

l 1

i i

I I

I I

i l

I l

_ I.

g.

b s.a.-

L -L

.f.

• M l

i i

l l

i I

I i

l I

l

~

I 1

I i

l i

I

[

A, g,

w n.

xv -

x j

t i

figure 3-4 Fundarrental Pcde Sha;:e At Top Of Structure. North-South Direction i

Plan at Elevation 117' 1

r.

j

,e.!

W 2- - y- - - ar- - - 5. - _ 3 s

I I

I i

l r

r r

i--

e l

i

..._-r.

L, L..

L.

L l,.

j I

I L

i i

g..__w. _ - >l.__i I

L,.

k

[,

k.,

l 1

1 I

--_q.__j --i si.

e = 8.6 cps a

t t

1 n

l 3:. _ _,:- _ _ m

_),

-+

_i i

,1 i

i i

. g_3_ _ g- _ _ 4. _ - t

- +

x.1 i

i u

i

- i g

p_,__

9. _ _ f- _ _ 4. _ _ 4- _ _ 4 1

\\

l i

\\

l

\\

g a;

q J,- - - j - - {-

_ E_-

1

.[

, n__

I i

4 r

i i

l I

I i

l i

w y

l y

3 I

l L_

4. _ -- f,---

.f u- _ - x_

i t

1 I

I I

I

,t e

.I

,a r

.g f- - - f- - - f- - -

4 l

i.

._~

f t

t i

I I

l g

a, x,

. i e

g n

4.

.. k. -.. k-

~l x, - - j,

I t

A,,, j j

a

-x x

x a

1 u

e i.

Figure 3 5 Futida. ental *

.e Shape At Top Of Structure. East. West i

l Direction, Plan At Clovation 117' I

i-

i 1

i i

r j.

Table 3-1 Shear Forces. N-S Motion. Elev. 45',

8/17/78 SSE = 0.25g. a = 5%

l Flexible Base j

c

(

t SHEAR FORCE I

WALL NUMBER (KIPS)

LOCATION

(

1 4380 N-S WALLS I-2 51 0 j

3 440 t

4 2020 r

5 3550 i

t 6

390 r

4 7

600 I

8 320 I=12210 i

k L

i i

9 1670

'E-W WALLS l

10 1280 1 e 11 140 12 130 f

f 12 1610 l

14 40 l

l 15 290 t

I l

I l

(

1

Table 3-2 Shear Forces E-W Motion, Elev. 45',

8/17/78, SSE =.259, 8 = 5%

Flexible Base I

i SHD\\R FORCES 1,ALL NUP3ER (KIPS)

LOCATION l

1 920 N-S' WALL 2

180 3

'190 4

400 5

650 6

60 7

140 8

60 l

9 1870 E.W WALL 10 1820 11 440 12 260 13 4700 14 480 15 930

[=10500

o 1,

I;l Table 3-3 Shear Forces, N-S Motion Eley. 61',

8/17/78. SSE = 0.25g, s = 5:

Flexible Base

l 3 HEAR FORCE WALL NUMBER (KIPS)

LOCATION 1

4170 N-S WALLS J

I

.f 2

330 p

3 3000 4

2130 t

5 510 660 6

I=10800 f

e 7

1530 E-W WALLS 8

1570 9

830 10 130 11 490 12 300 9

o t

l l

I Table 3-4 Shear Forces. E-W Motion, Elev. 61'.

8/17/78, SSE =.25, 8 = 5%

9 Flexible Base 1

l l

SHEAR FORCE WALL NUMBER (KIPS)

LOCATION 1

1110 N-S WALLS l

2 160 3

870 4

370 5

170 6

200 9

.g 7

1810 E-W WALLS 8

3560 e

9 8 50 10 380 11 1000 12 1404

[=9004 e

9 e

9

Table 3-5 Shear Forces, N-S Motion. Elev. 45',

8/24/78 SSE = 0.259, 8 = 5%

Fixed Base l

I SHEAR FORCE WALL NUP.SER (XIPS)

LOCATION 1

4110 N-S WALLS 2

780 1

3

%0 4

2240 5

3050 6

340 7

540 8

290

[=11910 9

1540 E-W WALLS 10 970 t

l 11 110 1

l 12 130 13 1260 14 30 l

15 240 l

y Table 3-6 Shear Forces, E-W Motion, Elev. 45',

8/24/78, SSE = 0.259, s = $1

. Fixed Base f.

A SHEAR FORCE WALL NUMBER.

(r!PS)

LOCATION 1

910 N-S WM.LS 2

220 3

180 4

420 5

570 6

70 7

180 8

60 9

1700 E-W WN.LS 10 1680 11 51 0 12 320 13 4620 14 450 15 870 l

[=10150 L

9.,,

.6 s

e f

Table 3-7 Shear Forces, N-S Ntion, Eley. 61',

i 8/24/78. SSE = 0.25g, s = 51 i

. Fixed Base '

s l

t i

SHEAR FORCE WALL NUMBER (KIPS)

LOCATION 1

3910 N-S WALLS 2

560 i

3 3140 l,:

4 1910 5

470 l

6 600 I

[=10590 i

i 7

1480 E-W WALL 3

[

8 1450 i

9 6M 10 130 i

11 440 1

r 12 220 l

l l

l I

r f

y I

l

f Table 3-8 Shear Forces, E-W Motion, Elev, 61',

8/24/78, SSE = 0.25, s = 5%

9 Fixed Base-SHEAR FORCE WALL NUMBER (KIPS)

LOCATION 1

1080 N-S WALLS.

2 170 3

750 4

31 0 5

1 50 6

220 7

1670 E-W WALLS 8

3560 9

790 I

10 350 11 950 12 1310

[ = 8630 l

k I

I l

4.

CAPACITY DETERMINATION The allowables in the codes are usually set anticipating a certain ievel of~ sophistication when determining the applied loads.

Both the ACI and UBC codes have not significantly changed their shear provisions for several years.

It appears that these codes did not consider that the user would be applying techniques as sophisticated as an extensive finite elem0nt analysis.

Only recently have computer programs come into use which can consider the flexibility of an entire complex of walls and floor slabs and mathematically distribute the loads throughout the system.

The code provisions for determining shear capacity in walls are based on walls which have a height sufficiently large when ccmpared to the base dimensions so that the 45 degree type diagonal tension cracks can develop.

In the case of the Trojan Control Building, many of the walls are quite short compared to the length and thus this situation cannot develco.

Here, then, the code provisions are extremely conservative.

The ACI code has recognized this situation by incorporating the shear friction provisions for brackets (Section 11.9 ACI 318-77).

These provisions recognize that when cracking is more likely to occur parallel to the load, then vertical reinforceement is the main lead carrying el ement.

l A If terature search of recent test information s.ed conclusions of this testing is provided in Appendix A.

4-1

A summary of the informtion obtained is as follows for short, long shear walls with both horizonal and vertical reinforcement.

'1) Results from reinforced masonry block testing (Reference 1) indicate the ultimate capacity can be obtained by:

i v, = 348-113H/W for.2 < H/W < 1.0 v = u"'- ? shear stress (psi) u H = wail height (ft)

W = wall length (f t)

2) Results fron reinforced cast-in-place concrete (Reference 2) indicate the ultimate capacity is:

h+pf v

=8

- 2.5 u

yy f' = concrete ceiapressive strength p = Vertical reinforcement ratio y

f = reinforcement yield strength y

These two items are presented since the Control Building structure is composed of both concrete block and concrete core.

3) Correlations made by Bechtel with masonry tests illustrate that the following relationship is also a realistic technique.

• I 'y whenhl.5 vu u

f = ultimate strength of reinforcing (psi) u Some other important considerations are as follows for short, long shear wall s, a) The moment capacity acting in conjunction with the shear capacity requires no further reinforcement.

b) Horizontal reinforcement helps promote ductility and adds some strength.

4-2

g b

L c) Confined walls top and bottom have good ability to resist

~

cyclic loading.

A comparison of the three techniques is shown below, using:

h =. 25 f = 45,000 ksi y

ff=3000 psi f, = 75,000 psi p =.003 y

1) v = 348-113(.25) = 320 psi u

2) v = 8/3000 - 2.5/3000(.25) =.003(45,000) = 539 psi u

3) v = (75,000)(.003) = 225 psi u

The third technique is conservative for short, long walls and represents dowel action.

This technique was used in the May 24, 1978 submittal as an alternate technique.

However, the capacities were factored by.7 because. a comparison was made with simple steel embedment tests.

Based on recent comparisons with masonry tests, the.'7 reduction factor is i

not appropriate.

The.7 factor was based on testing where a steel embedment was welded to a plate and then cast in concrete with only one-sided embedment.

Reinforcing stool is erreedded on both sides of the crack plane.

This fact seces to be the major reason for the strength increase.

l The basic criteria used to evaluate the wall capacities are given in Figure 4-1.

These criteria are basically as determined by Schneider, "Shear In Concrete Masonry Piers" California State Polytechnic College, Pomona, California.

The criteria are extended to lower reinforcing 4-3

ratios than those tested by using a conservative linear reduction based on reinforcing ratios.

Further provisions are given based on dowel action correlations with the tests.

See Appendix A.

The wall capacities based on the criteria presented in Figure 4-1 are given in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.

The Key Plans given in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 are applicable to these tables.

The tables also include the column capacities based on the criteria presented in the May 24, 1978 submittal.

The values given are the lowest values obtained by the criteria between the elevations stated.

O 4-4

i.

Figure 4-1 Shear Wall Capacity Criteria The following equations apply for s'trength detennination.

L 1)

When p, and p are both y_.0025

= (348 113 h)WT 2 < h < 1.0*

Eq. (1-)

Y Eq.(2)

V,=(290-55l-)WT-1.0 < h < 3.0

= -(200 - 25 h)W

- 3. 0 < h < 4. 0 Eq.(3)

V u

Eq.(4)'

V,=

100WT 4,0<h

• If h

<.2 use h =.2 i

L 2)

When p >.0025 and 0 < ph <.0025 y

=(310-175h)WT Eq. (5)

V

.2 <

< 1. 0*

u

= (153 - 18 h)WT 1.0 < h < 3.0 Eq.(6)

Vu 3.0<h Eq.(7)

V = 100WT u

• Ifh<.2use$=.2 4

Figure 4-1 (Continued).

.0025 but ph l 'y use Eqs. (1) through (4) but

3) When p <

y reduce by the factor (p /.0025).

If H/W <.5 may use Yu " IPv u)WT I

y if larger values result.

8 use Eqs. (5) through (7) but

4) When p <.0025 and ph v

y reduced by the factor (p /.0025).

If H/W <.5 may use Vu " I'v u f

i y

if larger values result.

were:

Y = ultimate shear strength of wall (1bs.)

u H = height of wall (in.)

W = length of wall (in.)

T = total thickness of wall (in.)

= vertical reinforcement ratio py

= horizontal reinforcement ratio Ph f = ultimate strength of reinforcing (psi) u I

i I

i c

Table 4-1 Capacities In N-S And E-W. Directions LEleys 45'-59')

BASIC CRITERIA SHEAR WALL STEEL COLUMN CAPACITY CAPACITY TOTAL' WALL (KIPS)

(KIPS)

(KIPS) 5140 1

5140 760 2

760 3

1020 190 1210 4

3300 1740 5040 5840 ji 5

5840

$3 6

410 410 E

800 c3 7

800 m

"E 8

260 2 60.

TOTAL:

17530 1930 19460 9

5210 482'O 10030 10 5620 1910

'7530 720' 11 720 1040 12 1040 x

S3 13 7300 3450 10750 b

61 0 b!

14 61 0 E

1730 15 1730

aa TOTAL: 22230 10180

, 32410 e

0 6

6

-..-..n,,

t; Table 4-2 Capacities In N-S And E-W Directions '(Elevo 61 ' -7 5' )

BASIC CRITERIA SHEAR WALL STEEL COLtm CAPACITY CAPACITY TOTAL WALL (KIPS)

(KIPS)

(KIPS) 1 5040 670 5710 1130 2

1130 3

3560 1740 5300 1090 4

1090

=

S 1320 y

5 1320 cc 1450 5

6

,1450 T*

TOTAL:

13590 2410 16000 7

4350 4820 9170 8

6700 3170 9870 1530 9

1530 920 5

10 920 f

1210 11 1210 1210 12 1210 TOTAL:

15920 7990 23910 e

e I

e O

9 9

i 5.

COMPARISON OF LOADS AND CAPACITIES.

The following is a comparison of the fixed base case loads as predicted by the STARDYNE computer analysis and the capacity as determined by the criteria defined in Figure 4-1.

The comparisen is made for gross shear and selected major wall shears in the Control Building area, for a North-South earthquake (.25g08=5%).

5.1 North-South Direction, El. 45-59 The gross shear is 11900 kips and the capacity is 19500 kips.

For the West wall (No.1) the shear is 4100 kips and the capacity is 5140,,ips.

5.2 North-South Direction, El. 61-77 The gross shear is 10590 kips and the capacity is 16000 kips.

The West wall (No.1) shear is 3910 kips and the capacity is 5710 kips.

The East wall (No. 3) shear is 3140 kips and the capacity is 5300 kips.

4 i

I a

l t

5-1

m ---

y~

8/24/78 APPENDIX A SHEAR CAPACITY

'1.

INTRODUCTION This. appendix.primarily evaluates tests and the resulting criteria developed

)

by R. R. Schneider(Reference 1) for reinfor-ed grouted masonry blocks.

i 2.

TEST RESULTS The tests were performed on 8" masonry walls ~with various wall heights ar,d lengths.

The results of the most applicable tests are presented in Table A-1.

The net block strength for these tests was 3000 psi and the reinforcir,9 had an ultimate :trong'th of 80,000 psi.

The tests are further sumarized in 'able

- A-2 and grouped with major parameters.

Als'o shown are capacities based on the criteria developed by R. Schneider.

In addition, for the walls with H/d <.5, the dowel capacity at fu'l ultimate stress on the~ total cross sectior. of the reinforcing is shcwn.

3.

CRITERIA

.The criteria developed by R. Schneider is as fol' lows:

l l

A-1 1

l

No horizontal reinforcement:

H/W Ultimate Shear Stress (psi)_

0.2 < H/W < l.0 V/TW = 310-175H/W l.0 < H/W < 3.0 V/TW = 152.5-17.5H/W 3.0 < H/W V/TW = 100 With horizontal reinforcement:

H/W Ultimate Shear Stress (psi) 0.2 < H/W < l.0 V/TW = 347.5-112.5H/W 1.0,< H/W < 3.0 V/TW = 290-55H/W l

3.0 < H/W < 4.0 V/TW = 200-25H/W q

l 4.0 < H/W V/TW = 100 i

where H = height of wall, W = length of wall and T = total wall thickness.

l l

l l

W A-2

The testing did not go lower than a vertical o

=.0024 and when y

horizontal reinforcement was effective it was essentially equal to the

. vertical reinforcement.

Therefore, limits were put on the above Schneider criteria. When the reinforcing ratio was lower than test, a conservative linear. reduction was used.

The comparison for H/W 1 5 indicated that dowel action is applicable and could be used, since it is inde-pendent of the reinforcement ratio.

Based on these facts, the criteria given in Figure 4-1 were detennined.

This criteria conservatively neglects any concrete that does not have continuous reinforcing as illustrated by the following.

Consider a wall which has two outside blocks with a thickness of each block (t ) and a vertical reinforcement ratio of.0025.

Let the b

horizontal reinforcement ratio (ch) equal.0025 and H/W =.5.

The ultimate shear stress is then:

v = (348-113(.5)) = 292 psi u

The total shear for a length W is:

= (292)2t W

• 604*bN V

b u

Consider the same wall but with a concrete core of thickness t and no g

continuous reinforcement at the section under consideraticn in the core.

The reinforcement ratio for the entire section is:

2t

=(.0025)g,l; oy A-3

o The allowable shear stress reduced by the lower reinforcement ratio is:

2t

.(.0025)t+It 2t

=(292)g,fg u"-(292 psi)"

.0025 v

The total shear for a length W is:

'f I +2t )W = 584t W V =(292)t+2 u

c b

b b

Therefore, the unreinforced core is conservatively neglected since;the total shear force remains unchanged.

Tests of reinforced concrete walls are documented in Reference C.

The following equation was developed to predict the ultimate strength of shear walls with no axial loading.

u"8

- I'5N

+ P I v

vy forff=3000 psi,p

=.0025 and f = 50 ksi :he following results:

y y

563-137h v a u

(

When f' is increased to 5000 psi, the strength is:

690-177h v =

u These equations compared to the Schneider formulation (v

= 348-113 h) (or WW u

=.5 and.25 is presented b610w.

A-4

I e

H/d MASONRY REINFORCED CONCRETE f' = 3000 psi f' = 5000 psi

.50 292 495 602

.25 320 560 646 The' Trojan Control Building walls are composed of concrete block and a concrete core. The core and the block grout were 5000 psi.

The above table shows the significant increase with cast-in-place reinforced concrete. This is additional

-unused conservatism.

Test 84-3 from Reference 2 illustrates a test where the web of the test specimen carried the entire load since there was no horizontal reinforcement.

810 psi.

The test liad:

In this test the ultimate shear strength was v

=

u h =.5 p =.005 ph = 0 f = 78 ksi f = 120 ksi y

y The strength based on dowel action at ultimate ist.

u"Df = (.005)(120,000) = 600 psi V

yu Since the specimen reached 810 psi there is an increcse of 810/600 = 1. 35.

The masonry tests indicated that the dowel strength was a good strength indicator at H/W <.5.

The apparent reason for this strength increase is due to the fact that the reinforced concrete specimen had unifomly distributed reinforcing and the masonry tests primarily had reinforcing at only the ends and this must have made one end less effec.'ive.

A-5

i

.e TABLE A-1 V,. TEST Y

A CAPACITY H

W u

c p

p".

Y PANEL (FT)

(FT)

H/W (PSI)

(IN9 (XIPS) 1 1.33 3.33 0.4 260 320

.0038 83 2

5.33 2.00 2.7 131 192

.0063 25 6

5.33 2.67 2.0 124 256

.0048 32 7

4.00 4.00 1.0 140 384

.0032 54 9

1,33 4.00 0.33 290 384

.0032 111

~

12 4.00 4.00 1.0 243 384

.0031

.0048 93 13 5.33 2.67 2.0 178 256

.0048

.0048 46 15 6.00 2.00 3.0 128 192

.0063

.0048 25 28 5.33 2.67 2.0 137 256

.0047

.0010 35 31 4.00 4.00 1.0 lb8 384

.0047 61 33 5.33 2.51 2.0 97 256

.0070 25 8

2.67 S.33 0.5 203 a12

.0024 104 O

5 8

4 t

G e

TABLE A-2 STRENGTH (KIPS)

SCHNEIDER TEST DOWEL CRITERIA C0fiENTS PANEL H/W p

ph y

83 97 77 No horizontal 1

. 40

.0038 "f 0]I"9 111 98 97 9

.33

.0032 104 98 11 4 8

.50

.0024 52 No horizontal 54 7

1.0

.0032 reinforcing 61 52 H/W = 1.0 31 1.0

.0047 90 Horizontal 12 1.0

.0031

.0048 93 reinforcing i

H/W = 1.0 30 No horizontal 32 6

2.0

.0048 reinforcing 30 H/d = 2.0 25 33 2.0

.0070 46 Horizontal l

13

?.0

.0048

.0048 46 l

reinforcing 30 H/W = 2.0 l

28 2.0

.0047

.0010 35 l

l 2

2. 7

.0063 20 No hot izontal 25 reinforcing

\\

~24 Horizontal 15 3.0

.0063

.0048 25 reinforcing t

0

O m

yp.

REFERENCES 1.

Schneider, R.. R., "Shear In Concrete Masonry Piers", California State Polytechnic College, Pomona, California j

t 2.

Barda. F., et al., "Shear Strength Of low-Rise Walls With Boundary Elements", ACI, SPS3-8.

O p

4 4

h 6

e l

f i

i 1

i L.

h l-l

?

ATTACHMENT 2 i

f i

o h

Supplementary Information On:

1.

Preliminary Assessment of Fuel Building to Resist Seismic Loads Based on Results of the STARDYNE Finite Element Analysis -

2.

Transferring 1.ateral Earthquake 2

Force t' rom the Structures to the Rock Subsoil jp 3.

Evaluation of Deflections and Otsplacements l

}

lt:

h ll Presentation to the NRC Staff by f

I G. Katanics Bechtel Power Corporation

[

Bethesda, Maryland

(.

L p

August 28, 1978 i

[ni;

(,

t

I a

E SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AS PRESENTED E

TO THE NRC STAFF ON AUGUST 28, 1978 ll

{

By George Katanics Preliminary Assessment of Fuel Building to Resist Seismic Loads k-Based on Results of the Stardyne Finite Element Analysis g

i Lateral forces are resisted in the fuel building by the fuel pool and p

f, hold-up tank enclosure structures.

The results of the STARDYNE finite element analysis show decreased lateral seismic loads for the fuel pool

?

(both N-S and E-W direction) and for the hold-up tank enclosure in the E-W direction.

However, the new analysis shows increased membranes shear force; in the N-S walls of the hold-up tank enclosure due to N-S earth-I

~

quake (an increase from the original 2640 kips to 3657 kips).

In the k,

original analysis, the 2640 kips total N-S resistance was assumed to be j!

{l distributed equally among the two parallel N-S walls, i.e.,1320 kips was transferred to each.

The new analysis shows a load distribution of 2019 kips to the West wall and 1638 kips to the East wall.

These walls f

have a conservatively calculated (concrete capacity only) membrane shear

,k resistance capacity of 5500 kips each.

Thus, even with the increased h

loads, the walls have a substantial extra load carrying capacity.

It s

should be noted that calculated acting lateral loads in this evaluation h

are factored OBE loads.

(0.15g with a load factor of 1<4.)

)

f While the new analysis shows decreased total shear forces in the E-W

{

valls of the enclosure structure due to E-W earthquake, the distribution

{

of forces among tha ws11s rescited in increased load in the most

{

Northern, East-West wall, where it increased from the criginal 1060 kips to 1767 kips.

The capacity of this wall is 2200 kips.

This increase is attributed to the higher accuracy of the fin'ite element analysis to e

identify torstenal effect.

The interconnecting slabs have also been investigated.

Loads in these structural elements generally decreased i

and they have sufficient capacity to transfer the calculated loads, h

F The conclusion of this evalut.ti'sn is that the fuel building resists the j

factored 00E forces identified by the r.ew STAROYNE finite element analysis j

within the FSAR criteria.

mr._m.

y

d j

j Transferrring Lateral Earthquake Force 4

{

from the Structures to the Rock Subsoil A new investigation was conducted to evaluate the lateral force transfer mechanism from the Control Building and Fuel Building structures to the rock subsoil.

This evaluation was based on the loads obtained from the STAROYNE model and on a conservative interpretation of the as-built condition which considers that only the bottom surface or all footings i

l and grade beams are in direct contact with the rock.

3 i

In the Control Building, lateral forces are being transferred to the rock j

by the bond between rock and the concrete grade beams and friction between 0

F the steel columns and concrete footings.

This allowable design stress for p.

this bond is 0.03 f ' to 0.05f, (Four.dation Engineering Handbook by

?

c c

Winterkorn and Fang, pages 610-611).

This information is based on caisson tests.

Since drilled pier excavation generally results in much smoother surfaces than regular rtck excavation, application of these h

values should be considered to be conservative.

By assigning 90 psi bond y

~

values to the bottom of the grade beam surfaces and a friction valued at 3

0.7 times the vertical column load to the footings, the total design load transfer capacity of the footings and grado beams in the Control Build-ing is 17,562 kips.

When this value is compared to the 11,910 kips total

{

j lateral load, the factor of safety is 1.47 for SSE.

The output of the f

STAR 0YNE model identifies about 4100 kips lateral force for the West wall p

of the Control Building.

Considering only those footings and g' ade beams

{

r

(

that are carrying the loads of the West wall uirectly and the limited l

(a10 kips,10 percent of the total) transferring capacity of the ground floor slab, the bond stress at the bottom of these grade beams is 147 psi;

,[

close to the recommended limit.

This is, of course, a conservative assump-f tion because the contribution from possible side wall contacts of the l

grade beams and transfer through grade beam to footing surface have been neglected.

Also, if any load redistribution takes place within the

[.

Control Building, the force in this wall should be reduced.

7 Transfer mechanism of lateral earthquake loads frem the fuel pool and hold-up tank enclosures have also been re-evalusted.

Using 0.7 as (

.c.. o assumed apparent friction coefficients, the factor of safety against sliding is more than 2.0.

Evaluation of Deflections and Displacements The displacement of the Turbine Building columns due to SSE has been recalculated.

(Previous calculations showed 2.7" and less than 2" dis-placement values based on various stiffness calculations respectively).

Masses were checked and a response spectrum analysis was completed to find the displacement.

The result of this analysis shows that the column dis *;% cement in E-W direction at the roof level of the Control Building is 2.4" with 5% damping and 1.9" with 7% damping using the SRSS method.

(5% is the Trojan FSAR criteria, 7% is the Reg. Guide 1.61 criteria.)

f As-built separation of the Turbine Building and Control Building was j

checked.

It was found that the 3" design gap existed in all locations i

except at one column where a 1" cover plate is welded to the flange of j

the column.

This cover' plate extends only up'to about 6 feet above the operating ficor.

The 2" gap at this level is sufficient in the E-W direction since the predicted displacement is less than 1".

Calcula-tions will be completed to check the N-S deflection of the Turbine F

Building.

Bents are braced in this direction and lesser deflections

)

are expected.

A survey team completed the icentificstion and 2 valuation of equipment for differential displacement.

It was concluded that equipment in the l

Cortrol Building can safely sustain at least 1" to 2" differential dis-f placement between ficor levels and at least 3" displacement between i

buildings.

Information and confirming data supporting these conclusions will be forwarded.

Expected displacements are much lower than these capabilities.

W 1

1 I

i

?

}

-3 GA2/cew65.11 A2

_