ML20150C044

Transcript of 781030 Hearing in Salem,Or Re Subj Facil. Appearances Were Made by Rf Banks,M Axelrod,R Johnson, W Kinsey,Jh Socolofsky,J Gray,G Kafoury,E Rosolie & N Bell. Pp 1411-1613

ML20150C044
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	10/30/1978
From:	Mccollom K, Mark Miller, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 7811100058
Download: ML20150C044 (203)

Text

m SW 4g ow TK c R%w%5;?,e%w%ww:WWWR a 5 wmw M wq$

W $r $m@$ $ &w. k )w w$ 8 &m@$ { m& N ? W W AK Mwe aW. M >

1 g@iM dm. @$ @p! ig 1 %4 t ,W T~m@mvLn? MWTf'%h@a n n i w 2%n  %.#c 6.h.R%W: w WWk %y e%,%:+

~

n ,

+a L.m WMR. n ~~c. x[ ,

u Wik 1 Wyb q . ,E W. ' &-

l .. W  ?.!?ij R @ sww s <

w m.qfy3.9 99 g 9 y~W, %s.q.}nQ@ s n. m a m y m ,app,%x r

$p s _  %,' v . _ f-

.y "W S vkQ@p W@;ew.. s, p  ! hyp' r

,,,g Q llAem-H a,: p;g3..K J. .

gM i ~ iw,; g y %;f ' ,A QMMS b k$-.k~b Mh, h g %QUBt10$DOCUMENgROO$ - f,N@ ,

{ y. ,Nb' jysyy w' NNw$lf-NNk. c s ~ ~ - .

- u M 'y { .M y'wy

~ '

'M [$ hI,((i 4 M.I f .1 ' '#Y '

a +,' D h. -[ c fy a p'~~~ ' N'.

^

.). A j ,,$ 3 ,.

g y s , ,

n ' f]

e f, . L, y ,

. /;=v .

<g _

a m...,u,

. , ; f, , T h _

ML,n.. s n, 9%M e , ~M,,,,. I' -

M.O/; N..' J'. t W m E / y. :.M - pNUCLEARaREGULATORYTCOMMISSf0N? ' m ~

N an 3 M* f M M...M< ,yQ>dCyewig,.g - ?("

^

's VtP t

@V>,

d 7s h,. np y 1

3"

• x.

y;).. ,.

A

, 9 '. [. ' '

,v W m.J: r

3 n aJ j t* W t*q -,Qw,,,- , -% s #( s;.6 s h

% T;

• Y0) -

/

,, d # e t; V!.W

)

&[ ?,4 'nb ' I ,r,Fw ; #

j. .liM.  :,y f Qt s, M 'e:g/  :#ry d dJ).. rgy y

'"^Y # "

, [i ;U L el k l _2.gi gjs .C,. ,.j ., /g F

, ,a f H' y" j 73 @$ ,'..g.

g) f.

.p & y y y

.;4. ." .:

gj q.,

A< 6 w  ; , .u, , i y,., y r y ..t p-; ; 9 q

,' s ;1 t

)

if' p g' ; m ef,q# 9 ')( #

,J )Ju :TM ; ., /

3..

Gl f f, b e . ; I f. 3 t I <! ' W ?

ex, dN e lc . l[a.

J p .p1 t j '; f g" a y"  ?

%g s

, 'y > m ;;r

' 3',' r '

i s4 5

>s m! ?

3

,. pL . 7

@: ' u .5. i...~h- j ,ii q Q.N f'oQgg J, N' 'L e n^ '" ff ' "b:

t v

t-w ',

, Jg g m ," ,

a 't ,,

[. . ' - 41,t[

j' b s

\., p]j g% t.'ht ,,g._ ,(.

7 q. s ,

c t;, < : (:. - 5, ,r..

~ y; , _ _;g.. t y', a v; '

> - -/

i ,J \ ;.; ; w( , a e z s

k y g .:

.-n pf q; yk;g ,w f.t

,;..I.() q - >_'i-[  ? <

y, ',.

s ,/ ;.

e 4

1 st . <

,J , .~

.o . f. . g.

o, .- 3 p ~ .t . -

,.S,

).

, s.3

. j.

g ,,y yg ,

- , 't.,.

1 s

1,, t ;.:.y,..c.

y

+i ' .1 = , A nn 2.s p'1 s,

. s ..; jg .. s

,,s , :V A,, s

-' ,ygg; j ... ' ,

+ >

a

> -e 1 4 s ,,

,,g,, " e- -

1.,,.r...

f. g tv, ',.5;,,

e y ,

,. ) ; '

33 4..w , . 7 '

'* , M na we f-q* ' i > :q4. A o ,

"1:

s q

. i .. g 'a. .'L' , 4 i 1

-8m 4 '8 -

. .4 , vN.

"3 I

1. W'A , ,., t " .M/I %'l-*

N'$, . . ,, . 4*,-,' *9 N/ ' ,',

s!jjQ.f'

., , ,s s l:.}

, W 9}did' >li * MATTER::OF:~~ El,'\ i'N Q;l '  ?'.s s s'

-t ,r < < V ), l L' ^ j'lf.p; w ;91 :w Y,h$,;. (Ok.ge f'.%, { ' 't ,??

y, rz ', s p-  ; >..'g , , , ,gf - '

.5 :

,, ; h:,,? C' e

'4 9% el@ :::: ' Q;'

3

' . , . U f v, , <+

L. .s s.,+ mk Vs ;s - ..p. -

a  ?. ,de .

y n

,' h'-',9 ~- - . kWl  ? &. ,1  %.;n Y

a y [

f,s. s <'. b '

s -

-- ~. - ' -

h

<.((7- "d' Ms a

+?

'Jq"y.,.-

y > , ~ QJs] , g g c L. 3.v

2 _b-(' g 4.y f.:,e 2

<,3pu s 4 y v. ,

, . s..- s i >'i -

s i

qs( s t ,

' , . . . . .. e . , . +

- & os NM

, m M.- *TrpjefM..Hy.tuc16aMlanth' p %. '

'q J

4, (; p; ,s .>;,;5-'- ' - ' ' -

y 3

. V> d ugy

• N-(:n_ '

4

< t t

-t;

, , :e

• T s

]

_z

' 4k , . M - . p Q'y'Qgg'. Q,,, .f G,- Q 5_ .

. y Q ,f,

• ' ' \ s.

i.

}.e 4 s q );m, ,

s.

pg e

p#

s e , y g- . . / ,e y

.jf: j . ,

s a

,-h u- gi; ':  :

3 j) g 1

,y.2 Q<. g-f,x .f; m -

5 y

f I 0'r 1 ) '*As,

~

1 ~1'

.P3W. s 3 4 1w 'y,'c ,

s Rin  :' -]. '- ~;. s. ..

pt;i og ~

' V.* l:t y' , .. ' ll ;3;:kM,.

q.g .

p, ,

-@fu J v

3 M- 3 i

n,

; r; _ ,.,

-fa wa gy - , v, .

. 3u

' .s < 1 $ _s ,

av

, ,  :., , +

r

('f f.n p r " .

%- e

.,t,_ ra ',

, -a ^ L, s s . _- + i

-b-

, ' 3 ,

Jy, i

i i

> J L, ,

.( '

,) ;

y t

a%

p

> a f

[ k,'

^

$ .' ;[ .: c ll.h .[

[

7 (PlGCe = alcipjOr -c.

ni , ,

< n

m. . ,.

.i .-q-

/ , , t .. .

_ ' m N g)b -

,..h7h Q Q* 2

,#. ;y ,

t mo!!4 .

T9 ". M. J cP s j ,s . ,

3

..ggv, o f' ; ; .3

.3 1.;

, .g' o e

' e , '. . g i 5

, s 3w e .y s L, i , , , ,

n,qc

.~

?"s ,. M. . U 43 n >

9'

$ Q: .

r, s e

i. g. s_  ;  % e i e '>

= t .? , $&_$

'i ~ IN Q' , 9 l* D SE. fl.*

• j% .j15l ?. f?b z. l~~*b r ,

,, ' T^

• l l' ' ' *

'j'i *4 , _ , s , ,

e 56 ~+. f h l;

.: p '": , , $,1 ; . '^ ~' ' W-uQ ( '

n

,;s; h e ; . -; 9>

> )Q.4

.,m t is 4 ( . . . .

W sg 1 ,,n (9 a y

. - g: p 4

a j

' r,c

.Wi . .J . p %G , 3 t. *- g> 3Y

\':i.'.J

-r'. c.,

fi i w o ._. . v .4 ,

s ,.

p c},r, i , jY ( ,Ib 5 ' h^ f% ft s, p4 5 t, 9 s . .

s ;e . y g: d.$ . u i 3 ,

,4 'Wca

_ w. ,

jy -

4- f h  ; ,

.syy

. r 9 *

"j; g _y, H s '

qq ,

c y,

s m z . m.q y o g.z, cp .,.,.: p s. ,q .9 s ', .m r ,

.; W ;n ,

, 3; 7 f,2 ., 4 M h, .uy ,3 Mf 'f f $,... , s ?g s e 'M,( 5i 3 i s M* [ yjg4 .' 1w p [{ M %U s

f; , ,1 x $ D- r , , , 7q

[

/y n; '

~Y' \ l; f,, '

. . 1N g,}[ ,kYf

~

(,j'. ' f _ Dh

'  !. p

,y:_ '.% , ,l , ) 4 ':0 n_

, m <'l 'l-d*_'~

o l . 4 .1' o3.z . 7

>'+ s '_ < t

%h

2 4

%%; Q}2? ((

?, MWf@. 7.Nj:

t se.

& ' T i _ iTelephonef . ,g"Mj g

M@p' h[.$NM,,_In

- 1 h] r Mw)jM , d. , %Q[.s N.

K, y s. q W g 37aogyW y-

-a - @ $~ 4

y g 2i u s. .  :.

d_a '-f.p:.g 7 .g .ri ,b--.m

, y 1 .9 7 e" - , . . ,9, w , , -

8  ? .w

. . \. .%. n' . ,n ' ':'.

.< ,u1my 33 s..

s <

.>c 2 r

o .. 3 1. , a e 1 -

kN is

w. . .

g .,

A Mas;;m/K %'y.:g'. ,mw; .9-rym n g4mv ,, .V~n.p~g e~ .e .  % 8.ca . w 4 ':_

1 mm pgQ:q e v, st:

W q -' L - culRe'p,onw~

e v ^

n: w n o

p >gn ;oy ~ ww4

9 . " . .. -

> r sa w ,<

m(4v,.. f, w w

. .- < e >

o9 , 4. i

q M. n Jd; - py, m, e, m'Ip l:g " v '>9y ,e,  !

, ,; , ,dH i ^ "i w 6q M+s y,  !

i% 4 2.,t.

e S. .%Q W Qp ,

f.. . . .m q ~

a u NohhCapiidsk e - ' '

N 2..,.1 bhhh. Ms P'sb T $

M@nu.g#mytwtbm,@s.:

w

% q v.y g-SMPNh mmm v hd d.m(@ppp:w$d$y ;%$a .@sw ' ? iWMi.rQfo,'n. iD[C$0,Mg w&gMy<sww y M

v x -se n w . m _ .

g $,WM ~ .

1. ~ .< A; a~

S@eQ4  ;

0. 0 E <

9 u

N'..'1 e

.f

~.k <

- ' ~v-

&y@% '

4 s g- d N, h, v.

A .~M ,,

7 DNi  ;

nnom  : w&.n n9 u w MhhhNhhhhhhhkw'hhhh 3

v n:  %%anm:.wh ww hhb,kh i MaraaNATIONWIDEMOVERAGE$w n

w&n)hh%h 9$y , J n w a a N[$[b@hpyk.

w, - u~rt ~ y ~- .~1 g [.f s -,

.h (7

~ I L ., .,u, 1 e

a I UNITi3D STATES OF iGU3RICA WROLOOM/

Wb 2

9924 c1UCL10ut RtsGU.uNfoRY CorkIISSIOJ J 3 - --.-~ .. ---~..--..-

m O'1 4 In the 10atter of:

l 5 PORTLAdu GEduRAL ELECTRIC COMPEL &,  : Douket &Io. 50 -3J 4 et al.  :

6 ,  : (Control Roo:c, (Trojan Nuclear Plant)  : Proceedingo.)

7 ---.-~~--..------:

8 IIcaring i'.cou a, Star.o Capitol Duilding 9 Unlem, Or2gon, i

i 10 id o n d i.y , u c t oi r r .3 6 , 19 / i. . l t

11 'the nearing in tdo above-ontitlau unxus s .;

12 resumed, purstant to a.djourne,cnt, at 9:00 e.n.

13 BEFORE:

14 MARS 11ALL E., MILLER, dsy., Chairar.u,

Atomic Safety and Licenuing nonrd.

15 i DR KENNETH A. McCOLL0d, 11emb a r. I, i

10 DRo IIU C H C . P AXTOIJ , Member.

17 APPEARAUCES:

10 On behalf of Licenscon:

i 19

ROLhdD F. BMKS , E92., Souther, Spaulding, Kin c ay ,. 1 20 Uilliam on & Schwabo, Stantiard Plar ' l Portland, Oregon 9'1204.

21 a j i!AURICH AXSLRAD, Enge , Lcwenucean, '

u:m , }

' {

32 Reis and Axelrad, 10 25 Connautictu_ ..uc a ec , d.u , j Wachington, D.C. 2003G l 23 i RudALD JOHNSON, lk;y., Portlend G m 'm.1 L**  ?- o l 24 Cotapany, 121 S ,il. S a ltc'o n B a :.

.  ;. , > ' rc.1.m ,

I Oregon.

g ea l-d 2e r

} . .. . _ . _

MW . . _ . , - ,_ -

I' -

l .

. i i

l 1412 .-

uh On behalf of Donneville Pouct ihhainistraMon:

,'h ,

, W I L L I tY 4 K IIIS H Y , Ucy., 1002 M.M. Holla. day, Portland, Oregon.

3 h j On behalf of State of Oregen Department of ihrgy, Oregon Public Utility CcWaltasioner: .

5(' iT0!!!!II. 30COLOFSKY, Ibq., Depart.uani,of Juctica, j l State Offica Building, Salma, Ort.gon . j O '

r i

7 '

. On. behalf of the IJuclear PeguJ atory Colcai lo t. : l

'O i *'J0dHP11 GiUW, Psq. , cnd Jani; MUL1Mu, ',Ja.,

I Of fice of !Omcutive Lcyal Diret:bcr, 9 United Stitos if ualear llegulatory Ccm'd wion,  ;

Washington, D.C.

10 -

II On babalf of Columbia Environmental Ccencil: i l

Intervanor: l w l l

GPEGORY. KliFOUl(Y , Hag., Kafoury a Hag..a.,

@ 13 - 202*dregon Plancer Duildingi 320 S.U. Heark Street, Portland, Orcgen.

d

!d on behalf of Conlition for Safe Po;Ier, u terv antar ,

ni and pra pg:

10 EUGENE ROfiDLIU, 3926 11.01 12th Ot~: cat, Portland, Oregon.

17 On behalt of Consolidateu Xntervonors, and pro se:

'!G [ )

}'

NINi\ U1n,L, 2018 U.U. Evcxche r Pe rt. tan t,

. oragon, iD't t 20 -

, 7. i :

I t-g; ..

L@ , -t .!

,,4 .

wa }

. t l -

C .8 i ;7 Q {

l i

-[

i i!

t

} l

.. f

d.  ; .

. k< 4

-ee' ewe,-et -:=mwe.w,w =.- m .a--,, e,e m- ,.-e-. ,,e, ,r-e,,,-we-,- , -,,p.. g., , $

s-t i

i i

10/10/78 1413 -

wb' l' a

'g l

. .C-. .- O. N..T .E H-T..S

.'h Witnesnes . Dire ct, Cross 3

l Myle J.Olley, Jr.) 1427 l

h- 4 Bottie Bronler (Col.ti.nued)

)

)

5 i

G .E.'.thibits l 7. (Nor'e '

i

- o i

i*

1 g

1 10 i  ;.

s  ?

.11  !

i n ,

I h 13 f

i l 14 1

) }-

18 l-

l. -16  !

4 i

17 f8 e

.19 20 l

.21 .I

! 22 Le~

! .- ' P.3 24-

,1 25-i-

.l s

P

. . - . . ,. - . - _ , . . . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ - _ - . . _ _ . , , . -_.._ . .....4-..

j t l' 1414 l lA MPD1 I

' IMDELON/ 'l P R O C E E D I N'G S i cl mpbl j 2 CHAIRtiAN MILLERt Good morning, ladies and O

3 gentlemen. The evidentiary hearing on issue number one will O

4 resume.-

5 Does'this envelope and contents belong to any-6 one? It's a United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'7 onvelope and it bas notea and thingc.

8 MR. GRAY: lir. Chairman, it may cell be that 9 Mr. Ilanc' " left that here last Friday.

- I s

10 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Well, then, we 11 tender it to i

a 1

i 11 You.

I l i l 12 It docan't belong to any of the Board naisers, h 13 and .we' re not sure what it ic.

I 14 - MRn BANKS: Mr. Chairman, I don't knou if tha.s is 1 . 1 15 appropriate at this tire or not, but some other people have 16 been discussing with me the situation with rehard to schedul-17 ing.

10 On Friday did supply to everyone, the Board gg andal$~ parties,,theanalyciaoftheFloorresponsespectra.

. 20 Bytomobrh1 I'm sure we're going to be able to advise the 21 Board concerning the witnesacc who will be prepared to precent 1

. 22 that teatittony, 1

23- I d n't know whether we can finish the other 24 . matters that were -- other timn that portion of the testimony h 25 by the,end of this wcok. But I think some of the concern of

. a ,

E.__.__ - _ ~ -

t l l ' . ..

]-

L ,

lt '

'1415 s p l i _<

q ,

mpb2 L the- people' was that you had indicated 'in . the wire that the 2' intent.was to go on with the hearing cont'inuously, which in 3 our. desire too, if that in not inconvenient with other phople .

( .. -.

l' 4 Dut I : think everyone wan k'ind of interested in uha.t the feel- '

L ,

l' i 5 iny of the Board was if we did not finich on Friday, just for il L 6' ccheduling,purpoacc..

I f 7 Wo~cro prepared to proceed, but I don't know what t

. 1 1

-e .

the hoard's feeling is on this. , ,

f a

[  !) CIIAllUmN MILLER: The monbors of the Donrd have i-j i

r 4 . . i l- 10 considered that matter. It's apparent that thera is one f i

11 inatter of these otudies that has been reserved, and wo will-12- inquira about that of Intervenors in a rtomnt.

1 h 13

!!awever, the mcmbors of the Board's own schedulos, l p hearinga,' meetings, and the'liko, indicate that the week of i

j, g. November 6 in oute November 13 in out, the 20t'i is out, . and 1 i

m the 27th in out.

g Actually the first clear week that' ue have would i

.g be the wack ' of December 11. If it. wcre ponsible f: hat wo bad l-'

1,g :

only 'two' daya, perhaps thrce at 'the mont, that we night con-

-i j" 20 ' aider sonsething in 'the week .of December 4 th, although that j L . involves two ' carious reacheduling mttern.

21 7g So I think :that for all practical purpoder it

~

iJ would be the week 'of . December 11.

a -

t. t s

e: O F,,9 : Id'..i.P> 5.rg e p, , ,

gg .kould there he' any chance of finishing .it -on ' Saturday or in-p y x jA 1: b . , .

1416 l

1 i'

1 mpb3. 'the evenings? I'm talking now about the portion we're on now.

g. 2~ CILAIIUW1 MILLER: Well, this in possible -- well,

3 let ma inquire now of tho' Intervonors and the State of Oregon, l

O 4 and all parties, except the Licensee, and, as a matter of fact i.

5 the Stiaff.

l l 6 With reference to this material that' was I believe l

7 hand-delivered on Friday, October 27, relating to the responso l

8 t3 the Staff's technical questions of October 16, dated i

1 9 October 27, portaining to the additional review and floor j 10 response spectra being developed for the STARDY11E analysis l-

11 -- han everyone received a copy of this, first of all?

.12 MR. GRAY: Yes.

i i

13 ' ' CRAIIU W7 MILLER: Very well.

14 Let me inquire when, in the opinion of the partiec i l I 13 other than the Licensee, will they be prepared to cross- 1 l

16 examino and consider those matters?

i 17 MR. RAFOURY: For the Columbia Environmental 18 Council, we would need some time in which to make an indepen- (

19 dont consultation and see whether or not we would want to 20 submit interrogatories.

21 I-would assume that acme would ba required -~

CHAIRITAN MILIER: Hell, pardon me. f

.- 22 I don't believe interrogatories would be proper.

23 24 You have the effect of interrogatories right now in hearing.

25 MR. KAFOURY: Well, it's my understanding that r

l

i n

[. 1417'

! rapb4 I interrogatories arc properly received on any subject at any 4

2 time, and should be anawared as coon as posni!ile.

O:

4 3 CIIAIRMA!L RIllER: I'm not quite nuro that we agree 4 with you on that, which is why I'm bringing it up now.

5 Interrogatorica arc discovery prior to a hearing.

6, Now it's true that we would protect you and your opportunity i

! 7 to analyze and'the liko, but I think the tima for discovery G- on thin losue, icaue number one, io now past. In other words, i ,

I 9 you are now on trial.

4 10 IIowever, you vill achieve the anma. thing, you j 1- 1 l :11 , noc , . by ~- }

I i

l 12 MR. KAFOURY: Yes. I'm speaking of the floor i.

l 33 responce spectra, and the Chair is talking about insuo nur.ber l 14 one.

CHAIPJ1Ali . MII4BR: Yea, correc.t.

l l tr MR. KAFOURY: Tho quest. ion is how long would g the inquiry of the various witnesses tako?

g! CHAIRMAli MILLER: lio .

!- {

{g 'The natcrial which we reserved out, and which i l 20, was the cubject of a filing on Friday.  ;

O 21' HR. KAFOURY: The floor racconse cpectra, )

- l. i j  ;>y CHAIRFDiN MILLER

Y e a ., <

[ j

.g. MR. KAFOURY:- And the question then is?  ;

t

[ gg cnAIntw: MILL!mr Review of the cafety, of all 1 {

safoty-related components, piping and systema in the centrol  ;

[

25. . ,  ;

F  ;

j. 4 f '

I

> ;i ) i

! i

!l I _. '

dU

o 1418 .

mpb5 1 ~ aux.l.11ary fuel. building complex,-and so forth, which is the

'e

-2 subject .of' the additional' studies, as I understand it.  !

i

'3 MR. KAFOURY: Then the further responce to NRC 4 Stafl's . technical quostions of- October 167.

[

p i

5 . CHAIRMAN. MILLER: Yes.

j-i l 6 MR. KAFOURY: Okay. l 7 CHAIRIGN MILLER: It's not part of it?. I'm l 8 assuming thic is all-part of the~same material, l'

j 9 MR. KAFOURY: That is part of it.

.i ,

j 10 f There were two items, Mr. Chairman. I was at my 1

11 office at 11:30 Friday night.

! u CHAIRMAM MILLER: Let's check, then, and see what l.- 13 you have.

-.14 MR. DANKS: Well, . the other items you'va corved

. 15 interrogatorien -on junt prior to tho. start of the hearing 16 wo endeavored to and didn't answer.

[

I

. CHAIR:mN MILLER: Well, those arc diccovery I 17

gg' aspects, answers to intorrogatories, which you handle your-L 19 self and not the Board.

20, MR.=KAFOURY: Yes.

21- CIIAIRMAN MILLER: I'm talking about what in beforo 22 the Bo'a rd and what was excepted out last week because it had i j . g. -

23 n t been filed and there hasn't been ' an opportunity to be

, . 24

- prepared to. cross-examine. ,

.h 25 My question iss when do you believe that you will

' we yr ee--wo was s w+ew w-= se- W - M-**+m udeu )' -+ee,-e wwe rve+e rv w"1r'w-s'= - * - **-e**' '**h-**'"-"' - " * ' ' - ' ' " * " * " * ' ' ' " - ' ' ' ' * ' ' " ' * " * - " - " " ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' " " " * * ' " " ' ' " " " * ' * ' " " " " " ~ * * " * * ' ~ * "

1419' - }L-- 5 h

mpb6 l'

. bo = propared' to cross- examine , having analyzed it and. . . .

n MR. . KAPOURY: Well, that'n difficult to say.

3 Apparently one problem is all tha information has not boon G 4 receivod yet.

5

'Che ' cover letter opcahn of further analysan -

U CilATRMAN MILLER: Well,. wo know that. Except 7L that 'for the moment --

0 ~1 6. KAFOURY: Excepting that for the moment - l-r

0. i 1

C11A1RMAM MILLER: Let's look at.the body, first  !

I 10 of all, and'see what you fool that'you need to crona-oramina j 11 On.

12 MR. KAF00RY: It'c difficult for me to nay at h 13 this time,.Mr. Chairman.

14 I-havo made only a rather brief perusal of the t

15 information. It locka rather technical. It'c now; it's 10 'something that we havan' t bean into. s 17 .. We've buen talking about unlis, until now all of la ..

i a sudden we're talking about inertial internal forces on 10 f machinery, and that's a different question.

4 20 It's difficult for me to cay. Wa'll be rendy as 21- soon as'possible.

?,2 - CilAIRMAN MILLER: All right.

1 20 Let me inquire of the' Staff. What ic the staff's ,

24 . position?

, 23 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, the S taf f is s till -

I

1420 l 1

l mpb7 1 evaluating and reviewing this, and wo will continre to do so 1 1

2 during today.

, 0 3 Wo uill have a better feeling tomorrow.

4 <- CIIAIRMAN MILLER: All right, ife'll inquire, th en ,

5 tomorrow.

6 Uhat about the State of Oregon.

7 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: I think that's the same with uc.

B We gavo the material, as given, to Dr. Laursen D lact Friday, and we haven't talked to him yet today. We will to probably find out, if we can get hold of him today, whether i 11 he's finished or not.

12 We will probably know batter by tomorrow morning. l h 13 CHAIRMAU MILLER: All right.

14 Well, let's review the matter tomorrow morning, 15 then.

16 I assume the position is the samo with the indi- .

I 17 vidual Intervenors?

ja MR. ROSOLIE: For mycelf it 10. I don't know about 19 Ms. Bell, though.

.)

20 MS. BELL: My situation is that I'n looking over ii l

21 and using Robert Pollard in Washington, D.C. as a technical 22 consultant. So it's cort of difricult for :T.e to de things l 23 (1uickly; and I'm not sure where I stand thin morning.

24 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right.

25 We'll try to got everything on it tomorrow morning,

,-...r , - - - , . - .- . _ ,-.--.

F

.I 1421 ,

I

t i I

' 4

[ mp b8 .1 than,'all parties, please.

~

!- l 2~ im. DMRS: I might add i Mr. Chairman, I don't l ,

3 1;hink the intent _of the document was to indicate that there l,

4 i.s really any . furthur analycia that was going to be supplied. . <

S ' Thore is son'a refinement being worhad on just to deternine

i. -:

, G whether that maximum of 35 itema in natually the rauximum, j .,

o i l

• / ) I think it'2 going to be 10C0 Butthereicn'tanyadditionalf

l.  :

G. analysis going on.  !

cad MADI:LOM f)'  ;

j(IRBLOOM flwa I t

jf ' }. -

r l

i

) ~ Id r  ;

I3

< 14 j i

i 15' j~ IIs i

1 17 i 5 18 I 1 I i  :

! I9 I I

i 20 l

c. ,

21 1 i

1 pe!

22 i

4

~

O -

15-

[  !

1

... . . .. V ..-._.-.._-.--..-~.._...-..-.-a....-..---~.. -..-.-...-.~.:--.

h WRalcom , 1422

. fis MPB l lal ebl .

~1 CilAIRMAN MILLER: Well, it does refer on paga 1 2' to more frefined analysis to be concluded within the ner.t few l 3 days, and also on the second page, a cimplified analysis of ,

-M W l

4 small piping. It indicates that modificatione vill not be ,

5 required. "liowcVer, a more detailed analynio of cmall piping O is being performed."

7 MR. DANKS: And I'm sure wetI have tho answer to 8L that right away, too.

O CilAIRMAN MILLER: So this does indicate that 10 there is some additional studies anu .nformation, however L you may quantify it. Very well.

7. MR. DANKS: Yes. One other thing we thought Q 13 might bo of help to us timing-wise, in response to interro-14 gatories to date, the Intervenors have not identified anv  !

l witnesces, forgetting the floor spectrum problem now -- I'm  !

13 16 talking about the other problem. Ic would be helpful for ry. us to know at thin time if they intend to call any witnesses gg and if they do, who they arc.

19 CliAIRMAt; MILLER: Well, we're inquire of all 20 parties what witnessco, if any, they winh to calle other 21 than the Licensee.

22 The State of Oregon?

G 23 MR.-SOCOLOFSKY: liarold Laursen, and hic testi-4 24 m ny han been served.

~.

25 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Very well.

1 4

1 i

p 1423 r L

1 i-F. t t ob2- 1 ' MR. Kafoury? ; j o

l. 2' IIR . ' KAFOUnY :. The Intervonors amongat themnolves  :

1'

-3  : have discucacd the posnibility of attempting to secure

! -4 Professor. Palinor by subpoona, and we are pursuing the poani-5' bility of having witnessen who did conchruction work on the G ~ aci.un1' corcelex of buildings .

. 7 Thoac arc the two' posaibilitics of which I'm

, I 0' 'p::epared to advice the Chair at the moment'. ,

I g- CIIAIRMAM MILLER: Very. wall, When can you con-1 10 firm that.information?

j i 11 MR. KAPOURY: I think by Wednaaday ud'd be ablo  ;

.t2 g to adviso the Chair'what our final position would be. 'f ll l - 13 C!! AIRMAN MILLER: 'Very well.

i 14 Are yon speaking'for all the Intervenorn now?

1 yg ' I MRi I:APOURY: I'm speaking for myself.

4 is L CIlnIRMAN MILLER: We can inquire also of the other i

l j; Intervenors.

1-

- .gg MR. DANKS

Profeanor Palmar doecn't mean any~ '

19 thing' to me. can you tell me who he in?

} d 4

30 4 MR. KAFOURY: A geologist'at Portland State }:

! g University, lie spoke at -the original citing hearings.

y .

MR. GRAY: 'Mr.-Chairman, if I.any interject, tho

~

' Staff 'han served or4 all partiec, includintj the Intervanora, g3 g i :.

i j {}'

d its tIie past interrogatorien Erequesting that witnesses be ji ,

-.n g , identified and that tha thrust of' their tas timony or a

i

. < i

-h- f 4

u ___ _ _ _ ___ e -

R - - -

]

l'

! 1424 1 3

J ob3 '1 surmnary of .what they intend to present be givon, and I would 1

.~ 2 1200 - I would'also point out that the Board has imposed on.

3 ullLpartion the' requirement that interrogatory responses be q WJ 4 updated and cupplemented as new information.becomec avail-l 5 able.- I think that would apply also.to these interrogatories l'

] 6 and the witnesses.

7 I would hope on Wednesday when Mr. Kafoury indi-a 8 cates whether or not he intends to present uitnesses, ho 9 will also indicate the thrust.of their tentimony, what their 10 positions are.

11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, I think that vill be re-

[ 12 quired of all parties to whom interrogatorica were sent, g 13 information as to fae propocca witnesses or a statmary or an j

14 indication of the area of their testimony. That 'sould have i to be filed in advance of calling the witnesses, uhoever 15 i 16 they-may be.

1 i jy Ms. Bell, had you concluded?

18 MS DELL: No. At thic point I'm considering gg having Mr. Pollard come, but I'm not sure what the entent of,

!~

20 'his< testimony would be, duo.to the fact that I just got the l

21 information, so..I:really don't know at this point. Perhaps j 4

L by Wednesday'I,would know. 3 I. '22 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: ' Lot us know as soon aa you can.

~

. 23 1

i 24; I'm sure y'ou 'are also awaro .o fthe requirements for dis . l l25 ' closure.:

l I i  !

I s

b: _ . . _ -

.-]

1425

+

i ,)  :

, eb4 f Mr. Ronolie?:

i 2 MR. ROSOLIE: I uculd besically repeat what '

j. ;3. Mr. Kafoury has said.

g

'W 4 Cf!AIPMhn MILLER: Including the came potentini i- , .

5 witnons?

J J G -MR. ROSOLIE: Ye s .,

l 7 , .CUAIRMAM MILLER: The Sto.ff?

I i ab MR. GRhY: Im the Staf f indicated las c weak, We'11

L

).

c 9i -

s present Mr. Ucrring and Mr. Tram.icll with renu d .o the

4

+

l 10 Staff's structural analysin avaluation, both i:he ' original l

1 l- M j ronnalysiu and the GTARDYNE analysis. '

, 1 i

f

>t

I will procent Mr. Dodda on inspection afm r i I

i g 33 the occurrence of an OBE.

, 4 And we would procent Mr. Jamon Knight with rc- i i, t e 3 p g: . <Jard to the offects of building deflechion on uafety- l 1 h b

I related equipment.

! g; j

{ g The tectimony of all these witnassos has basa 1 1

{- <

! 10 prefiled and has been in the hands of the partic: l o r :terae l 39 time.

20 Mr. Chairman, while vo're on this subject, Staff )l Witness Doddu is an inspector from the NRC Staff. Office 'l 1, 21  ;

! I 22 of.Inopection and Enforcement, Region'5. He in here and I '

~

g would request that he be parmitted to testify out of time j i i L

tomorrow norning, the rencon being that he has fire protectica!

pg i

i .w

.a review commitnanta in the eactorn part of the United States i J

l

._2.-.._-, . ._s,k. .. _'.,_._.._.-__=.;_.-._._._. . _ . - . - . _ . .. - . _ . _ - - - - - ___

\

3 i  : r-; l

1426 l 4

[

i eb5 -1  ; for.the'romainder'of this wook.

2

[g Mos I h' ave. discussed this with the pcrties and S they have indicated..no objection to . this,

[

h 4 -

CHAIRMAN MILLER: That's Mr. Dodds?

[ ..5 MR.. GRAY: That'c-Mr. Robert Dodds.

j. 6' CHAIRMAN HILLER: Tomorrow, the 31st?

7. MR. GRAY: Yes. I 1-  !

G CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do I hear any objection?

l 9 . (No response.)

[

10 All right. Then uc.will permit you to call out j- 11  :. of order Mr. Robert T. Dodds at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, the 31st ,

b 12 of October.

k 13 MR. GRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

14 CHAIRMAN MILLER:' ANd if necessary, Me'll suspend 15 whatever witnenses we are in-to permit the ccapletion of ic Mr. Dodds' testimony and cross-examination and than resune.

17 Anything f' urther of a preliminary naturo before 10 we resume with tho' testimony of the witnesses?

- 19' (No response.)

}

J-L 20 Very well.

i 21 Gentlemen,.you may come forward, plecco.

p2 . Whereupon,

.O MYLE J. HOLLEY, JR.

23 4 i

- .( '24 and l .;

~

25 (SORIS BRESLER s.

I 4

4 m-e-a- -- . b w. - . - , -rs-..-mw _ .w-.<. . c., . .,4n.e ..-..-......,,,-,.,--ww-..,-,._._,%..c,+- -+.oy, , p 3.w_ . . . .,d

q E -

1427 3;  !

1 1

a

.eb61 1 resumed'the stand on behalf of the Liconueos and, having i l

I 2 been previously duiy cuorn, ucre examined and tectified 1-3 further nn follows:. I 3 l

! 0'- i 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr..SocolofGky, I'believe you l l 5 ,

were' interrogating, were you not, when w: aucpended?'

a 1

) 6 'MR, SOCOLOFSKY: Yoc. I

?

) / CHAIRMAN MILLER: You may resuma.

i' I G CROSS-EXA?HNATION (Resumed) l l

4 .g EY UR. . GOCOLOT' SKY :

10 Q As I underatand it, you gentlewin vere en Jaged i n by the aw-firn which is reprocenting PGE in thic case. Here 12 you ongaged by the law firm on hahalf'of PGE, or wac this

.h _

13 the law firm, independently of- PGE) do you know?

) ja A (Witnasc Brooler) I think it in the law firm

3 on behalf.of PGE.

j g ,

CHh1RMAN MILLER: I'm not clear as to the answer.

1 j

37 Are you, Mr. - Socolofsky? 1

! gg 'HR. SOCOLOFSKY: The t.ts er uaa engaged by Pha i 19 law firm cn behalf of PGE. ,

. . )

ECr WITNESS DRESLER: By the law firm. 2 % not aurc i e

~s .I understand.the queshion.

1 l

. CHAIRMAN MILLER: I don't bolicve there is a

'e 23 clear answer;

}

-{

i

• g ' 'MR. SOCOLOFSKY:;All rig'ht,  ;

j ~Wg'.- .

er. j; BY.MR. SOCOLOPSKYi.

g

}-

,. . s.J

i l

[

i .

s .

r .

j. 1/12 8 l

,l i eb7: 1 s ,

.OT Iourltestilnony indicatec you were engaged by the l'

i. .

2 law firm of Lowenstein,1Neuman, Rein.and Po:elrad, and I'm l 3 not sure'whether they were engaging you or whether you felt 4 yca were being engaged by PGE f:hrough them ao PGE'n repre~

i

l 5 'vontatives or by them independently of PGE.

, 6 A (Nitneas Bresler) My understanding is we are 6 l 4

7 engaged by them dadopendently, but on the case involving i

4 O the PGE case.

I 9 O All right, the law firm is paying you and not i

i 10 PGE?

g 11 A 'That's correct.

12 0 What was your assignment in the case uhon you i

g 13 were first engaged?

, 14 A Our ' assignment from the beginning was. to accar--

15 tain whether thero is any hazard to public safety involved 16 in the Trojan control building. That was item number one.

17 And if our conclusion was that there is no ha::ard 18 to public cafety, to assict counsel in preparing the cace 19 for presentation to this Board.

2') Q Let me sco if I understand that.

.21 If yoy found that.there.was no hazard to public 22; safety, then you were to assist the councel in the procen-23 tation of ' he' case in front of this Board?

i g A ,That's my understanding, yes.

.g.

j .. W - 25 0 Add what.if you had found that there was a n

5

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

. r. .

'} <

i a._ m

,m .a !

r i

1 eb8 1I hazard to public nnfety?

2 A Wo would so advina countiel and I'-- ', ca ~ re 9 what their action might be. Thay nighi: n0L ).m m d m .h  !

5 O 4 !. any further action. He might not be here to 'n ,

I i

i u

! . t 5 0 All right, f

6. ,; Did you h ee :aparate aron at- r. a popm n '. .,.i ty ,:

I 7 A You meen 79:cf fe:Jcor Holl.cy ;nd I:

0 Q Yoc. l 2

l

(

9i A To a certain dearco. " Wa uorked cn a?.1 aopacca l

10 of the problem together, but an atated :n ow .orcinony, l 1

3 11 Tay focus UuS On ti1O Ukri20tWral rCGponGa OE la Wa.l.lr lirl tl10 f

i 12 i huilding, to a 100002 CMtOni:. On tha d v. n i' L i c . . c .'N C t' i

IOfGUGOZ I?O3.10 { ' S f C C1.1 r, (*7 l!T ' .J ) T.* O Gli 'Clio M ,

dynamic C.UGlVCiG liCPCCD Of thO huhCViOr OE l' aL P aild I M _- . 5, e

25 0 Lot ma con if I can atate thir. ln < c:7 .I W 7ht l jG " understand it: '

s q[

ip 1 Z guaGS the itap D 2 S i.on ,, Pr oiletu o - Drt lor, int .

9 i,

a  ! you were more coacerned with thc. cennoili~to o r t.n o w n m ri na r -

g A - and atructuroc ,

s i t i I

','T; } O " - -

itT) '1 Prof 00f;Or .UOllCy WuS IMOYE C'.\1C n .!j iC d Ui th o

) ,i

[] tbO (DOI.OrrdknutkCn C[ b C'ii EMCb hOrCO s ,'C U l d ) K' CD psirNkCQ1Gr )

il I ay parta of the building and things like that, i O ., t, t

u ehet mon or , on<.fmuv sm e4 moce1cm, l

t 4

k M, A I IMDO.Tici19 TDd 3 tr " C ' U TlO ", Tt O l. 'I U U _ E '{'.O f1 s t if m'.t.r- f, O

Il k h t

GG.

94 on i I

t k

i.

f.

a'- _ ___________--1 i

l  ;

!' 1430

l a

l eb9 'l' O Okny.

l 2 -A (Witness Holley) May I seo 1f I can help clarify lIg 3 that a little bit?

l l

e 4 O Surely.

5 A As Professor Bresler said, there was a great deal

6. of ovorlap. Each of us was interected in all of it, but he

. 7 tended to focus inore than I on the behavior of a shear wall l I, f '8 per so, where it is in the building and how shear walls )

L ') behave, and I probably tended to focus a little more on the 10 performance of the building made up of these shear valls and i

2

,1 slabs.

12 ,But in cach of these areas wo interacted very l

h 13 closely.

i 14 0 Now in your testimony at several points I believe t

15 you referred to certain things that.you accepted from Dechtel  !

1 e

! 16 and PGE - or PGE. One, for example, would be on page 2.

g.

You make note that your efforta have not included any attemot 17 18 to check the accuracy of the analyseo executed by the 19 engineers of Dechtel.

20 On pago 6 I believe there 's another reference 21 at the bottom of pago 6:

"It is the writers' understanding 22

9. 23 that.the-slab capabilities for resisting those forces have boon thoroughly invectigated."

24'

- 25 Imd on paga 11 I think como reference is made to

.i . - _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . , , _ _

__.__-____y______.______.___..,_.__._______

e r {-

1431I1-

,. 1 ab10 1 equi'praent. 'l'

1

}'

2 Let's take page 11'first. That reference to 3 3- equipment' and the curvey 'of cafety-related equipment, is that

!- i b

~4 g . curvey' the one which wo had' introduced last week an Exhibit j i n '

ll?.

'6 '(Witnces Bresler)

! A- Yea, that'n correcc.

i

! 7 Q And'it's my understandinrj from what you say herc 0 - that you really accepted the reault of the curvey without

9 natually verifying it.

1

'1 10 A (Witness'Holley) .That5a correct.

)

, 11- Q Okay.

!: . I l

13 .!, Aa far an the other two mattars e.ce co.ccerned, 1

'$ l13 that in, the clab capabilities end the analyses of Eachtel, i

14 ' do you havo any reservationn about being able to accept 15 calculations like thic.in reaching your determination with-19 out verifying the calculationa?-

37 -In other words what I'm caying is you iro both I

g very experienced men in thia arca, und is it possible, for j

. I

g you to, for example, he able to tell whether calculc.tions l N- .

no like this that'you accept from Dechtel are in the bilpark, 7 l-j pj i not-likely to be incorrect because of the rouults that you' y 1

i

~ >

12 $O0 = in. your cnalyni's without actually checking all that detai.1

'e- -

.g.

yourself?- j

.3 g A- (Witness Dresle'r). If I may comment f.trat, maybe

+g, Professor JIolley wouldi want to add, if_ ue, address -the j

e l'<

i' i

_1______.s_-__.._-._.._de....__-..--..-..L--. ., ,

I 1432 I obil 1 problem of' the alab-to-wall shear transfer, most of thu l

2 . inertial forces in.the building comes from the salls-which 3" Jare very heavy. The shear forces that have to be trana-

.O. -4 mitted by ' the- floors into the ' walls are substantially lower

' \

i j '5 than tho actual choar in the walls themselvec, thone total .j i

I 6 shear forces carried in the walls, and the elabs carry only l

7 part of that forca.

8- Knowing the kind of construction, the accel bed 9 construction with the slab thicknean of the concrete and tho 4

10 amount of the reinforcement in it, we had no reasen to quen-l i . . i 11 tion that those will be able to tranofer th.is magn.itudo of l 12 shear force, based on our general experience.

O is voraeve vrorceeor uv11er "e ee to c :=eut-q 14 A (Witness llolloy) It acponda a little on what l 15 j you're talking about. For example, there are very important

e b 16 } outputs from their analysis which one can look at immediately l

17 and say Yes, that's about what it should ba, without a L .

tg detailed analysic.

J.

i q For enanple, it is possible to make almost with-20 out a piece of paper a calculation of about what the funda-2i. mental frequency ought to be. So if something is reported 22 - which in grossly'different, you'are surprised by it, i

23 It in possible to have an iden about what a )

. i 792 , ;g ' fundamental load-shape would be expected to look like in l O 25 a structure of thisLsort.

1 ll 1

i i

l l

' .{

i 7d 33 7>

1

4 There are nota kinds of thinga that chvicacIy I i 'eb12 'I' i-2- ano cannot judge off-hand.

For onrpic , in the survey to 1 8 o which you alluded, a team of engineering apecialists ayauined i l

. 4 .n great itany thinga which were cmnacted 'to tha atructure 1 i

'S .And examined whethor i; hose var.icun piece.3 of equi'  ! ant could i 3 f

6 y tolerate largo relative displaccmnto. T.t is obviously not  !

l i

7 possible for one to look at that .md say Yac . of ccit:30 S that's right, not having walked through tho building with  !

' 1 O a the team and obcorved them, '

e 10 I We had to have and I thick prop':.rly had-the i

11 confidence that the Dachtal people hacw what they rero doing, J

I 12 that they wera cualified people and that they were raporting .

a g G the results of what they were doing. 3

!~ M So come kinds of things you could uny imedictely 1

1 hi ,

you can acuse whether there is a raajor departure froa 'that I

>G you would expect. Othorn you had to take an f aith 'nd .j i 4

(

17 '

acnurae that a connetenb group of peoplo has bac ' doing khu l 18 vork.

mi 0 nut I take it from your ananor, Prof oscor Helley, i 1

20 that so far na tha thing that you had to nche on fcith with- l 1

2.1 out having any idea whether it unc accurate or not, at the j moment really you're confining it to the equipm ut curvey. f

, 112  ;

@ q3 . The other typen of things - -

t ntf CH.TtIRMAN MII,LER: Hait a minute. Let'c get Un 1 i

j) r

.m ansvar. }

}

]

j

< , 2 d

5 j

, n,

1434 l

4' eb1'3 ' I: BY MR. SOCOLOPSKY:

h 2 .g- -..In that right?

3 A (Witness llolley) Well, I guess I would have to f

O .

4 run through and think what the several things are. But in j S terms of the response of the building itself and the acquence

'O of reasoning that.one goes through from the initial analysis, .

7 tne elastic analysis, through steps uhiwh I raentioned briefly n

' O I think in our earlier testimony, to a prediction of.what the i 9 magnitudes of thol deflections would be expected to bo, theae one can get'-- one has a cense of about what they should'be.

10 11

. Mow whether there are things other than the 12 survey that do not fall in that category, I cannot say at 13 the moment without thinking a bit about it.

.la2 14 15

10.  !

! 17 i

to i

19 20 2f

'22 23 r

p 25 8

P .J. - - , . . - - - . . . . , . . _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _

~ - . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . - - - _ .

1 1'

1435-i:

y

-la agbl 10 And I'Ta going to give you another c:cample here.

l

'2 LDub I would appreciate it if f over the cource of your .

testiraony and juring :tho. reconnen f if you would discuso l i

' ' '#' - .it and sec;if therc mighti be some'other things that you can l' l

5'

'{ ,

i mention thah wouldn't':f all into the category you have 'j ust 6 deacribed, that would be in the atuae category ao the j h' $

7- . equipment survey, for example.

C Lot me give you another exampic hora.

9 Now, who did the computer work on puttiniJ the 10 structure-into the computer'? Was that soaathing acchtel i,

. r 1

11 would hava done?- I 1

~- 12 A- . Yea, that's my undcatanding , the.t it was an i l-E in-houac' program and'that thay implemented it.

l' 14 - Q -- Was the STARDYME program --- Let ma put the i

10 question this' way, do you know uho developed the STAR 0YiiE r

tG' p program?

e I, i, rf A I can't tell you. i p

3

[

t tg Q -Do'you know whether or not the STAROYNE prograa  ;

t 19 Was in Ecchtol's own computarc, or in the computers of

q. i

i j' 20 another company? l

. I

{

21 [

)

A I believe 'the former. f i

i

!! .22 If you aak me.do I know for abaalute truth, b

' g3 Tho, I don't know.-

4

i. . . .

. g.j . Q -- 'I understand fromLyour testimony, then, that the

{

l20 program wan inia computer 7.:or was placed in a computer, and l

~

4

. . . ,f' s

a ,

i y

1 l

i 1436- ;

l

,! ' agb2 the as-built ' structure uan also placed in a comnuter and 2

$ the language of.the program, and ' that uns done outside of l 3 your responsibility in the cane.

!h 4 A That's correct.

C3 3 . O In the NRC testimony;of Mr. Herring, that is, the i t;

1

{'

j. 6 last teatimony we got from him,on Page 15 he makea reference j 1

4 7 to anomalica appearing.in the floor renponse between t% k 1 n .

t U

i STARDYNH cuid the original analycos. t

t C' CHAInnAM MI;LER

Is that referring to the latter 10 dated October 1G ,1910. from the Licenace to NRC, is that thel 4

i 17 pl.aco you're referring to, Mr. Socolofsky?

i 12 Ma. soccLopsny: yea, j

! {

fh i

1 13 It ctarts out, at the top of Page l'i, tho firnt j 14 beginning centenca starts out: "Further investigation is j a

a 13 indicated....," and no on. l f

16 MR. KAFOURY: I8u aorry, may I have that cito? j i-3 17 I'la trying to locato it. In that part of the control room

{

< t i

w docket co2:rcopondence?

i j 19 MR. DANKS: It's tho testimony of Mr. iterring

+

.I ,

EO that was filed by the NRO, I think, on the 16th. I have it i

I J 21 noted here I rcccived it on the 17th.  !

l .

f 22 - MR. KAFOURY: There were two batchen of the

• j l 33- Harring testimony.

L f 2,; MR.-DAMKS: It's the second. r!

33 MR..SOCOLOFSKY: Do we all have it? {

4

- - _ . - - . . -.N..-l.---:-.-...:-..... - . - . - - . - . _ . . .-- - . \..

h y 11

.1437 ,f .j-

-1  ;

) agb3 :MR. KAFOURY: . I'm still'looking. ,

CHAIRMAN HILLER: Maybe Ms. Bell would sharo hers l' '3' 5 with you. $

j.

{' h-MS. DELL: Surely.  !

i 5

MR. KAFOURY: 'Thank you. -

e

' 6 DY MR, SOCOLOFSKY: i 7

Q Can you tell me, gentlemen, whether or not onc 8

ic able to know if these anomalios that Mr. Herring is 9 discussing would.have existed whether or not the robar in

] .l 10 thcoe walls were continuous? I l

II- A (Witness'Holley) The described anomalics would 12 have' existed whether or not the rebar was continuous.

13 CIIAIRMAtt MILLER: vihat's the nature of the  !

14 anomaly, I'm not sure I understand the term as it's uced j 15 here.

.16 WITHESS HOLLEY: I think the reference -- I'm I 17 not sure I'd use tha . word " anomaly" -- but I think the

'18 reference is rimply to some frequency shifts.

j 19 The reason I ancucred your question that they 2'0 would have axicted'whether or not the rebar was continuous is that-the two analyson that I believe are being refc2: red 21-22 to here, the so-called STICK analysin and the STARDniE O 23 analysis are dono for linear clastic, essentially uncracked 24 concrete behavior. {

9-- 25 g -

~

.And'undar that behavior it wouldn't matter whether <

a 1

t f

l J,

l-1438 l Lagb4- the robara woro continuous or discontinuous or wlmt thny h '3 wern.

l CEMRMAN MILLER: If you got above the non-O ,'

<; racked aspect, would it then becoma significcut?

i L

1. e l

i W21MGSS HOLLEY: UcIl, l.t would be a different G

que.stion, .becausa the prediction la for the kinda of

~#

l frequencien that vould exist under the lincar ,lautic stato, I

l 0[ r which tonds to be the utiffcat condition. \

1 1

,l CIIAIRMA11 MILLER: I sec. Thank you. .l 1- BY MR. SOCOLOFSKY:

p U 0 Can wa accume, r. hen, that the procence of theno l '

i l i

12 dif ferent frequencies is probably the result of the f i

h I3 cophictication, the comparctivo cophiatication of STARDW1B M' -to the original STICK analyuic? g i i j 15 j '

A (Witness !!olley) The definition of the frequencice) 1 M l' came about as a result of the sophiatication 05 the S E RDYOE (

! 17 program. Presumably, tha structure docan't knca anything l' 10 about what kind of program ia being used to analya,' it.

13 j' CHAIRMAM MILLEn: It j ust stays the cate.c.

I

j. 20 ,

MR ., SOCOLOFSKY: R)jht. Okay.

! .1 -BY MR. SOCOLOFSKY:

t l

! ~d -Q In Mr. . Horring's 6riginal testincny -- now I L9

23 l dontt- know the date of the cover ' letter on that, but it's i

4

!. 24 the tactimony of approximately 34 pages - and on Page 31

'e 4

25 of this testimony, the accond baginning santonce from the j'

p

! - . = . . 1 h.-

t

! 1439 i,

t l

.;- }

l

$gb 5- top of the page, he' cays: l 1

"Over the remaining life of the plant, f .- ,

3 l . - although-unlikely,'it is not inconceivabl'c that 4-

j. the plant could cxperiencc ~one or more carthquakec 1.

near the previonalyLapproved OBE level for the 6- site followed by an SSB. The structuro's [

7 ability to resist this subsequent SSU may be l~

1 i O impaired by-the occurrence of the previous 9 earthquakes near'the OBE level.'

j 10 Ny question is, do you agroa with his statotaent?

II '

MR. BANKS: I tako it you mean both statements.  ;

12 .

You read'two sentences, g 13' MR. SOCOLOFSKY: Yes, except tha.t I think they.

]

II are .related and escentially, - as I read them, he'a saying 1

15 .the ability.of the control building to withstand an SSE i J

l I

16 may be' affected by a number of earthquakes near the ODE

'17 which might have preced,$d the SSE.

18 WITNESS'!!OLLEY: Let me see if I can answer that  !

I 19 usefully for you. j j l 20 It la certainly'true that the ability of the l l

21- structura, or any structure, for that matter, to withotand d 22 an SSE event may be' influenced by whether or not thern were

e. 23 previous' smaller events.

.i' 24= ,

'Now, the: probability that it will be influenced O- -

25: -- and wo may ~ cpeak, in' a moment, of what we maan by 0

9

L 1x 1

1440 q,- 4

>; ,'g~

agb6 - *inflboncedi-- depends on the tahynitude -of the previous. events.

,.1 E

f-l  : Would you like .me to go on? You've e.aked me

, ~

...3.

-dr f agroc'.

F

-h.

. D'l MIh SOCOLOITSKY:

1 5- Q I . thought you naid you waro going to explain. - ,1 -

'A (Witnesa Holley) You said, do I agroc that it l'

. 4 ls .

Eh may be influenced and I cay yen, if one keopa in mind that 0 l' it dependo on the magnitudo of the previous eventa, yes, l

1 j 9 it may be influenced.

10  !

'Q All right.

1I CIMIRMAN MILLER: Then youltere going to define Ik g -whati you meant by; influenced, I believe. ,

i l

.h 13 WITNESS HOLLEY: Yes. {

l 14 . Nhon you speak of ability to rosict an'GSE,  !

I 4

j 15 you presumably have'in' mind some criteria of accept.able i 16 behavior, o

! l L 17 In a conventional. building, you procunably don't i l

10 want it to collapse. In a control building of this nort

{

to you procumably'have in mind cartain limits on deflection.

. t

1. . .

J' 2D A.nd it'is trua that, if yon subjcat the utructura

i. t l 21 to onc or more, earl'idr, cualler carthquahan but chill N 22- signifiannt earthquakco, . then the ability- of thc n m:ructure l Le~. to withstand an.SSE'cvent at whatevc2: ,you define w necentablc i t

~

I  !

1 '

l7 2' 3' " l L.bahavior mayf Lindeed, bo influenced.  !

'l i.'-  ;  !

CHAIRIlhN MILLER:

~

25 t; -

May be influenced. But, again, '

<t <

f .- ,

' !. - 3

f. i. { '

a b _

- l '

1, '$

If .

.r_ , .

y.; 1441 i' ,

I- .. 1.: ,

t agb7 .you!re defining it in terms of the term, aren't you?

WITNESG UOLLEY: 'I'm anying that it Icay not bc:

3 l ...- able to mooti-your criteria- if 'it has had previous chocka

.g : '

which were largo enough.

l" CHAIRMhN MILLER: ' 'By that.c itoria, you'rc 6' . .

referring.to the SSH criteria in this casc of 0.2Sg?

7-- v 1

WITNESS HOLLEY:- Yes.

1 8- Now we have to return - there ic no mcntion, I'

I 9 in what you quoted, of a level of OBE, previously defined 10' }

OBE, I guess, is 0.15.

MI CHAIRMAN MILLER: I think it is referred-to 12- thoro'in the following sentence, inn't it, on Page 31?

i 4

h -I3 WITNESS HOLLBY: Yes. I wac thinking of the I4- ' sentences quoted, Mr. Chairman.

4 IU CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, go on down'than to another M non-quoted sentanco.- I think you'll find the definition 17- there as the writer is using it.

10 WITNESS HOLLEY: It's useful to talk.a littic bit i

18 about this ODB, I think.

' j .' 20 One thinks of OBE in two conses. In the design

\

1 21 scnce, it:is desired to maintain the capabil1ty_to recict 21 an SSE without degradation, without losing this capability L.g e

23 ji ' o;f resisting the SSE as a result of prior ovento. l n

j! ..

$4' And that is accomplished in a variety of ways.

h-' ...

25 Perhaps the most common isLthe technigde that.was used in

i. '

i.i ,

I v' p .

. . .~ . .

i

'1442 -

t 1 .

agb8 tho . Trojan Plant at the time of the design in which, in .

I O ee , eu Onrie -1eigued ny e 10aa fecer - u4, in i-3 .

l this case -- and than the same criteria of acceptability O

.ar . used as if it were an SSE. I 5

One can reverse that, in offect, and any, if you S

can take a particular SSE, you can backfigure what the 7

equivalent OBE 'is that you think would be appropriate.

8-

In my judgment, that is an appropriato approach.

. V 9j CIIAIIG!AN MILLER: Is an appropriate approach.

10 WITNESS IIOLLEY: Yes, with the load factors that 11 were used'in this instance.

1 P, CIIAIRMAN MILLER:' How what are the load fnotorc and how,are they used, Professor, in thin instanco, in this 14 Trojan cauc?

15 WITUESS IIOLLEY: In this caco, in the Trojan N

case, for examplo, it was specified that the SSE was 0.259 ,

I 17 and that the renponse in to be determined uciag the five I l

I6 percent damping factor, or damping ratio. ,l

\

M The OPE, in the initial design, was specified l 20 l

, - go go.0.15g. And' it was specified that, with thi a, the l

21 responso "hould be ebased on two parcent damping factor.

22 It was further specified that the 03E shoulil be 23 used with 'a ' load factor of 1.4.

F# . Now, it happens that, for the Trojan cito, ' the O 25i

.groundresponse spectra that-were specified ara virtually l I

l

.; {

1443 3 1

agb9 idimti on1. for aither the SGB with five parami'. da .ing  : or O che ont uith eeo vexceae aa>"ving- *ae=o re e==re1:m v c1ooe 1 3 1 togc*:hcr uhich nic:ans that, if you didn't have the load

.O i. )

fac:or, the effceto of those two carthque.kca would be alihn I 5

i!r terms of what they would dtuaand in tha uv.y _ of ctrength or chl

/cciatance. of the rtructure.

7 So that in cuocnce, if you now include 'the 1. 6 G

factor which una r2 quired in the origine.1 run, tha on.u o I

'il. would actually control the strengt11.

endlB l

i . r. .

t <

12 O a .

14

, 15 b

J q 17 10 19 i

1 20 I .

}

f M.!

9 ';;

0 n h . '

.i i 25  !

t i

)-

.l '

.__ _ _ _ __ _ .__ ______ _ . _ , -,_# _.. . . ,,. -, , . . , _ , . . - _ . , o _. p

1 i

i 1444 j b

RD/mpb1 1 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Well, now, could'you' describe

'I l' g 2 :for tin the load factor, accuming that we are not exports in ,

3 tifis field?

j@

4 WITNESS IlOLLEY- Sure, l

s- i

! 5 It simply meanc that you aro - well, yvu could

6 apply it in a variety of times, but in essence it says if I l 7 calculate the forces, the internal foreca to be resisted i li j G by the ODE with its two percent damping factor,-I now must 1

i ft multiply those by the load factor which was specified to bo 4 .

! 10 1.4, and make cure that things are strong enough to to1crato j 4

1 11 those forces. {

l j 12 DR. MC COLLOM: Specified by what? I l

g 13 WITNESS HOLLEY: The FSAR.

j 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Where do you get die load factor IS and what does it consist of? I i

As a laynan, I'm still a little murkey. I

, 16

! 17 DR. PAXTON: Is it a fudge factor?

t-

,i to (Laughter.)

t

! - 19 MR. KAFOURY: It takes a phycicist to get to the l

i 20 nub. of theco things.

l l .21 WITNESS HOLLEY: The concept of load factor ic 4

i 22 common in structural decign, it has been for - oh', uhat? -

lg' i

23 15 years. ,

1 l 24 In earlier days structural design used" actual 1

25 -1 ads, or one's best estimato of them, be they loads of a

- 1 a--., . -...-.- ..- -...-- ~. _.. .. , ._.u ~ - .. ..n - . - - . - , . . . _ , , , . - , - . - ,

i

.y c**

( .

t 1445 4 i

A1 rcpb2 l

11

. bridge, or floor loadu in a building, or whatever. And in -l 1 .

i l 2 \

p::oportioning the rcrr.bers to reniat theno loads one sas .ro-

i. 3 I

g ydired to use co-called " working stresses" which imre atrosuec' i W 4 I .nell below the strength values of the materials, t fraction of 5

the yloid strongth of the ateel, for example.

4 L 6 i

Somo years ago there una a general r:ove to what i

, y; l

hao comotimes been ' called "ultimato ! strength denign", althougn.

i 9

it in not truly ultimato strength donign. Let's just simply i

9 call it' strength donign, in which the actual loads ware multi-l '

[ 10 pl. icd by factorn which in somo instancen had to do with timir f

i

! i

5

} racertaintiec, in sono instancca had to do with their conce-- A i

12 quences, but whatever, special load factora. And then theac >

a.

g ;3 factored loads -- or the factored forces ~~ due to them c

y ucre on ono uldo of the cquation and strength on the other F

g 'sith of the equation, i g l So they moved fron, if. you lika, fron echual bact 1

jy i cottmates of' actual loads at. working strassen to incronced l~

ig lcado, factored loads at strength, 3 g Now that trend occurred quito apart from earth -  !'

{

pg qfiakoa .  : *

'And so the notion of. load factora in exactly what 1 1 i

g  :

thvo described to yout i s

factors which increasad the value of .

p fl o load when you are going to conpara thic irrposed force due i n

%y O the. loud with a-strength factor. f

.l .

m%,-

I think in' the case of scismic design ' for- nuclear !

s,,

0 ,

g 20 wor plants, for example, .the uco of the load factor wan s .g j

s

____._...._..;---------"--~~~~""~~'~~~~  ;. .

i 1446 mpb3 I somcwhat differont .in the conce that it uno decired under the

{] 2 -- quote - OBE to have the otrosaca at a low enough level 3 that this degradation to which we referred would not occur, 4 or would be ininimal.

5 How you can acconglish that either by caying I j 6 will design for the ODE at working stracnos - automatically  !

4 7 get you to the lower levol that you want --- or you could do 6L it with load factors. And the load factora chich i

. i 9 in the FSAR and which were used by the Dochtal Power tv poratibn 10 for their roccicended values of OBE in Eha interi:a condition .i 1

11 ariac therefrom. j

11. It's a coremon approach, and I think a roauonable n.

(Q 13 one.

14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, are those load factor <.t -- l j

15 is this load factor an arbitrary figure, 1.4? }

i' 16 'NITNEGS HOLLEY: Tot entirely.

17 CHAIR!Wi MILLER: Could you tell rc.a to uha; exhont j i0 it is and to uhat extent perhaps you feel or believa the it 19 is not? j I

20 HITilESS UOLLEY: Let me sea if I can explain l

21 that to you.

22.

They are arbitrary, cortainly in the conce that, 23 you know, they are the result of committing the daliberations, 24 thinirs of thin sort, tenere there's a joint judgmant that this O

b 25 is a reasonablo lovel. They are not arbitrary in the conso L.

, ._j.._.-_. . . . . _ _ _ _. _ __._ .._._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

, /

i' lH7 I

.\

.. ppb 4 1 ,' that they do 1ndeed raficct people's not. tem., Lbout how much

.i j

2 they want to got that I OBU level 'o f stranc down benh: the l!.initing s trength 1*alue.

{ 3 But they are judgments of pro.fous-

' i t l t

e

. 4 l tonsls. -

5' '

. CHAIRf7di j1ILTER: i Fall, what's the lurpoco, thenf

[

0- to get the OBE levaL'down below what?.

d

'i l T

WITLESS !!OLLE'.(: ihe notion ~'- to go. bach ~2- if

, y-

? ,

one snya - and thia cartainly ic. true - that the behavior 1

. under an SSE will be dif forant if it has besm preceded by '

1 .

60 j

e carlier smaller tyoutc, but thah there is nama icvel oi ; mall-j l

! 'i l l cr etant or atrisuos due to a cmuller ovent. Yimre thia effect i 1 .

5 a: l will be negligible.  !

W t

i f 13, 'I CI!TLIR?1AM MILLER: The degradaci.;; cau Ma by the j K4 maallar would be negligible then in terrm of in:. -  !

I k

~

ph WITNESS HOLLE.?: It term:s of i L. . c. 2 0o the i a ,

v. If big one.  !

4  ;

, 9 So the intent then, in to n.ke cure hhat the i i

g

]

nuallor event is involving or craat;i.ng, if.you liLa r s trusco c!

l

. i; otrains, and uo forth, which could be repcab d

uny timas i ,

, F

{

uithout having any nignificant of.'fe t on the aubmqucnt  !

}

i i

p i

1.

behavior under CSE, )

1

=p So-as I nay, you coul6 do that. l'ou in accence h ,, say I trould lihu to get the responce down wall be Low thic limid~

i.

h c.

i t ;.

g. ,

ing singlo SSE bbhavior auch that it will havo little or no , ):

i i

33 af;fect on that behavior.

1 l 1 a

1 i- l.

'. j

.-___-___--_L>_________.-. ' - - ~ ~

L ,

l 1 j; 1448 .

l l- t l l

tupb5 : 1 CI! AIRMAN MIIJER:- I think we have some questions

,2 heredfrom Dr.'McCdllom.-

h .

3 You will pardon the interruption, please, We're

-O- 4 getting'into Inatters the Board is intorestod in, and it inight

, 6

-5 :he fairer to all parties on cross if tho Doard asked some '

i 6 questions at this point, if you don't object.

l 7' '

MR. SOCOLOPSKY: Go right ahead, please.

4

.8' DR..fiC COLLOM: . You've indicated this was; an 1

1

' 9' appropriate proceduro to ' determine the OBE. I'd like to j 7

4 I 10 approach -it~ from a- differont direction. l 1

11 You have analyzed those parts of the building that l

12 have to do with the response of the building to the sequence i

h 13 of analyses, and I'm not concerned that you bring into play

14 here the connections of the structuro to the equipment uhich 1

15 you referred to before. But using your judgment I would like t

16 to. find out'where you think an ODE chould be placed, and on

- 17 what. basis.

1, 10 Now if I can pursue it a'littic hit further before 1-19 .you' start to answer:

1  !

20- . We have talked about how sophinticated tne

,.. + 4I-21 STARDYME analysis in in telling us where each one of the 22 walla roccives certain loads, and Prof. nresler haa calculet--

O' '23 ed the capacities of' each one of them and we know their hohav--

c 24 ior. . ' And In would like to know on what criteria -- not on any 25 building code,.but on what; criteria you would evaluate this

i -.

7

( :1449

.I e

j- .mpb6 1 cystem which we know no much hbout now in order to 'catablich 2

[ .whorb.it 10 that an OBE might be placed with good judp2nt so l- A that in the'nequenceu that followed you could repeat and

' 4 rodent up to the OBE without having any effect on the SST:.

l

.'4f Wl WITNESS HOLI2Y: In your firct sentence,'Dr.  !

I

') l McCollom, you caid one thing I would like to be cure wa're h

7 l' clear; on, when you naid "whore an ODE chould be placod", 'I

think thoce woro your words. l G [l.  :

G DR. NC COLLOM: I am merely cenking the level at l 4 1 II- which ' a saismic event could occur with a given acceleration i-41 and- the behavior and the recponse of the building uculd be 11 such that it could repeatedly take those in come prac'ical c l

l g- 13- numberc and not affect what would happen if you had a safe i

!4 shutdown carthquako. 1 I

15 - MITNESS'HOLLEY: I w:utted to make cura that it l.

=

I 16 was completely clear that the designer docsn't cet the CBE,.

I 1

l l 17 as you know. Other any For 'this cito, thic, that, and the to other, thing. .

). 19 DR. MC COLIOM: As a nattor of fact, that'n what I

i

. I*ta trying1to ceparate from.

EO ~ }

e l

21- W1TNESS HOLLEY: Yes, and % think there is a d f 21 ' conftu} ion'at what point you should stop' and look, you know, i.

'h 23 which is ' the requirement which OBE, of courco, stands for, the '

I i

i limit of operation bayond which you must stop and look and see!

j, '

what. conditions are.

- g,

.t A__;______;_________ .___.___1_..-._..;._._.._-_.._.l-_u-._.-- -_.---.--_--.-,-----:J1

1450 mpb7 I But in terms -- I think what you' ro really asking !

l O " in3 in what level of ODE relative to SSE do I hhink ia .caanon-- l >

3 able to accept without threatening the SSE aubacquant behav-  !

m  !

4 ior, and why. l 1

5 DR, MC COLLOM: All right. f 1

6 UITNESS HOLLEY: I guosn it'a useful to imagine 7 a situation in which nobody han ever boon bright enough to 6 thinl: that you could shut things down and look at them, or h l

'9 maybe have a structure in which for some reason it's going to I l l 1 10 i>c impossible to look at them. So a t the stage of design you 11 h?vo to concern yourself with this business of uhat are you l

l 12 < ping to design for; in other uorda, what levul of conrarva-(] 13 uism with respect to whatever the specified ODE my bo, and l 14 the notion that it may indcod occur and that you don't want 15 it to have a serious effect on subsequent SSE perforrence.  !

i 10 That is an imaginary situation indood becausa, of cource, l

17 . you can't stop and look at it after an event, n

18 I think I would answer that in two parts. If 19 wo forget the ranconry wall problem for just a momuut -- and

!!> I think Prof. Drcsler can properly comment on that nopect of 1

f,1 it -- if we look at more conventional nimucttu al forms, atcal 22 beams, reinforced concreto beams, concreto alaba, things of (3

23 this sort, if you use a load factor of 1.4, for example -- in 24 other words, if you say I uill design in cuch a va; that the O

V 25 stresses in my principal structural mwhers will be 70 porcen:

{ 1 I

1451 <

i' s

(.

mpb8 i of the single DSE valuco required to cause difficulty, I think,I 2

that'.n very concorrative.

3- -In other worda, our knowledge -~ ' and my bacia I.

e 4.

j for it is that we hava - ccan these conventional structural l

j i 1

5. 1 members loaded ovar. and over and over again ~to levolc of

'~

j G thia cort without affacting what they can take in a cinglo 7' load al.1 the way up. And thin goon to tects of typical membera, be' they-bonms,.be they whatever.

G 5 '

}.

3

. g .Now, in the cano of the shour walla that we're 2

j 1o dealing with, those masonry wallc, one obvioucly arrivcn at i

,  ;; a similar feeling in terms of cycling of that hind of a.memberc I

12 and here .I think particularly Prof. Branler coMd throu more y light on it for. you in tornN of levels of what un night call. j 1/; lower otrona cycling and their affect on what cubacquently r g; occurs.

ig WITNESS BREGLER: One of the iraportant thinga l g to considor here is that the possible low cycle fatiguo, 7g- an it'may- be called, which would be caused b'y a series of  ; ,

i i l g low intencity level 'ovents prior to an SSE is, of courco, l i "l l p g structuro-specific for different atructaron. That point of j cutoff where thece lower intensity evant.1 :nuy hev; influence l.

i w.

or may not have influence will depend on.the kind at ui.ructure j g , =it is. . This iti just about what Prof. Holley aaid.

e We are dealing here in this particular case vith

, u

h. ..g a .rather complex compacito: otructure which is not typical of F v L ]:. .

p ,

-g- ,

l t.__..a___.._____.u___.. - . . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ - - . . -

1452  !  !

l 4

i i

mpb9 'l the . type of structures we know a great deal about. He hava  ! I 2 ' roinforced masonry, we have reinforced concrete, we have 3 cheel framo,. all rolled into one, ao that there in not suffic- I 4 lent experimental evidence to definitively put a number with I

5 a right decimal point and several places iseyond that and say, G well,'at this level there will ha no cumulativo damage or no l

\

7 low cycla' fatigue on that structuro. l end.lc 0 i

9 i  ;

10 l'

.2 g 13 14 15 16 17, 18 19 20 21 R2 6 23 i

i 24 l I

t

, ., - . , - . , , - - ,r.,. , , , . , ., - , - ,- n. - n_.- - -. - a -, , - , - . - - -

1453 ll {

8  !

1 4 l'[

10 agbl Some recent taats on reinforced ma,onry, parti-O cuxur1y the tm a me-u eh=e is u=ed m e - - a 3

, la important to not<.ehura that thin t.usonry i; f ully ge:oubadi 4{! ,

cvery cavity and avor.y' block is grouted and hac a al% aficant i

b<

+

aucunt of vertical and horizontal reinforccz.u ut, .n la not i

i i

C' unreinforcud maconry.

7 f i

Thia type of material exhibits charna l

, rinu.cs  ;

i

(' t i

not unliko reinforced conarcia and can work w % raa nfo.r cd l-e

~ ' (

concreta in a reaconably conc.istont compliani. r uu:en i f

in 4 If we proceed from this evidence fere.>.er, then  !

i, I think that the defirition of 1.4, or une of 1.4 in I

, t j ~o

)

defining the ODE lovel may be a recaouable one. 1 O p~

In other words, c.t 70 percent below +.ha oenh 1

si stroon level, thero is'not aignificant afEcon on -abu au . ;

w  !

atrength, on cubacquent capacity.

I i

e f

U$

1

. . . , ), -

Thia cay not maan that there io na an.c;'a' t

C4 L_,' i' i o

ab that lovel, but auch crackig may only di+ ' -

o ;12.fnaan y",

to a small amount, dearcace damping to a .m 'l 'um X Bot if forces do not onened that'lcral, thov a

n b :0 'att 20 manye many timsa without' subu cquent2.y dinir.. Ai no ch u capacity!

M thn structure to uiths t md the oltir m.

~

of pp '

h 't-[bn ,

O D i

?

o Ob kab .h[') [h 1. [./ O i. 1) (2 f ['d m[f, Qg I think it's T.1 rm',COnDhle UOtimD,tu .unned On v.ll i.!K, c'03 cri-.  !,

b a

U l' mental tect data that wo havo non. Un probably Proa more

?

O q+

.o l

i about an.eal frema zu.ono, m. . hout any concroz, e auu, w12hout n .. f l >

e f

l.,,.n,. ,w .,..e -- , . - , - --,-,,-==,+----r= - . ' ~ - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' * " ' ' ~ ~ * * " " " ' " ' ' - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '~' ,

1454 l 1

j maaonry there, I

agb2

h It's !

It's certainly a concervative number, 1.4.

3 niso quite a conservative number for reinforced concreto 4

Alone. And no arrivo at this 1.4 for the Trojan by saying i l that the latest data .on masonry,--fully grouted and reinforced,j. ,

l 1

1 3 l S

behaves similar-to reinforced concrete.

l c

I -I don't know if that answers your quaction, O

f but it is the. beat T can do, perhapa.

9 Dll. MC COLLOM: Let mc pursue it onc step W further.

4

-U In your knowledge of t5eso 1 capacities and the I2 distribution of the londo on them, what do you suggesh h 13 would be happening in the case of coven-tenths of an SSE?

14 Is it ::erta.in walls would be past the yiaJ.d j 15 point and certain walls would not be, or what events may 16 be taking place that ua could visuali::c?

17 WITNESS BilESLER: This is a little bit more IO .coraplicated than it appears and I would like Profcasor 119 liolley to comment'Sfter I finish.

20 It 10 not 0,7 times SSE, it'a -- if.we assuma 21 an SSE evout and detorndna forces in the structcro assuming 22 linear clastic behavior up to that, which is really an i 9 4 23 upper bound, . and if we take parhaps acvan-tentha of tnece l

24 fot'cca, for which, pronumably, tho structure t.ws decigned, 25 and prestunably the strces lovels also are 70 percent of those i

u l 4

t

_ _ _ = _ _ . ,a.... _ _ , _ _ _ _ . , .2. _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ __ , . , _ _ _ . _ _ , . , , _ , _ , _ , _ . . _ . _ , _ , _ _ , , _ _ , . _

t o

i j 1455 e

k 1 1

ho.ximant stroaccc - this in uhat we're talkim c rout ~~ the '

4 i aqb3 -

t i

actual SSE may invoke considerably mora d:unpla I, colmidor".bly 3 '

< larger dinplacementn e it io nob 70 pn::conb of m 000 cvtTc.

I e l 4 1l t p I5ru ~ talking about the aittution where we have 70 e cccant cb 4

01 -

{ yield atraco levola in the utructure.

0-i .

DR. MC COLLOM: Mield stress levola? ,i

• f l

WITUESS MGSLER: Yield atrena in r.:11 forcing  !

l uteal is relatively easy to defino, for concrete .md masonry l l

. i this is more difficult: to define whora thm. yield ;tre.as is,  ;

i j 10 t i

I but it would b6. perhapa very near the manitura ct.ra m of the  ;

i s (

1

concrote or maconry capability, perhaps uith aom reduction !i i i

• l

"'* l i for tha variabilitu of materiala but eaanntially tha maximuta  ;

i t ,

v s .-

. n. .

j atresa.

' \

14 I

[ Perhapo Profocnor Holley could co e : an W u.

h .

' i

' ln '

WITNE3G HOLLEY: Yes.

~

i t' uha i

" 'i

When I uentioned tha 1.4 factor no 4 c t

. i t s

i devices by which the FSan nasuroc *t:it the t Fr. - M c.! m ll 2 F

.' y' i

{ ODE will be at a level' low enough so that 11 wtl.' degrada  !

O.

, . * . . 0 undar cubacquant SSE, Ehe proceduro is auch :.rn , vara mally '

U

.m

" a

!4.040 ha is another fautor, I

D i In othar wordo, becauce the I'd;m e.nys you an 21yce <

~u i

.{ '

the O.m ,ith w two pcreaut damping and the SSd with five nercenti 3

,  ?

.n "

. damping, and thu dtaigann in ureating % load ractors as

" .p; if they ucre bo'h

.% .i c at the limit value for: the structure, he  ;

ld i r .@ .,,.

1 n i

~

j L has already introduced an additional concerwititu. >

i i

}

1 h: : i,

- -- - ,_.....u..-_.._.._ b. .-. , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _

1456 i l

1-agb4 It is not poscible for a factored OBS'to bring h 3.

- internal' forces up to thal levels you're talking about and utill !. ave'two percent damping. And I think that's a very 4

important thing to keep in mind, because it comes about 5

through the procedure, through the FSAR proccdura that uc're 6 '

, dealing with. . l 7  !

I'm afraid I've lost my train of thought on your.

h .

I original comment there. -i 9

DR., PAXTON: I'm a little puzzlod.Lecnuue I 3 10 .

understood that, in comparing tha OBE with tha SSE, the 11 only difference wan the damping factor, thab tha 1.4 load 12 factor was used for SSE as well as ODL Ic that not so? 1 l

WITNESS HOLLEY: No, 1.4 is on the OBM.

1 DR. PAXTON: Just on the ODE?

WITNESS !!OLLEY: Yes.

16 1 DR. PAXTON: There was a table that had varioua I7 combinations,,and I'gunsa I must have been.confuacd'as to l I

IO that. l 1

I WITNESS HOLLEY: We are confident -- I ths.nk 1 20 spaak for 'laysel'f and Profescor Dreslor as well, that this 2I uns.of the 1.4 factor and tha-implied offccts of these  !

22 differances in the.two dampings are such that. they provide I O- 23 adequate protection against serious degradation for a

'24 cubecquent'SSB.

O' 25'

~t And this is the kind, of reasoning that must go

' l t I

. l-

1 .

!' . 1457 I

! 1 2

~ agb5 on at the design stago. It's the kind of reasoning that would .

J.

+ .bo the-only protection one would have, an.I uny, if you lived fl ,

3 in a world where you'never could look at the structure and 4

j. 4:

8 Say, ' How do you feel, after comething hit it, j g.

5  :

But thero in that acperate question . cud it ir  ;

J

- 1 l '

S1 l l an outirely acparato question - for a structure that has ,

I 7 4 f l

boon designed, when should one' loch at it, which'ia defining i

!- '8 j' 1

an OBE In'a different'censo, it's defining a number at which.-

gi- i)l la the operator.muct stop and you look and say, How do you

.1 1 ) '1

' fool.

I '

i 11 l-j L CIIAIIG1AN ' MILLER:

Could you toll at that point l .

t i

. 12. I '

i how it might foci in terms of cumulative effectc of prior i

OllE level.cciumic cvonto?

J

{ ff l MITNESS HOLLW: I think you could tall a groat j 4

I 15 deal, yes, from appearance, cracking, if any, roaidual dis- i i } l t

M placemento, if any, I maan, therc ~ ara lots of kindu of. f i J

' l I7 things one might look at. i f

f N .CHAIRMAM MILLER: Well, what if.there were a.

l -n 4

i

)

.subatantial amount of cracking, for exaicple, in thic I t 1

s

i. <,9 masonry, what would then onc do? l m

a i I

4" -

] lUITWEGS HOLLM I'm curo one, thenj vould go i (- ,

! 4' '. l "9" 7" . i- Knowing the real world, I have i; o - through.a long deliberation,  ;

}

f s

[

~

'M .

a ouspicion that -- this has not bean spelled out,.1ir. i 1 .

t e,I .

I '

1

• Chairman, incidentally, to my knCUlodge, and I may'bc mis"

.9 _

.~,3 -

taken. ~

~

E d

j' j s

_m _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ a

-- - _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _~ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

1458 I' I

l agb6 DR. MC COLLOM: And that is evidence that we-p 2-V will hear. tomorrow from the Staff on inspection, after some 3

event that goaa above tho OBL.

{

4 i

, That brings me to one other question uhich,  ;

5 .  ;

I presume, is appropriate right now that somebody.is going

. t G .

I to usk.

7 DL Have you looked at the way the Licensee has specified what can be allowed' as an OBE of 0.119 and t Ic way y

the Staff, in the form of Mr. Horring's second testimony

',o referred to a while ago, has said that an appropriato OBE 11 i should be set at and can you tell us the difference between  !

the two and which one you agree to?

O '3 u m mss u m sn I can enswer um 1acee= p-hepe 14 a little more readily than the former. But, yes, I can answer i 15 that for you.

l In a sense, because of the briefness.of the i 17 interim operation which is contemplated, the question of 9 where you' set the~ inspection is almost academic. I can't D'. visualize a series ofLOBEs, the amount of time that would be 20 required to esscas after it and then continuing and having EI an SSS in addition, all within a limited time.

22

-The 0.11g which the Dochtel Power Corporation O 23i- people recommande.d m

is essentially consistent with thu load

. 2O factor approach which we've been discussing.

..O. 20t And as wo already mont!.oned, wo consider this r

J 9 -

1459 i

i 1 ,

agb7 conservativo, a renconable r.hing to do. AltM ugh again, ,

h '

l i

thu question, when I look eth is, is quito a diff cont f 3 '

I question fro:n what I say I think it could u ccad wmy cimen. l O ~ '

The Staf f ponition, as I undera,in:.ru it., in ticrking e- ' l

[ from an asumacd point of oncet of non -lina _uri t.y to calculate l

' 6~

an equivalent ODu which cana out to 0.007, I uc3 .vu, which '

7 was rotmded to 0. 00,,  !

i t

(

")

And I would simply cay thia is laori cx3Orvctive. l c" i I think tho former is conacreativo and cufi.'ic:.anbly con- ,i o*f f-norvativo, I hhink the lc.tter in more com.arvat'.va. l i

i. I II ;l '

l But we are dealing here really uith just the  !

r jS - $

i qucDtion of when do you stop and say, Ilou do you facl, which j <

l

'9 l 13 not the name kind of thing aa tne design quantion I was

\

\ h 1

l i i diccuGning earlier. t

p

.b- DR. fiC COLLOM: With renpect to '70n'

, ., corm.cnt d 1 M about thin being an academic thing, I'a afrnid tuat the Board i t

i II has to lanko their judgment on the bacin 01; !io : catin cica j

~,

13 allowing this to happen, fI C 't UITNESS HOLLEX: I'a auro. Lut in , " of rcal.  ;

l

-l

• I time, it's a little hard to vinuo.line. .f 20 l!. '

t

(

21 j }d WITIESG ntiESLE: TSct c van a qtcataan, uan.t can [

i.

22 one do af be.c tho inspaction is completed e.nd r.m b , pr rhems.,:

\ l 23 1 nome cracking? l

.i; i I

o 1 24 9 Depending on the cKtent of tha c::acking, no Widh j O 25 of cracks and the arsecsmant of the conscqu2nces of leaving i

t I

l i i ln j

ll '_

4 i

1460 l 1 .. .

agb8 , the cracks alono or not leaving them alone. There are repair

-procedures. for structures that could be recowaended and im-3 . .

plomented which would practically restoro the capability of the structure to subsequently resist and SSM cveut.

5 DR. MC COLLOM: Does this include the analytical 6

. techniques :to assure that you have rostored it?

7 WITNESS BHESLEn: I would think-it would morn 8-likoly involvo field inspection and testing techniques 0-and quality assurance techniques to rostore this capability 10 than' analytical work.

11

, The probicm is that if you canentially can restore 12 the capability of the material to resist equivalent forces than the original. analytical results would be applicable.

DR. MC COLLOM: That's what I meant.

15' CHAIRMAN. MILLER: Would it involved more than

'I9 ~ simply filling in the cracks? ,

17-WITNESS BRESLER: Yes, it woul.d involvo then 18' simply filling in the cracks.

-D CHA%RMAN MILLER:- I mean more than superficial.

t 20:

And there are techniques to both ascertain and remady? l 21 UITNESS BRESLER: That's right. l 22 I*

NITNESS HOLLEY: I_have a unapicion-,you'd be l

23 more intercated'in what you-obuerved in tho'uay of cracks, 24- "'from displacements, if any, as'a measure of whether the

-O .d i structure behaved better than you expected for the input I

8 t

L i.

! .4. 4 G 1

l. l I

1 agb9 that you'vo maasttrad bcaanso they have an input record g

about an you expected and so forth, h o 3 -

L Aa Profesaor Drosion says, depends a ipuu r; hat 1 4 '

you decide,-thora arn-a varie.ty of thinga yse migh? do to

'q onhanco ,its futtire behavior, if they wara licadad.

s

! And I uotid sunpant':i.n nsny co.coc,. particularly l'  ;

' 7 i when the. OBE is set rather 1cra, yc4 uculd fina little 'or i 1.

, I, no widence that they wore needeci. l.

1 I

'I 1 I

! nut un have vm.'y litth u.nporience with thia. j l

}

10 1 I'.: isn't as though va build on a hiatory c!: rany appra2.cala l l 11 r I co :'now what - thc1;c aro things to do, but uncil one has nee 1

I  !

t t

I ,, }

this happan, it'a e. littla har:d to define chat yen da in i i s

h U particular cace.

M$, CHA7.PFAN MILLER: Wall in inmt a > ,2 ma , W en , .

3 W, ror coditinnal conaarvaticu?

)

14 I WITNESG HOLLEY: No c 7 don't think 30. j

'l -

• r l L 'e CHAIPJIAN MILLER: Mot kno;?ing what em.: coald do s

j l

< 1 i

I h, .

docon't in any way affect the lovela at which the,% we.builti M' li to withstand'oither SS13 coicmic lovals forou of OMT i i 1 D

i I-l UlTNBUS 1!OLLE2: 1soi becanto I don't think cue. }

l 1

Ej{' -1 is talk Arn ; ahcut safety and one 4.s nah talking about not l l i

t- I 1 E )i 1 .

. knowing ehat to de Eo improve it after inspectica. It's  ! I l- -

. i 22 i' l - simply thdt we haven't had .a whole host of ai=ucturas of

, . -tj 24 0 . this kind, or of-the kinds in ge.noral un're ta.uting about

- 20 ,

in;this situation which have experienced a great many* e .--

1 i

! ti 1

e G Mf 't1 'r"#P 4TPP gr* f r swe

• h- $* NW N N "t

c 1

1402 agblo 1

ahocko and, more important, we don't have c::perienca with the l .

I O everaieet eroceee, uer ee- Idon'txnowuheecheemehorie1esi 3

are going to do in terms of the length of ti.me that vill l 4

be required to appraian in a given nituation. I think thiu  !

is an oparational proceduro that we have relatively little 6

experience with, rather than a technical evaluation procedure.:

1 7 i CHAIRMAN MILLER: You said comothing, and I'm I

8 not sure it was from the safety chandpoint of c.n OBE level i t

9 or if it was on the bacia of stopping and loching, that the 10 period of time involved for interim operation wan no short.,

Il Do I rightly infer from that, then, that we are 12 dealing with probabilitica of' incidence, some aciamic 13 ovento, in part, in analyzing the cafety or lack of safety of 14 interim oporation? I 15 WITNESS HOLLEY: MO, I don't think so. And I {

16 certainly ~~ well, any event in the future has a prohibility,!

17 I wouldn't attempt to quantify it. It simply occured to ma 18 I that to have the -- that, if one han an ODS ~~ an event, j i

19 lot me call ite of noma appreciablo magnitude during inbarim  !

20 operation, it will indead take time while people appraico, 21 And I think ve're talking, not in years of I

n 22 interim operation, and it is a little difficult for ma to  !

i i +

1 t/

23 visualizo in the real world going through scve):al of those 24 with appraisal periods.and also an SSE.

. f3

'R J 25 How, I can't give you ~~ that has nothing whatever l

l 1463 .

l i i 1

,1 (

I 'agbil; to do-with safety, hownver, in terma of wiiat we've been [. '

l

-h ~

> e talking ~ about, because,' presumably 7 whether thero be onc i

'? -

or raoro evento, there is a requircanent to shut doun and to

)..h, l

a appraico.

I 3

j- <md1D 4 l I

6 j.

t Z .!

c -l 1

i. 0 i

i 10 t

! 12 i t*

i e

a

. t

. 15 s i

1G

?

17 l

4 18 i

lh a

2

'0 }.

.j-l 21 .i e v . 22- ( -

[ 'g ,

e n i i

1A i

h

2s  ;

I i V s

} '- I

. l't

t

.__..__;___....... . . , . . . . . . - , _ . _ . - . . _ _ , _ . . . . . . ...:.m , , ..,, , - , . _ . ~ , . . . _._.r..-, .....,..j,..,

14G4 le ebl~ l WITNESS BRESLER: I would like to muhe one 2 comment.

3 C11 AIRMAN MILLEk: One more matter, if you will, 4

p3 ease, with Professor Holley.  !

5 How long is a "short time" from a safety point of 6 view in terms of interim operation?

7 WITNESS HOLLEY: I don't nee any safety issue O

whatever in terms of the length of interim operation. I 9

Simply mentioned that I thought it unlikely that the cequence 10 of events could occur in the interim period we'J:c talking 11 about. I wasn't commenting about whether it uculd he safe 12 o or uncafe if they did occur. I simply can't visualize them 13 I occurring in that period of tirac.

14 CHAIRMAM MILLER: Well, they miclht or might not 1! occur. . I maan it might stagger the laws of probability.

'13 You might havo two OBEs and an SSE in a month, two n:onths, 7 Six months.

10 WITNESS IIOLLEY: Well, that would uaan tha regu-19 .

latory procc.durec after each one were unusually 9fficient.

20 CHAIRMTW MILLER: Well, mayba uo can even make 21 that unlikely ast'twption. However, I'ra looking at it from P.2 the safoty point of view, Professor Holley.

(

23 Why,. from a safety point of view than could the 24 - structure not remain as it is, with an OBE in the sence of-25 You tell me there is no safoty, so in the cense of'stop and e

s l'

1.

l. 1465 1 l-u eb2' 'I.

look at it for the life of the plwit?

i E- WIWiESS HOLLdY: I rea. T th 6. . u: @ : tand 3 your question now: in other yorda r a non--fi cc! concM tion 0- 4 indefinitely?

5. h cnAInMAN MILLan: - i's s .

.G UITIESS HOLLEY: There are cartainly 905 * 'ensineer 3 7' in the nuclear field wbo would any that sinca yoC re coing 0 to in::pect anyway after an event it would be pdc 6:etly l

R appropriate to run thia plant juet an it in inddin.i t uly ,

l.

10 widiout joing to a fix. I spoke earlier of the 6enign pro-

11 cedures which I used to accura thnt the OBE na definca will l

{

12 not degrade tha. ntrueruro under subucquent SLEa, and cor-

~g 13 tainly faany engineera would nay those are too 3anuarvative.

i 14 It's my own feeling that if they are too can-2 15 cervative , that's a propar matta.': for resolution in ppro-16 priate professional coce comuttoo doliberntions, nd t: hat

] 17 ono.ought not to depart .from that prudeni: appre ::h in n 98 particular installation such as T1:ojan , vhich ' h::= > m r ma je difficulty.

L 20 It seems to me it vould be'prc66nt t, continuo i gt j to do exactly what we have baon 'doing in the draign procase '

Wo- which is to say rocain -

the . margin at .15 in' the fi; , j l h CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yet from a nefe by ; ~ nt of o

23 ll 3,

yp'viewifI-unceratanayourteetimony correct w ,. r2:n woula W-

~

.ea -

not be noccanary.

i.

l.

.. i 4 .. . ,. , .

1466 eb3 1 WITNESS HOLLEY: Parbicularly Gince you have the 2 opportunity af ter each event to look at it and acy No, Yan, 3 Fixt whatever.

O 4 Cl! AIRMAN NILLER: Assuming that, which is a 5 regulatory rather than a safety matter?

6 WITNESS HOLLEY: That's correct.

7 CHAIRMItN MILLER: Professor Bresler, I'm sorry,-

8 , I was trying to pursue a thought here, and I did not mean 9 not to recognize you.

'O WITNESS BRESLER: That's quite all right.

11 I certain]y agree with the last remark Professor 12 Holley made but I wanted to coma back to a point that we O ia coverea uut eno# co=tiauea eo 8ometuime o1ee, c"a cai" aee1s 14 with what to do in the event of certain obnorved cracking 15 and what to do with' repair procedures ai,d hou much do wo 16 know'about the efficacy of such procedurea.

17 And' I think we know a fair amount and thero are l'8 procedures for- strengthening structurou providing the damage

-19 is-limited which could ensure and be tested by coring, by 20 sampling, by a variety of techniques including even special 21 scanning techniques that are now available uaing garma ray 22 scanning. techniques and reproducing.the cross-section crcok 4

23' propagation'and so forth, g 24 There are techniques of repair and quality O

25 assurance-that, in the event.of minor damage, an acaecer.cnt

}.

, 1467 t

eb4 I af the damcgo no that ropair can be carru. uut c0 scantially 2 restore the original capability of the at n u

!' 3' CHAIPJIAN !!ILIJnu Thero is one f t":ther area, 4 while we're on the subj2ct, whera I would juac lila to get S come information frcm you. gentleman.

G I think the order which you have crwu and the 7 f acen .4.nuofer an they are stated are that there are two 8 acIsacts in which .thore are deficiencica in the preaon t con-9 tYol building: one, co2 tain diacontinuitica; im r , less 10 chan what in considered-to be appropricta quanti . s of 1

(

11 atcol reinforccmant roda. Is that your undaristanding, i

m, t

12 or are ther.o othora?

b 4 J. le fk ., . h) p.  !. .[ (. . ,, i i

14 I. prococa, than acrtainly thcLa arc Lhe O.-/o demici noL o j- 1 tr Decauce in the dcoign procena calculation:, voro p:rrormed j w in such a way an to c alculate the onount o .; < as lens 7 than wou'.d have been required under code procadtros jp and in detailing the ntructure, tho'atructure - the (9 ' reinforcing nuac1 was not made continuouu, l 20 If one lookc at the strecture a L,0

W th a.1 ^t f

g; theco deficienciOO, What effect'thonu de fici:m i swe on gt, thd tot 01 pCUfOrmance Of thO U t r u c k U.r. O il C a que ':-

',CLOM .

73 t

f O 5 b[fbID bN bbfbbI [bdt O [b h '! 'i b 1 "

s. f',

n.

jg to got you to addrosa.

i f l

l' i,  !'

e I,

x) k-i

.---___7-_____ .

- _-_ 7 -

1 1

. \

1468. '

eb5 .1 : WITNESS BRESLER: I think that there io no que -

2 I

g- tion that for acismic' events above a certain minimum levol -

j' 3 and I'm not able clearly'to catablish-whether it's .00 or l

l-- 4 .15 or .ll'or.whatever, but in.the ballpark of,'say, the OBE (

( l

[

5 of .15, that the aniount of local dic tress in certain areau 6 of the building night be comewhat greater than it would have 7 boon had the full' amount of reinforcing steel :been provided i-O and made fully continuous .,

9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Will you specify that a little l

10 further, Professor? l l

11 WITNESS DRESLER: Yes, if I may.  !

1 i

'2 This might involve como cracking at the cornern 9

g_ 13 of the walls where the'ateel is not continuous. But that' 14 ' cracking might not extend throughout the full area of the 15- wall because away. from the edges of the wall the discontinuous 1G steel may develop some anchorage and be effectivo in the

~

! 17 center of the wall while it may not be effective at the 18 corner where it in discontinuous.

19 In terms of'the over-all'grosa behavior, dic-20 -placements,.and! resistance of the structure to cuch an epent

-as SSE,lI'th' ink the offact is'very small, the offeet of those 22 deficiencica is very small on the~ total resistanco and tho-I-h

(' 23 ultimate deflections.: ifhether it would have generated a l l 24 'li_ttle more local cracking, a little mare damping, and how l i

it':.would_ arrive _ at that point would be different.

25  !

! i jL l j...

l

.-.-..,=.a..,.,.- 't :- .. .w.a..

1 l

i i

1469 l-l f

eb6 L In an:/ event, we feel dhat it is act a' question g; 2' 6f what forces would be dcwlopad ih the s c:cuctum and what

~

i 3 str6suan would bo developod:in-the structura, but the cafoty i

g

.c 4. of t't.e building rosto on - two major consideraticum . Ona 2.3 5 that tho'ntructural steel frame which acte quiu s adopenden blyi1 i

, 6 of he masonry and the concrete to cupport all </or tical locida ,

. 7 . t'lat the ficors are not going; to collapac, nothing in going ,

. O co fal1~in. There is an integrity.- The structit,ce io riaing F

l 0 to remein standing 20 acconds, 25 accont; vhen the carth-F j 10 qual:e in'over,

} l 11 L And the interim diuplacements encimated in the

, la moat conservative fashion are auch that presunably the

,h i

~D .cquipment-can still continua functioning uith the n large

.M 'displacemenes, f:

i i So that with tho:Jo two conaiderationc baing the Iti j

+

j. 16 - primary considerations in cycluating 9 ;fety, I my it doesn't j; 17 matter how we arrive at that condition. .'aybe t Tr5 ivc with 1

18 -a littic more local distroca. I think the,pnfiniencies 3 (9 perhaps are going to. be more important tin the ihm endiate 1

l. 20 ' seicnic event wherc there dould bu -cc:ca local enc, tag or 4

L 21 whatover'that,might not otherwise occur. l 4

. j-I U 27. Maybo Professor Rolley unnte to ' add to thir.i .

t ,

pg WITNESS HOLLEY: Moe : Although rc mc; be an (

1 i

j 24- opportuulty to,rcompbacino, based on uhat urofeouor Dra:1er

[M-h

- y/; .has cald nbout displacements,. comet?oing wo mentioned 4 .

J l i

{

m.,. <

l. f ,

p 4 .,

i 1470 b~ cb7- I ' yesterday when 'I think I indicated that a corrpprison. of force

~

2' and strength is only a partial indicator of whnt happena.

'3 And this is really quito important, I think, to make clear.

l'. .

'O 4 First of all,'it is nococaary to understand that 5 internal forces never exceed strengtho.. It is physically 6 impossible. Computed forces may exceed strength but actue.

7 forces never do.

8 -If you have a situation where what we call a 9 static problem, not a dynamic problem, you develop forces 10 which equal internal strength, strain will continue un-  ;

p 11 ~ diminiched.and the structure will collapse., will go away.

l 12 In~a dynamic problem it's quite different. Again l

h 13 as in 'the static problem forces can never exceed strength.

14 But=if you impoco computed forces, the STARDYNE-type forenc 1 15 which appear to be much larger than strengths, i' realitj l 16 (

all that happens are the motions are a little larger ca.that l

17 one mustn't focus too intently on whether the elastic analysis' 18 predicted forces are equal to, loso than, sligh t1', larger F

19 than estimated -- conservatively estimated strengtha because 20 in reality, depending on whero those two forces and strengths j

'l l'

l 21 may be, the displacementa are larger or not larger, and there 22 is no question 'f o collapse whatever. The quca cien is simply.

l' h I

23 do you got displacements which are not acceptable.

I L 243 Por' example, in.a very simple cystem if you ig l 25 /mpose.a force which is, as I recall, twice an availchle i

! .L ,

i-

, 1

__._--___LL>

.,,..,._..-.,\--.- <

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,r. ----------e-er---------e ,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -s 8

, 1471-(.

p .eb8, 1 atrongth so that.the structure-yicida and moveo, in thic L

, ., ,l ' '

2

l. .

. dynamic aituation you might c:@ect 25 parcent incroace in 1 3 I displacement, to give you nome measurc. -

'4 I think it's a very natural trap to Ebl1 into to L

S think that the margin in one which one gets directly from a

e l

l G

L comparison of strength ar.d clactically impaced fcarcao and r

7i i .

n ,

j l i t isn ' t that.. l l

1 1

G One munt be caref'11 to be conaarvative in anti-a 9 mating dioplacementn, uhich the engineers were, and be carc- f I

)  !

10  ; ful in assocJing what dioplacements you can accapt. j.

I i

I. t q 11 l CIMIIU4M1 MILLER: Could dicplacmant" bo total y

< i

)

l 12 in the sence you could have an carthquaho, I supposk a 3g 13 hypothetical carthquake and a hypothetical buildinm where f j 1

l t 14 the forces, the coismic forces, were so great that they' l 1

ts j greatly exceeded the otrongth of the given building to resist i l

$ them and the huilding just went poof?

]

i i

! 17 WITNESS HOILEY: That's a good question. You cr'n j-- yl l 18 j certainly shake'this building hard enough,,and it would bo i

l- w] ,t:

a great deal harder than you're talking about in a .25g SSE, r

4 4

EO- to - quoto - "dentroy" it, But it would be un encrrcously j

]. ' t i g) ~ difficult thing to do in thic particular building, j

] 27. i. Loh ma see if I can i.11ustrate that. i l

i' h i

23-  ;

le r .

In a mord conventional, say, ctoel-fr:ma high-i

na . i. rise offico building or apartment.bcune or scmething of that I

-- l p!

i j

j g3 . type which tenda'to be very, very flexible ccepared to what j

+ , s.

t . -

}

j r . ,

o

'l 'r- .

j.

]

i 147? ,

I eb9 1 we are talking about in the control building, if you chaic i i

q 2 it hard enough with an earthquake, it will diupinen, it will l

,i t 3 go non-linear, it will yield, and it may collapce for a i, n

i V 4 couple of reasons. You any break the jointa, that is, you l t

i 5 may have difficulty whero the members are connected to-  !

6 gether. Then you also got what in sometimes callad the P- j 7 delta effect; in other words , the delta or displacement gotn 8 so large that the vertical forces themel"es, ccting in thin 9 .

dicplaced situation, becomo carious.

I I

10 But the control building, with its "ultitr.de ci 3

(

11 shear walla, is such that you really Uculd hm t- > spinco }

i 1 '; it enormous distancen compared to, say the inch ,nd you'vc I I

f

[')

v i3 heard people mention hero to got to where you could ,icualace j 14 collapse. It's a far different kind of a beh:riior than we're 1 13 talking about in the SSE.

1G CHAIPliAll fiILLER: Ono final quection. A think 1 1

17 we'vc had some testiraony or at least noua ludication in l 1

1 18 testimony to como thitt the deficienciec which ham. be?n das-- l t

to cribed have the effect of reducing the co-called caf aty

• i 20 factor, in that instance the safety fcctor %:'.nn actina0 f

f at as that strength above the SSE of .2Sg which- vit;:>ut th .j l

\

22 deficiencies would be at a cartain level :;nd which, m a  ! I Io) l 1

23 result of a deficiency, is at a difforcnt lael. l 24 Would you explain your undereurnding cnd your

, l a

w/ 25 conclusions in that regard,, Professor I:ciley?

l l

- . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ ~_ . _ . _

1.

[ '1473 g

ebl0 1- ' WITNESS HOLLEY: That 9c33 directly to what I wao i 2- 'montioning a moment ago. ~One can' properly say that the denigr

{; _

3 strengths as uced in the original design, in comparioon with

! -g-4 the~ design-imposed condition for tho'OBE, was not bad duetto

~

!; . . . i .

l 5' the various lack of-steel and discontinuous steel and s'o I

c5 6- forth, ,t f

7 That's quite different than saying that the j ]

' i l O actual factor of safety is inadequate in the otructure as l )

4 J i

! l 9 built. I'm not sure at what level to put on what you might '

! i d

to call " margin.of safety" in the structure as built, i i

4 For example, if one concludes that the displace-  !

11

I P. ments that can be accepted by piping, equipment, things of i

! )

~

.13~ that sort,.are at least twice the conservatively estimated

. 14 maximum displacements, then on that basis I supposa you can i

l 15 say there is a two-to-one safety factor or a 100 percent l

16 -- safety factor or something of that sort. t i

17 Now that's not quite the same thing as saying

[ 18 it will take twice as big an earthquake to got you up.to the

}

( 10 'latter. But I'm not attempting to mislead you. It is  !

j' 1

- 20 difficult to arecify wh,at you mean by safety unicar you say 1

21 in terms of what.,

[

! 22 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Hell, I was trying to define Ih 23 it in te,rms of' safety factors or strongths which enceed the 1 l, 24 strength o 'f this particular structure when confronted with

[ ..

{. -

25 the scismic forces of'.25g,.inother words, the SSE level, 1

i

):

1 ~qi

--.. ~ ~ - -,.

.m _ ~..+..e .~.n._, ,. ,

v-.... ,w..,n , .._.w.., r u. - . ~ - _ . . . - ,---- -

i - ~ . .' *- ,

6 s

l ' 8

J, w ",) s e_

i C E kh , b b I N * '.f h b (b kY { - . ,. h a h ,

g a f

1 li 3 .O U.(t r i. 070 th0t Gi '.-/11.i.. C E1 M j.C i,7'a ri liCMi. .ar i

U D1f 7+b ON CC !.,1 nO!: Only S OCC:E; S.111'/ */ wig C la G '2i L!C 2. 0 CVdnt 8 i

4

% a er a e * + E .e- 8 g.

a b '*

h . - 4 WO ' *Q M h 1' I* d

'b L* iC rQ f f a . . k U. . 4,[ a e a . . 4 er 9 a e -%

n 7 k[GUDd.f10de- 2.Q)prQM.k.;D'1D:3,V2 y' , .. ,- r,., .

...n ,

] i 1.x 3. ,$.. L . h ',U W-} hlt ..$2 !Lb .Y $ .0\ \ -s Y .' ) l'  % * . *. ? E' -e-.

d

\

b

) -

• Ue C UD k .5 O '. ' C ). ' / .. ' Y E I 2.1. - I$k E 1

10 b c.vc indicated th0y mlie la . P. * . . c" t. - '

2 il 1 0

- ,3 j l ,

r s 0 't mv , uw> , ,'2'. : -,.-j t^..' 4 "%- -

. 'i'...,,,. ~

a_-

' i. -.' . . '!

i- - - '

2.-

m o ma 1 %.u. m r w a w w.a m .  :

m I .)g,, f, , . 1

., . da .' , '

(..

t . t,, ,

v M h,, WITUES3 HO h l- Tec.

r 1 e *e -

-. - V & y e $

p g ,o e -

i {, a 1

.I' t.

r , i:

sv L,w.  :, . . .e .' - . s >

l b. a i>d, ,'/0; su p t. ( Ly14 . .,1 .11 . 'L 1

a. ,m, .a s. i s ,,1L u. .

r '.c.-:. c. i ' L w,. . , , ,,, .; ,'. w .

3

o. 3 .

1

}) C C[ $ [O 'I,' h C 3 h.1 O IE 77 ! ,!10 ' klC C , 1y '.'( b } ) 'j T I$

. ) C fj i.I O[ t h i h ,

m3 yL 5m, m. .u ya... , ,,y.~ u. e. ,.m. "1 o, s . . ,

s...

<,. t.u., , ,

..1-.a... , s..,.s. ,

'Y h

t-1 . , . .1 , . . . u i

}h ' #[{M Ed J l'I IE.CI'li.M h 3 i C =3 5F 4

4

• 9 g f 14 t f  ;?-,,

<;O i w't t t . ! '-""d . - #u EI L'* 'L' ; .i y 3a; t.s#t ,

t.'., s .

t

- 1

]j bl y G UI )M 31 I

. 1 E, j j P JI i 1O' i

,!I i, It i nj 1 Pha ,259 "nist i.n L.hu re m a. .s dailt  : '

. ~ n i i

U a  !

- f, i t .

a . , q's 3 w(

e . rv ,, m.n.

J. n e[> yps.-u '!.*T*

. e . ' y. ., 4.t.w.

\

?. . _ e. ,

.', su8 , - .; s i

j

)l i t

4 *

].1, C(f.'h DDI M[dl Ib ; $ kTOR.).O d. $ ,If g () 'Vf ,

J.. U l' }).; ' ; D f' s *

}

4, nr

,3 oq. }m ..q ,v.r, yo h o 't%,

j. .y. , s,

_. -p. y. . +.. f m .

n r,m

r. . . s. . e. . n smita 7 \ f.

- ysvy w

'u-n

'.,.,s.

c, , <.

e

.11 s.

~

l t

4 .

[ .p- .d

• dl .1i. 1. dt'(9 #

o o,. ) *l

• L' a.f + G f a.

• hg .M n

4

.'0 ,t.u G c*a t.L3 s.g .. U<* 1,%+6 a s' . 's , t r, a .{ v

,f i' +

5

1. 'l i

1. j-  !

L_-._ - _- _ ) - - -- l

1:

1F Nan 'mpbl 1 WI'.LUESS HOLLEY : Wall, I chould liuir ny comnant... ,

I P- Lot un take first the matter of the ctw.pr int 3 problata. I'm not cpaaking here of ficor re::pon u ap atra ,

4 which is the subject of an intensivo study which 1.^'11 hear 5 about lator, but simply the problem of dirplacc.vme. , par s 2 r

6 It is ny imprescion that tho2:e ir a t lu.' c c 7 100 porcent margin on what can be accepted ov: 1 uh 2- has 5.040 8 been predicted. I would anticipate that if you 2.nct.: aue6 9 the earthquaka level by 50 percent, and c1] e) a v = ra the to sarac , the strengths were no more than have been p' odicFad,

)I things were exactly na they were, that you would not : at 12 into that margin that's availnble in tha way cd d5 aplac.ecant.

O 13 S that I say at least 50 percont, you vould not rae no the i

[

) ,1 margin available to you, g CHAIRMAN MILLIm: Thank you. j i

i 1G I would like to hear Prof. 73rerlo:^ - h a. = j oi: d:. <f ' '

w I

97 viou on thic cama aspect, I

i gg UITUESS DRESLER: I think it' t irp m; w. b Dc a: i i

9 in mind uhat wo ntana by a noicmic event 50 pt

m b -> c.. l t

.e G. than the SSE. It dooo not mann that the force q:u r a t :4 in  !,

1 21 the building will be 50 percent greater; '.t T " man the enorgj 22 content of the building will be 50 percent g. raat.or; it may be l i

O 3 dioplacomonts will be 50 percent greater. An' this I thjak ic' t

+.

a what Prof. Holloy and I are trying to focus on., that the r.ur-g.in of the building, there in that 50 parcent anova an SSE '

i e

i

n -

.t h, ,

. t h

I mpb2 i '

i raargin in the buildiwJ. .

73 u t th f.: Cor n't 4 i" _

i ~'

i

,e -t h

2 lL  ; ancreane una Iorces ny 30- permnt, E c 'to r -

2. 2 mg tue i M i. .

Sj ,

naisraic avant 50 percent you rc.:.y gr nar:dx:, 1.t< o the )

.5 o

4 "

u increanad danping, forcon no grnTtcr tie n % '

t h

B fln calculated forcon. .

a +

't So we're qua,.te wa t,u. ,lar.t , o f the l

om;.%'c- ,

l 1 l r

k si thia building to uithotend an evenb. S0 pc x.s c .w tu: , hm t 1 t, ).

i 1

0 N. not in term of foreco, i M 4

- [ CHAI.IF " HIUIER: I th in !; V, ' ' ' 1 , ,o ' uig l-tI s

fa r0COOC at thiG tim a .

i

'6 -

~

i i.lSil }IC U e i

n

( .im. . c e. .c., . . T, i If 4

I

• h 1  % -T ' , - s -

i

('-uJ B.T. .4 J K.'!'\d' { 1,11' ."l e ';

. 3 S. ' . 4 k .1_.1.,

.L .d ! t u 7 U3 1

,e . , j l * ' .1, * , 4 'l ..

g '

(- ".<T*. ,L.. .}l L eA tl e.

B -a uao I)13,, J. L O.1 , } _-4.. U. U

.s .

s.,. 3, <g.

.

• 1

.- c.s t s

i, .i 4 l i;

• l[ d .j Jc f ,u J, b.. ny, ?71  %

u,., ,, ,,

g,...,,tu m, t ;. - . u. 3.

<.h r.n s.1 . .; 1.f.g a .. . << .

7 s .j .u s.

I i I

bre di

• t 2J U2 .

t i, <, +

'l .

UG, P n% ,,l,u j :

.y , - .

Tn' ,.' .,lau De~..n

> < c, i n:t  ;

U l 5 #

s. o A! Ddf ({ U[ [(.ll's .a sl.O b [O C $ ".bei O U.S ' J.' O '.I.Y U C O ' 's )'..- >

.!' ~$ kl II f

a ..

tuin pare of am mm. I ainu _tm m . : . -% ,

f

'i i

[ o ar:trq uith 3, and 1 oni . ii' is .- mir te m c veu .de l V 1 h 3 C; MCt tO Il?tpi.'O h T.O th i .".l .

IJU-}.1diD U7 f 'Uhnt V. s H1 D C,. [ 'G ,

~

al 4

f' ,- , 2, .  !

d I.,J b [$.1" 1+ t'b,D 3, L$b Ca b1.LCNCC d h,3 30 l' . O C 2. i_ i C i, .,$g 16 [ l.  !

a i

, .{ (.

n.r 7. no t.r .. t ct ' g... o pysJ.o T ' .. .T. sy.-uq f ,. 7 +. .

..i..-,. . , , 7.> 8 3 .. . . . _ u l

o' f

$g .M. f, p m g en ,gje , j . #- jp

.p, 5 .

. 'I) w. in y g.udup 1,,0,,

i, uR. p A, ., .

L ). u. L. ,

.. s yd ...f

. .L g . ">l.. u t..' .

.~ st .

f i w,j.

y b 1 4 4

ISUd E \/CG1d haVC tO CO m M -

b E'. '~'h C U d C i.I- nl.Y.i = M - Wu . f.*

_ pi ,

+

3

>\

fi -

b 1;

t lf

?. 6 i.{ -

,4 ,h _ _ _ _ _ _ _

j 1477 .i I

mpb3 1- earthquake as it was in San Francisco? Arc ne talking about j I

2 how it would bo felt or. sound rock in San Francicco?-

3 I simply don't have a feeling for uhat aort of

'4 grciand responne spectrum, for examplo, uculd go along uith 5 that carthquake. I have no way to get a handle on it.

G DR. PAXTOU: Maybe my question vaan' t clear, then,;

7 secause what I-was. thinking.of is:

G If an carthquake of that magnitude ware to occur I l

9 at the plant site? i i

1 jo- l- WITNESS DREOLER: This is, again, a very difficult l 11 question to answer for the reasons that I think Prof. Holley 1:3 already alluded to. The magnitude of the earthquaha defines g g, the total energy released.

4 San Francisco's soil characteristica are quite 13 different from the character of' the coil at cho cita. And 16 thereforo it's very difficult to translate from one enrthquake I

37 to another.

18 I think that the building uns designed on the 5 19 basic of scismological and geophysical inputs and developing 20 certain kinds of earthquake responso spectrum, and that's what 21 it was designed for. i i

l 2:1

g. 23 24

! .I i i

e 1478 I i

? )

NnB/ppbl l But I think when ua talk zd>out the 50 paracst

• E -

2 lg greater ear thquake wa 'ra thinhng or com thing on rock on the 3

nite which might have como grrmatwc energy content; bet not l, f f t'te kind of carthquake that occurred in San Franciaco, not  !

t l

3I Phe hind of carthquake that occurred in Anchorage, not the j i ,

o kind of carthquaha that eccurred in san ree: cam.a.

, .i It$a very  ;

j l' }

. 7 difficult to tako an otrthquake in enn 1::ca ; ion cnd trans-f' l

I 1 lato it to another oarthquake in anothar Ic.~_.uca. l O)

• I 0f 9 so I raally couldn't uncter the of < <iian !.n quite ,'

r iu ' thoce termc.  !

i,

'. i UITUESS 110LLEY: I hava no doubt that onc might l i

! 3 R find comewhere in the olitaratura un attam.o.b b.v. c:micmologic ht, il 1

1 -

1:.'

to back-catimato uhat Cort of accolerationa might havo occur- j f

ii red in San Francisco,. and if they did that, if that has been j t

th dono in addition on the casumption ci good raak at ccma points f H, in the area, then we might have available a br Lc of cargari~

4

17 Ocn. r i

1G If thoco exist, I den' t recall 'hc c '. md I don'e $

10 ' knovt how to antwor, really, -

f 23 DR. PAXTCN: So you're cay::.ng tha. w t'.itudo ic '

?.1 not a good starting point, cvan those the e am al: rh:d low

\

I

, nh focun earthquahou?

L WITNESS lIOLLEY: Yac. I

! t 24  ! DR. PA%TOIsi:

4 But that energy trale; ca at jus b below i, f m

1

'the . site with its rock foundation and no forth would not be a ,

i l- e l, .!  !

a .

ll -

i

-- ._,..y - .<---.-+-,d-. -+-~,e. ~ - . . ~ - = - + * * - ~ * - - - - - - ' ' - - - - ' = = ~ ~ ~ ' - * - - - - ' ' " - " - - * * * " ' ' * - ^ ~ - " " * ' " - ' " * * " - * " " ~ ~ - ' " ' ' ' *

y 9

4 L 'l

. -14794 ,

c ( 'l mpb2- I- ' good starting point? I l

g 2 UITHESS'HOLLEY: I wouldn't.know hou to do it . . I 3 DR. PAXTON: Thank you.

Ij.  ;

4 CIIAIRMAN MILLER:' You may resue.a your crosn-5 examination, Hr. Socolofeky.

6 ny gn, socoLopgny.

l 1

7 0 I've got about three questions loft. I B Prof. Holley, I think you might have annkared my 9 next quoction when you wore talking about tho rencon for re-1 10 ' establishing thol.15 OBE capability. '

11 I was going to ask you what position you felt the

[ .12 building codca should occupy in design critoria for a structuro 1

13 .of this type.-

j- 14 It's ny undo'ntandingr that to a cortnin degree 4

15 uo .dopart from the building codes in decigns of this kind of 1,;

i 1G structure, j i j n/ A (Witness'Holloy) Well, in the dccign of thia l 18 structure there wao, of courso, a ~~ quote -- code in the 19 sence that there was an FSAR and'theie were various codes

20 referenced which reficcted to a. better or uorce dagree the I

2, particular type of construction that was followed. I 1

22 So'in.one.ocnce I would say that:in the design 23- of nuclear' power plants there are codes. The AS!Tt:, ASHI i i l'

l . . .T pA .docunients, tho.' ACI buildingcode documents, whatever, that are I C25 referenced in an FSAR, for example.

l c c

!I s 3 i */

v j #

i. i. a .._ . ..isC'a_.._..,_-.... ._.m.---.i.., _ - . . . . _ _ - - - _ - . _ . - . . _ . - - , . . . . . . . . , . _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . _ . _ . . - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ 7 . _ .. ._ _ ___ _ , _ .

L uco ..1-mpb 3-. 1: liov I'u not curc'you were speaking of a nucicar' g 2- power plant structure 'or. Whether you were apenb-ng of a .

3 structure of 'this general type for noro conventional purposes.{

f l A

~

'O , No, I meant hou appropriata is the uac of --

- i l Li lot me try it tnis, way: i

!. l l 6' Did the tenta that vroro used to catablich a f

i i

t l 7. criterin - that is the Schnoider und the FCTs and Borkucy l

. 5.

1 t

e 5 tea tu --- do thoso tents - hon does the nac of that type of  ;

t:

, 9 tost compare with the une of building codca in the ordinary i 1  :

l J l 19 construction? j 1

a 4

i l }j Does that make'any acnce?- l 1 i

j. 12 LA l(Witness Erealor) Firat of all,. I'd lihu to ]

I is suggest that thera'a a' difference between 'kuign and annecc~ '

f, . i .

ment of perform 2nce' of cafoty of a building in izm "an built" l

-p

, 13 condition. ,i 8 1 i

y- The codea are prinarily intan&d ni inc*rumenez l

\

y of design. The equatican hava a degraa of approa.mation that l 5

g u111 lead.to' proportions, reinforconents of n structure that  !

i l,

[

4 g will moot cartain ~ conditions, and for that parpoco idle code j

}

1. m., - in' very valuabls,  !

{ , j 1

1

, ,. . . , In asneccing how a building will perform after it ~

1

,. m.. , han been built -tho same equations that are given in the code -i l.

g may not necernarily give a full picture of the performance of .

1 8 1

.,4 m I the building becauce we know mora about a givan bailding in.  !

~k L [a

~

ite aan builta condition than wa know about a nuilding before

- 1 l i 1

t I i I. . .. 0: I

,?.,_-_-__.. _ . . - - -,_ _ ,-._. . ._2 __--- --------. ----------__-------Em

, 1481 l

mpb4J 'I it i0' even put on paper, when it is only a gleam in a designer?s 2- era we know more, which may be favorable or unfavorable, but f 3 wa know more about a given building than wo know bafore it han i

$ 4 boon built, l 5 This is a general remark,

i. 1 i 6 Now the process we followed here in evaluating

! l 7 0 the resistance of the walls in tho building is esaentially  !

i G the sarne kind of proceso that is followed in developing code f f i .  ;

i critoria. And eventually it is quite likely that como cini-1 l

a0 -lar criteria will find a way in the. code of 1982, 1984, or l

i j 11- whatever, becauco, na data develops and it 'in interproted j 12 and evaluated, our coden change. And the procesa of changing 13 l

'h codea la very similar to the . procons wo have gone through -

l 14 and Bochtel enginecrs ' have gone through in evaluating the 1

15 capacitien of theco walls.  ;

t lend 1F 16 i

j , 'e 17 e

i 18 4 f' ' 19

. 20 21 , ,

t 32 '

l '

l P3 l  :

!' ,  : 24.

l 25 s

-.____._____6,__.,____-___.-.,,....-e-.-, ,<m. w-w. i.%,w- --%w,,,,,y---,- y- +,,,,-w w y-,,,_,,y.--. .-.y, - , , , . - , . . , - ,ge,+..-,,,ey r. p .j

' 1 i

l 1402 l l

, \

\

2A agb1 I don't.know if that's responcivo to your qu-action l h 3 or not. l-L Q Profeosor Bresler:, in ansucring one of the Dowd'd-1 questions, you ucro discuaning the ways one night acacon the 1

5 damage to a structure lilio this after an carthqunka tdkas 6 '

i J

place, so that you might datermine whether and to what catont'. '

l I

l 7' -

you could fix it or rainforce it or restore the vall, let'n 1

a i

9*

l

. any, to its original capability. '

9' Is is poonibic or practically poccible to determine to whether, for exaraplc, there is atcal in any given wall hare I

1 1

Il the uan, outside of resort or hou much han been placed in E to the conntruction records of tha company?

h 13 A Up to a point, it'a pousible to daturnine carccin l'I characteristics of the structure. Samutinas that;c aro 15 instruments where magnetic measurcments can be made to

]

16 determino whether there is a bar or is not a bar buh ii.

17 may not be able to determina what sino bar it is.

18 There may ba other, more sophisticated techniques.l t

N Insofar na the existing building la concerned, it seems to 20

) me the best record we have are the deaign drawings plun 21 the quality assurance plus tha inspection recar:M. In all of 22- this we muut'try and make the more conservative assumption .

i 23 - lind'I think that these have been mnde. I do not  ;

24 see any. additional' useful information one could find out 25 by taking tho building in the ac~ia condition and subjecting.

1 i .

a r-=+- __mwee w- w-v.e owem e- a-.m --,r- -

-w w,-vm-, rw &ew--- em w- - - - -e w w-w----,-- w-em=-.w-rww--.----,---.e-e- - * - - .v-_m =es -r m-e-ew-- c---wv r----"w

l-F 1403 t l- .agb2- k 'it to tests which might-not yield-reliable information.

i

'2 0 .One other question here. This relaten to the

! 3 floor response spectra.

L e 4- MIL, SOCOLOFSKY: Should I postponc that until later i

5 on in-tho' proceeding? .

]

l 0- ~ CIIAIRMAN. MILLER: We'll ask counscl. '

4 I 7' MR. DANKS: I don't think cither of thaue 1

i O I

] .w itnesaca - I may be wrong -- were involved in the floor l -0 responso ' spectra and, as such, we don't plan' to offer them 10 by 'way of direct testimony on that subject. I 1 i l 11 BY.MR. SOCOLOFSKY:

12 Q This is just a. general question'on the floor l

l .-

g 13 responaca.- Maybe I should ask the question new.

1 l

l l- .14 The recent analysic cenmed to indicate, at 1 cast, L  ;

15 based on the natorial that the company circulated thic laat 16 Friday, that there's a possibility anyway that 35 or feuc.r i

17 . pipes might need some additional rentrainte before, let's l 18 say, they qualify.

n l'

19 Is'there any reason to believe that thic.nced i

20- for' theco _ restraints would not be present had tho design 21 defects that wo've been talking about not occurrad?

22' A (Witness Holley) It's not apparcut to me that I.O 23- the design defects would have influenced the results of p

, l241 the study.-

c.-

ng I didn't' hear the.auswer?

Q i.

t

+- - - . _ _ - - .._....._...---..cm _ , . _ . . . . . . . . - - . . - - _ - - - . _ . . . . - - - , . _ . - _ - - _~

t i i.

I4 1An,

. 9 0 ,a 4 j

1 1

i

, 1- ,

a o. >m p6 y. ., %, ,

,4 L. 4 e. s ..A. , .u m.q. ,h. vd. 4.u o gc. ,

- av->. . .

Am 'e -

! e

^

l0 1 v aooeuacue om eue ota=r-

+

i O Gn<,laat oncntion:  !

! zi Xour conclucion that the nint:n u ac <.

s' l

1 .

4 ,

~T caf elj - I chauld any, your coraltuian tin . ... fi;nt ccn N

l a f[

.oph tam caf ely in the inMrim d@o. A s on th - . ' . - .bility i

y, ,

i l of cho equipmes 3. lea , ec4 tiu.t um neu y '. cf 'mer or ;cm is'4 t'

e' a >

A 'funt u corrcui:. '

, i

! f,

, h

~d It uas aope..cc % , ,

!% ' ci a. :

WW a; ,

i li i

tc [o J.n a l y n i a , t h o.i idicra would M XM ._. '

s ,,

.i.. ,

r_-

i 1 - .. , .

_.x m <'

approacbc".; u.a dau.erm.n.u - rm > a c c c '

_ 2  ;

u-I J '> li ;i ~

[

,p and'convidarable n%u@- na b . n ,;ne ic , ,, '

.. a ' C >:

f O

e -1 e i hw.r of la h:f I go.c.n.  !

i k 7 .g . . <u .. w. p. ,..f sp.. . ,

. ., y Lt.,..a ,

a 6., ,, ,

t , ...

3 ,

mun a *-

. tc . ,2 ,

(.

t Or th0 itP10rf 1 O f JJG y ,. IR d i::::..J O'Ju 0 ?. Oh  ? - ;C t.i.J: it: '

f s

I w 1 1 ..

p!

f ,

j o .

if 170 4 lihC f Tuid sihat it 'li. chi. DC. O.Oing 'J < h.[i ' O. J' (# j, - i d

i A 4 i j f' , , ,, 2 n- co 2.r. .

4 i' 1 i

i

'D. go n p,. .. ,.m Jq

. . . ,ed ,. . ,s.. .,

i n, >,s. . ... ,..v. . 3. u t. ), -w  % L. . .u. ;4 u y - t u., ,

' i a

' I \

es UN [.rb Oh . Ylh y IO#$ f NI* U p . 1(3'[, Y.d " h 6 71*"* C .1[ [j . ,

idhf */ .

eig 5 1

• - fh '%*'

.i. . f% U N

- "--- ') .,7 A'y.I ? -. t. v

d y3 9 (' f L +l n . , . 'g .

(4 J'A'

(' 6f[

w, 'w e 4'

,. {-} g.** ( L'. ' .m 1.h. s e 7. sI

• 1,.. '. .6'-

4 5 b'e l .a $4 j ,. [ ) %. b s, ,.4 * +p #  % 1

' I 4  ;

• • i _ , J-.}sw w

in qh aL% . C y <3sy (as 2 ps u 44 **.r p r, '

G r. 5 v n} L=.up m .4.s.,.i es' ' Tsi' t s ,.") #,', ku) ..~ ) Ma

?

J. ~t', E7i, , C's

>>- e' e $

ii

%g p 4 . ' , . '. .L ,,6.., j , . , ,.1 h l

- "' th;tnh von. ,~

.. g% 6 y kJ y, & s

• ng i-b ,

1 {ps ,

l 3n. A j e 'JN e s, . b kr. f- .b / $ Ct) I. '* f I 4 9 5

))

ii

, 'j - , i t I ji 4--.--. ,.;.-, ,_..L . _ , . . . _ . . . , _ . . . . . _ . . . - . . . _ , _ _ .

i 1405 I

i

! 'agbd MR.cKAFOURY: I believe..co,.Mr, Chairman.

, CHAIRMMI MILLER: Thank you, you msy proceed.

3- - .

BY MR. 1GFOURY:

I 4

[

Q' Gantleman, the questions that I havo con 2 from a wide variety of nourcos,'from prior quections and an array 6

of-documento, and so you may find it docan't follow quito as 7

logical a pattern as would be expected, for inctimac, of a

0 direct examination. If at any tima, I'have ahifted gears 9

quickly~ or if there ia any confusion at all, Iba auro it'a 10 likely to be my fault and, ploano, -}ust don't ha afraid to II interrupt me in the middle of a question and ack me to 12 l be more clear.

'13 In responso to questions from counsel for tha l State of Orogon, you naid that your understanding with 1

l U Monsrs. Lowenutoin, Axelrad, gft, M., was that if you found M that thoro wan no hazard to be expected from interim opera--

17 . tion of the plant, that you would than be called-upon to l

l-

! - 'IB assist at hearing, to prepare tectimony and to testify L

10 and so on, is.that correct?

20 .A (Witneaa Holley) It'a correct.

j. I nhink.it could

'21 be stated'ovan more generally. (

? P I think it was not' limited to appearance at hearinga,

[.

h

~ '

F 23 o por' ppq,. but 'in ascisting in whatever way we could thoso unc

5 24' . wereiinvolved'in preparation, which involved PGu and Dcchtol ig

~25 and the' attorneys and'no forth.

l" N Le-b ,

na.. .

--...----.-..n--~e.wa_.- . _ . - _ , - - - ~ . , . - - - - - - , - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - _ . - , - . - . . -,,a

. - . . - ,. ~ - -

J 't C D I

1 '

agb5 0 And there wac a cingle criterin,an';r nan nuca, l

O 3 ,

te you vi11 ^=a *h^e "^o *act vo"r co="1"=: i' * = ' ' i I

that there was no ha::ard?

O a A That's correct. To out it to:

+

b?  ;. ', _ ' 'a e l. d i

"e ,

, not be attempting to forward what is undar dicm >a <:r. i i l

, pi .

.we didn't believe it war; cafe.

• y I 6.330 l 0 And you haxo charc;ad an ordinary profe :sier: M r G

3 j ioc for your cervices, carbainly? {

Dl . A Yes.

+

4 a

en'

' <1 '

I 0 And you said that that wc.s to ha mia by aha s .

$1 people that you contracted w'.th, that is, the .M ;snc tain .

I 9'" i 1cw firm,

. e i

Werc you undar the. imprcacion that, n. nan tiny l

. I i

g ",

1 attornics for PGE, that ultirntcly that va a td b y o j 'i coan unich ..

woulu,.bo, a..n c, he ur.;ue.1 vnnv..ca.sw:, in

- c.d or to PGE7 i II A To the entent th:.t I thought abot'c , c all,

'c" I suppose I thought that.  ;

f br

• Q Did you happan to be told by ':ay m u na; or {

7 '~ not the law firm, including fir . Lrrann'.:in t ' 1. , Mai::ad, l l-

• had discuased a nimilar arrangematt witc anv c& e oc.pechc?

i

.s , .

t.

M .: A I don't think I remember any cuer discuacion, j O @" A (Witnema Dreulcr). Nor do I.

l 4 .

{f n '? e

, '.t u , O I)1d you haps. o ca to Eusk tnera whether or nm. an.? i, O 23 y)n other experts had been npproached in a similar m nnor? I 4

\

b a

. .c ).

'.__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ..-,m,.. _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . . , _ _ _ . . . . . . , , . , . _ . , , . , , _ . __ . , _

_ _____ __,____ _ _ _ _ __ .__ _ _ _ ___._~_-___...---__._____

, t 1487 1 .

!~ agb6 A' -No.. l A. '(Witncas Holloy)' tio.

3 -l Q 'Do you know when the STARDYME analycio.uca  !

1.. 4  !

[ l developed?' l-

!' 5 .

A (Witness Breslor) For this. plant, you mean?  !

6

, .Q -No, when the program was created.

1 o ~~

-7 .

j. A (Witncas Holley) No, I'm not sure.. It's 1

O been a~ matter of-years.

!- 9 j Q -Could you tell mn how such.a progran is generated?

!' 10 j How it's put together and how it's maintained and how it's b

i 11 l- applied to various different situationc? -- If that qucation I

12 l- is clear enough.

A It's clear enough. I'm not surc I can do what-i.

l. you want.

i' 1

' 15 It is put together by a varicty of specialisLa.

.;g 1- In this cane, it relica heavily on what is called a finito 1

3 1

i element method'of analycia, which is only practical when 3

' 16 l you're using a computer. .

I Q Why is that?

li 4

1 20 j A' Because it, in assence, divides the physical j 4  :

i 1 21 structure up into a. great many smaller cleucuts. -

And they j r .

I I

?

. 'are: called finito elements becauce they are, indeed, of l i ' 23 j' finite size, they are not.vanishingly umall, o

". 24 But, in any event, the number of equations which i

25, enter into the solution of a prob 1cm by the' finite element:

r f .

u_.._._.___...__........ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . . . . - . ~ _ . . _ _ - . _ . . . . , _ . . , . _ . . . . - _ . . . , _ , , _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . - _ _ _ . . - - . ~ . _ . . , . _ . . _ , . . _ .

148d t

1 agb7. ' approach ic.very large and it io really only practical for solutit,n on a computcr.

3 g . So . it typically ht:a cvolved -- SERDZME and ottwc cimilar programs have evolved through the work of 5.

opscinlicts in finite elemmit analys:.ainer an, for thoco i u

G people who conceux thomachvc3 uith eines and chcpen of (

e. t t.lcmonta and reproatntations of thcir behavior and the work ,

C of specialists in computer programming, por ae.

4 D

I au not a apccialict in theco aroaa. I know .

1 30 what the progranc can do, what their uceful 202. cad harc I

11 recommanded their use on occasions, but I. cc.nno - wally call f

17' you in a.ny ucaful detail tha buildup of the progy:a% tha 9- l 'i evolution of the prograu, nor can I rec.lly be u.lpfu] to

>?

you on what~a called progrica maintenance-thac la, the STARDYNZ program is a very 1crga prograib they typically

[(

g'-

have. users' manuals that go along with these, and I niuply l y'r i l' cannot tell you'in any cophicticated way how that was dona }

( p' .i  !

] in the case of STARDYNE. '

19 g Q What was the STM WYME analycia cronted for? What 20 )l - purpoco inis it accigacd to cerva?

4 3

~1 A I'd any STNmYnn in particularly unaful in-the I i  !

"n

p. analysic of highly indeterminata strucharal pMale an.

- 1

• O- What kinds of atructural problema su it decinaed l

to be halpful with regard S.o?

_~ -

'm'  !

I

'# A. A very large array. . I trould have t: ouble  ;

, t q

i I

,4 ,

a L- . . . - lb . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ - - - _ . _

i 1489 i i

1 aph8 in'dafining its limits at tha noment.  !

Q of that wide array of areas in which the GIT 1 RID HU 3 i analycio is useful, you're saying that thia includes a  :

.@ 4 large number of considerations that would have nothing to do s

5  :

with carthquaken? l A That's correct.

7' Q Do you know whether or not it uan, in fact, G

designed with carthquaken in niind?

D A I would be curprised if it were d:.vicad uiuply 10 for the carthquaho problem.

11 0 So that what hcip it may give un is, to nota 2 12 extent, incidental to the purpose of ito design?

M W 13 A Nould you ropcat that, please?

14 ~

0 I'm always happier when we have a Cow:t Reporter 15 because then I don't have to remember thane.

IO CHAIR!!AN MILLER: Could you rephracc it? Our 17 cyntom requires noma mechanical problena going back uhich 10 could be accomplished but they're tedious, so, if you would 1n" '

rophrano it, pleano.

20 l i 21 22 23 24

@ 2$-

1490 2A2' EYL tin. : KAFOURY:- 1

.. Q 'Is it: fuir' to nay that .the ETARDYus :u:alycic - 1 t

3.

I'vc loct the question, Ifn carry, tIr. Chairman.  ;

1

.4-

. (Whereupon, tho Raportor road from tM record ,

t 5 .

j- . as requested.) .

{

6 ..

' J BY MR. KAFOUffi: i I

7 O Is it fair to 'scy the the help which the DDRDYNT: f.-

1 5

.e.

analycic can give to un-is'not really cn intended opplication i i i  ;

4 .

j [ 'of -the program, it's semothing' that hau been borrm.ed, and j

10 .

1

t. hat. the value it can give .us ia noracwhat incido.r_tc1 to the l

?

11 purpose for uhich it wac donigned? l 19

[ Is that a fair statcmant? j h 13~

A (Witness Holloy) STARDYDE is a program for 1-4 i

! ctructural analycio which can htndle a wide. range of struc~ i l

t 15 tural situations, including the nnnlyain for uhich it uas  !

i

! l 16 '

i uned here, involving carthquakes. i

i I

17 So Ecr at I know, It wac not accigned colely-- l.

l  !

! 10 i

it was not designed foolaly for seicruic nuclysin. -;

. 1 to*

'O Wann't your testinony- n little star.q::., n a m nt

. .j 20' ,

ago?. Didn't you cay that you'd be anrpriced if I t hmi bocu -

.i n

21

-designed uitli carthanake ,

analvsic.in mind? I

_s No, I yould'be.curpriced if it were decigned 1Al

)

23' ispacifically and' solely for carthquako analycia.  ;

i4 2A*

'O And the.ltrraylof other uses for which it was '

'9, '

. designed and has heon put ts is extremely broad; correat? '  !  !

_ ____._________;___ _ _ _ y-

. i F 1491' E

i ob2 .I- ~A Particularlyf with respect to structural typca per ,

i.

2' -se. It can' handle an array r2 structural types, if you like,j L3 under.a vido rango of circumstances.

i :g 4 So for instance if I wanted to knew how my'houa~c-O

5 .iiould' respond'to a.100-milo-an-hour vind, STARDY E could be 6 used.to predict an array of. outcomes -- or en outcomo. 'Is 7' that correct?  !

8 A What kind of house do you havo?

{

9 Q' It's a two-storey wood structuro building. }

l

10. A' Well, STARDYNE in most offective in t! hat va call i '

i 11 the: elastic ranga, the-linear elastic rango, and as you've' {

'2 heard'discussco previously here by othern as well as by $

g 13 Professor Breclor and me,'.this is a useful etarting point in 14 the analysin of the hind of. problem we are hora discuacing.

15 In the caso of your wooden house, cno would have i 1G to know how it is put together, whether it staya linear l ty long enough for this to be of intorest. Thora vould be a j 18 great deal you would have to know about it, but it's a very to' powerful program, particularly for elaatic nualycia.

20 O' Now when you say " clastic analysic," and that 21 it.is.most offective in.the clastic range, we paca the 22 - elastic range with the Trojan control building a long ways

'h '?.3 short of'the-SSE,-don'.t we?

t j

24 A Linear' clastic, yes, and elastic. l l

25 O And it's true that STARDYNE has never lost a a . ,....-v.-+w w,.,,,,:-n---,<,---~----w. = vevve.a~,= - - - , -

..g.

"4 149.2 .1 }j;

,i .

Leb3' I' building; that. is' to. say. thet the STARDYN3 bui1Ging" niraply 2- rnovo and'chift but they never collapsc, Right?

3 A: I'ra corry, . I don' t un3cratand thin gew stion .

I Q You caid earlier that eu you incronae the forcon J on a structure that han been placed in the STARDYDE progrcra, s

G that the structure does not f all, it ciraply raoven. You just i -

7 have greator and grentor dinpla,ccmant. '

t A That's independent of STARDYUD.  !

G O Oh, I'm sorry. 1l t

10 Docs STILRDYME predict at what point a given l

11 1:uilding will' collapne in an earthquake?

t 12 A Uo. STARDYME providos informttion, > r.wed up m  !

g 1

13 which engineers can learn a great dani about the perfor:renct i

14 of a building. I  ;

i

• i 1$ O' And it predicto chcar forcas? that's the najor 16 function that it is providing?

t t/ A No. i,

6 Q No?

4 19 A In thic pnrticular otructura, uhear forces were  !

r,0 - among the most iinportant. output of CTARDYUE. , For other f

t 21 kinda of 'stitucturec, chcar forcos 'might not be of inter .:st l

22 . , at all.- It depends upon th'e pr:rticular building, the parti- I pg j cular' loadings, and so.forth. '

4 ,

a .

t -

24- STARDYME predicts forcac, displacunonts t n great i

.5 '9 4 e h O 58 * '8 48 f

-q- ,

h I'

I' l

__L'.-------

I

(

^

,. ,i 1493-eb4' I particular range. i e

2 O What kind Cf .a difference -nre ne talking about 3

. When we compara the accuracy of STARDYNE in the clastic range O 4 and'-in the inelastic ranga , that ic . to - any. befcre cracking 5 and .after cracking, if that'c what you mean by olactic?

O CHAIRMAFl. MILLER: I think you had botter estab-7 lich the reaning of the terms. )

e i 8 'DY MR. KAFOURY:

l 9 0 .W hen you say STARDYNE is most offective in the i

.10 - alastic range you're talking about that range before the I

11 building starts to crack and inelactic forcan ctart to have i 12 a significant effect?, In that correct? i g 13 A (Witness Holley) The STARDYNE analyGas that verc 14- dono for .the control building, the analysoc that were done

15. ' by stick models as well, the analycoc that were dona with f

f 16- TABS as well, all assumed that you had a constant stif fnocs l 17 of the building which would be the initial stiffness.

la Thorofore, neither STARDYNE nor any of those other 19 analysea spoke to what happens uhen you incronce the loads 20 and as you therefore depart from linearity. They provide a j 21 . basis for calculating what happens. as t ings go non-linear 22 -and they. output very important information.

2a 23.

-24

g. 25-

1 14% i 1

s 2a i

+

I  ?

? tab /mpbl O' . So nonlinearity in. in ennonce nimply a concerva-> ['

7.015 n

-'[ tivo fact that la not factored into STARDYHB, and at about 1

.. l t a 1,  :. hat point your ganaral knowledge tenda to bar rm:0 heavily l 0 4 and you havo leaa reliance on STARDYns whhn yw ec talb-t j

(

5 ,

ing about what happenu as you got clocar and alon u- to the i

[ s 9

99 DGE level and the nonlinearity beconca nor:. ip a mcdd?  !

l t 7 ,f. .A I think leur relianco in a poor choice. .ErdGYim , {

U H  :

!! h. r or clautic analycin, let's cay, in general given ut infor 2 I '

l; 1-tion about frequencica at which the building will vibrata '

0 roda chapon, things of thic hind in the olaa tic ::nnga .

It ,

t 11 isn' t a matter of relying loca on it. One etarts with that  ;

1 12 y infornation and then from knouledga tibcut the on c:Cortaance of l

)

O structural elenenta, por ac, their non-l!ineerity in h havior, i

t- ] one judges what the aubsequent non-lincar 1rhavio:s will be. {

f

.a ilI l

O But you :'ely lecc on Phat STAEDYEE talla vou ac

, t*

h l Gocpol the further Up you go on the G-sculo, in that cor:.:act? i

?

I '

r. A If you are m1ying that at vary, . ;y n ill forca ,

inputs, load inputa, small carthquah'.n, for a7 m 'c,

< 1 1; tl; > '

i I

.. responuo wculd be nnpacted to be cccentinlly A:1 .:utpn' A b)

~*

,. . linear elactic nualysin, that's correct.

I f

S !;I O And tilat would ha loan nnd loun crua ca you want i i

p -

1 gc I up the G~acale?

h n} <

A In a variety of waya, yon, '

i, t

o. m> Q 19 hat kinds of inforitation would have to ba --

4

_m 4 strike that, please.  !,

1 >

f 4

il, 1 J

_ _ _ - ___.7..

l.- , , 1495  !. -

e l

4 upb2 1 STADDYNE ia an existing computer progrcm. 'ih at 's ,

2 correct? It haa a phycical c::istence and it hac a lot oil 3 blank npota in it, and into that you have to fcad four par-

,_h l

4 ticul/x information when you want to ana.lya:e a p ?.rLtcular 5 bullsiing, true?

l i- G you, A

7 Q And you are uncertain who derivod th ' o~:iginti 0' }yrogran and you're uncertain when that happnad, correct?

9 A Yoo.

j. 10 0 Do you know what the c:qacrience vi.th ST ;.nfmn:

11 has baan with carthquake uses, carthquaha analycia? :rc it 12 comonly used for carthquake analysin?

] h 13 iI A I would think not 1! O And is that becauce it's so e;q;enciva and there l) are so few buildings where it is worth the cost and the i

1G trouble?

1 17 A That'a enanntial'y l correct. There'n a 1.u:ge

,t 10 fraction of all carthquake decign cituationn wh:1 ai? c u !w 19 handled perfectly adequatoly with nirapler anclytice gproach -

20 ca. And indeed, I think I ctated yesterday that Droi. Dresler 21 and I would not have been uncomforhabic about judging the j l

22 cafety of the Trojan control'huilding on the basic of tho t I

23 analyses that the Dechtel enginccra had before they ran i

STARDYNE.

24 25 0 nut isn' t it a fact that, for inctanca it they t-eqv- pr "*Mi ep '

.- , i i

~.

~ 149 6 1

, H  ! l l: 1. l i

I I L :apb3, 1. had nekt er run' STARDYNE we would npvar hav-a hn nm about the i l i

.l -

2 ' safety problems that crerged with the floor response 'apect::a?

3 lI , Irnt' t' that true?

A A They woelt'l never have known about that chif t, i

)

o i

that'ri corruct.  !

l i G >Q Can you toll un how c=tenaive the literature in. j'

4 i

7 on' tho' application of the STARDYUE program to carthquake 3- analyllio?'

J

! I i-l 9l A 'I cannot tell you that, no. {

! l 1 10 i Q Do you know why theBechtelengincer'snecdadyourj i i i

11 nudgoE in ' order to convince thctt to run thi progr m en tho {

12. "a ts built" building in the firch place?

]

r g 13 MR. GRAY: Objection, Mr. Chaiman. I 14 Ha'a asking this witness to specula b on thourjhta t  !

, . i 15 ~i and opinions of other people.

l- lf W f-CHAIRMAM MILLER: . Oves / ruled. l i

if f I think the witncas vill refuse to speculate, and i 1

p. I think ha vill indicate what the courco of his inforpation is p

h e if ho poccoacon in; and if it docc, I thinh he will tgil us j

,, I j

i 20 I that. [

t

yp You' tmy answer. - '

, -Q UITNESS-HOLLEY: .May I havo tho quantion again, wl e pleane?! -)

i a, c.9 . BY MR.1GFOURY:  ;

O Do you happen to know why .the - Dochtal' Engineers.-

4' i , i

). kf.

}

n.-~-o--n.w.,,.

. ,- ,- ,. ____----,---.,-,.--...,-..,..u...-

. - - . . . . . . - - . - , . - , . - - . - - , , , . . , ~ - - - . , - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . . ~

! 1/97 ,

l I

mpb4 1 needed your suggestion, oncouragelmnt before they dacidad g 1

2 to use the STARDYtm analynis on this particular problam in 3 the first place?

4 A (Witnosc Holley) Ucll, of cource I don't really S 1.now whether they nooded that nudge. Indead perhaps a day

. 6 or two after we discunned it they might have reached the ,

7 sane decision on their own.  !

O Q Oo you know when the problem with the control l

9 hailding first became kno'.m?

l t

10 A I believe it was back in April or ?hy. I gunas I i.

11 April. I've forgotten the dato, j 12 Q And when was it that you nuggsted ;a thc Dochtel 13 ongineers that they inight une the GT.iinDYIE anal".n m ':ar tha 14 ,

purposo for which you are nou teatifying?

15 A Some time in August, I boliava; but I don't hava ,

17 the date at my fingertips. )

i t

ij Q And taking the basic STARDYNI3 progr.ua anil filling l is in the blanks for the precaut purposen, what facts ocula ba 19 included?

20 A Well, there's escentially the gccr. : brv of the 21 structuro, 22 O The shape.

O- 23 A The shape.

i 24 The thicknesson of walls and alnbs, and %ir.m. of 25 that nature; utiffncan properties of the untenals, prrhiculer .y

I t

wI cl 4 /OJ O (t mpb5 1 the concrete which derr.natn : in the olnatic ,

Md by r ,

1 2 "utiffneco" we Iman stresn-strain otifhincan ..

9.ien-3

nhip batwoon the ctrain produced an6 a g:! van ,

, 1 4 Lot me think.

5 Support conditionn of caurno, ar r- P' G atructural description.

t i 1 7 I think that'n ocnentially what ucm be n edad. l t

3  ; Maca diatribution, of ecmrna.  % u,o c:nnd be i 1

l

, 1 9 mances in addition to the voight of the a cruatv: ' " r'w.:0, l i

l

• 10 por 30. Iind unleca I minned no:.athing, .I ;-hink tx b carld j i

11 auffica to daccribe the important chart..;teri: Sim o f' V M a-i IP tion of cuch a synten, .'

2 t

5

/ ;O Q Would the sandriched unila ho 0- 27.1 c: i ther <

i ", ( uare mado of colid matoric':. plus the ne m'. a carn de [

} .

r; ' various olementa of the cantn/ich be it.alab . w' ' ' , ..

a, programmd?  !

7 A I vauld judge you could uan <! n 1 t: ic m i gI in the analyain thor ware m:d i.ng. Agi-J.n yo,'rc ri: r 13 v ,

i  !

,, concerned uith initial ctiffncos. ,

~, j O And you'd be using thc full st d.:n .- 2 .- t is 1

f vere all masonry or all rainforced concreto, or .. th m {

t

, actual mi:: that, appearc e or uhat? .i t

O .~. A All concrete.

t I

y Q All concrete. {

y 1 t.q ..

A YOU. ,

9 i

1 I

I

i i

' .1499 i-l I l mpb6 - Q And you think thab that is concorvative?

l I

l~ 2 A For' the purpose for which it is being nced, yea. i i

3 Connervative, a' gain, perhaps tc,ight.be the u:ang h 4 word. More reclistic. t I i' f

5 Q That's an area - there's been very little f

t G invcatigation' of that area. Is that fair to acy?

! 7 A I'm not sure thora is anything to in contigata.

O Q As to whether or not counting it all as concrete ,

9 io conservative or not is an area on which there han not bann !  !

t to it great deal of studyc is that a fair stato mnt? j j 11 A Counting it al] an - of courca the canarche i

12 block is concreto.

ll 13 Q Surely.

11 A And one in primarily intercatc0 in that kind of

'S clastic analysis in the ctiffnens of the cleran1 - not the strength. i 10 ,

t I

! 17 You'll recall that STARDYi;E docsM t ta? k about ta s trength . It talks about how a particula" physical ;tructura, Je physical nystem of a given stiffness will parfora dynnmically,i 20 .I'm trying to think what other factora rould com

21 in. The slight difference in ';hicknose betwean the concrute {

l 22 block, por ue, and the concrote in-fill von 1d have a vary 4

l 4

@ 23; _ small offect.

a y

g- 31 So using that as a.composito, calling i' concrato 25 would b'o the closest approach to reality. Fow if I wantad to 3

t .

1

, - - . - .-.---n- - - , - . , - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - . ~ . - - . - n.-- --- ,- --,- , . , . - - - , a E,-

150' mpb7 -1 change it by modifying the effective stiffneen a little for ';

2 5 ti.e difference between the block material and the fill mater- I 3 ill, it vould have a very, very maall effect. '

2 h 4 Q Would it have an effect on the floor recponse j l

5 upactra in that you are dealing with different chemistriec  !

l 1

6 md different layers in the wall rather than having a singular 1 7 ahemic':.ry for the wall as you program?

• -8 A We1.1 it isn't chemical proporties which are of 9

I interact, but physical properties, the stiffncasec that j f  !

II ve're dealing with, f

(; But you do' have different atiffneanas for the r

12 diffes;ont olomonta ~~

@ ~3 Ji Yes.

I 11 -- in fact --

J5 . Yos.

16 0 ~~ and theac ara not progremned in?  ;

I have cuggested to you thnt if they uced the 1

17 .A

)

m Il greca thickneuses of the various elemento - and I cannot '

i 19 toll you for the moment whether they modified it at all for

. 20 &" 9 tool elements that woro embedded therein, but whether 23 they did or did nou r. the offect on the response that they got 22 uould be extremely small,

)g 23 0 Including the floor response cpectrum?

't A Yao, i 24 5 l

25 What 'I'm telling you is that the stiffness of

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

,1501 j 4

mpb8 I thoco concrete sectionn dominato.  ;

s

j. 2 please turn to your. testimony. on page 2, the 0

[ 3: ' third paragraph.- f I .

.~ 4 - The firct.sentonce reads:

i

.5- "It should be noted that the writers' offorta i

, 6 have not included any attempt to check the accuracy i

7 .of the analyses executed by engineers of the Dcchtel f

! 8- Corporation."  !

l.

i' 9 Precisely which analysos did they go through that {

1 5

10 you did not attempt to check the accuracy of?  :

}

i A 11 We did not independently run any analysis parallel ^}

12 ing this in . that sense. What I have said here would apply to i

1 g '13 everything in there.

14 Q Did you'look at the STARDn m program in its raw

[ 15 form?

1 l

16 A We did not, 17 0 Did you in any wav che + the figurea which were l-ta plugged into' the raw STARDh a .. gram by- Dechtol?

19 A tde'did not.-

20 .Q' Iulthe STARDnm progran an integrated whole?  !

k 21 -That in to say that it's of a given size and weight and you

! ' 22 - always une the whole- thing, or doea STAltDniE cena in cecticr.s j l:

$ .23 where you might ' cay, Well, we need the STARDnm Section Z-l 24 colected out and use thatt in thoro an intermediato step

25. there where you select something out of 'the STARDEJE progrnm, .

.i

.u _ -:. a . . . = _ . . . - - - . . . , -...-....----....-..-.-.....---...-...-.2.-.

1602t

[ . /.

i;. .l. l mpb9 1- - or is it all one thing?- l r

1 lt g 2 A: I don't think I can ansuor your quaition.-

3 Q Why not?

ji 4 A Decaone I'm not that familiar uiti U EIEX6E, i

G per ce.  :

I 6, ,' STARDYME is a computor- based program with a l i.

7' finito alement capability, and that's all one necds to kncu j 3 i' nLiout it.

G Q That'o 'all .who needs to know about it?

t t

) l

10 A That's all-I naaded to know about it. ,

j. -11 Q. Do you know who can t'all un authoritatiwly --

t 12 striko that.

h 13 Continuing the nona paragraph:

1 2

14 "Such chachn could not have keen accon-l 73 -plished in tho time available. 2chhor, the l 4 .

1

! at; writors focused on methoSo of-analycin vuod in {

i the avaluation and upon thoce renults of -nMy- 1, 17 t l i

m -nea with which-they Vera providad."

e il i

19 -How when it says "the writers focnced on nathodu j  ;

i l g of analynis", the primary analynia we're talking thout in j_  ;

! .i gj STARDYNE, is that corrach?

l l;

$- ,e .A .I.at na back off a little bit.  !

[

% You lecall- the earlier santonce about which you-j

<,a i l i-w..p v' 1 asked m6 had co do with the fact t!mt wa -didn't chec': the l  ;

4y

. _3

& Curacy Of thC Oubput. .HOW hy hathodB Of Rn31yGiG I WQuld i .

s

.i j- 5 f

i 4

j- '

}l l

j ..

[

9 s .

u

-____ _ _____2.___.,._ .____;__.__,_.____-___________.__.___,_

}' ,

)

1303 4

) mpb10 1 include the stick model, the TABS nodel, the fact that tbc A'

2 ongincors were using modal analyais with rcupoT:o agaci , t, 3 the fact that they were using a finito cistent progrrna thica  !

0 4 we knaw mado it pooniblo for them to represent in ratherrntical l

1 1 5 I form the otructure in considerabla detail. Thano ucro the  !

l l

G kinds of mothods of analysed that wo wanted to know chout, I i

7 and the resultu that we waro gobting from thano analyces j 1 i

i.

8 wore of interont to un.  !

u

)

0 I! ave I made that clear to you? Mhen I any ue )

i 10 wera interosted in the method of analycis it decan't maan 11 that up had to know the details of STARD^GE or nr.i a:, er any-

.i 12 ) thi We know the nabure, the compa ra t:'" ' natura of h I P. .aodel, for exturple, and the GTARDE modal- and li uhu .. gnt be accomplished on the one and not th o th e r.

15 And you can understand that uithout 1:noving the 3 10 . detailn of the prograu.

a

! 17 0 You vera looking over their chou.a.&r to cea if ga they worc, in gross terms, looking at the right toola? '

19 A That's right, what approach they were tahng to 20 the physical problem.

21 0 Tell me comathing about your firm, would you?

4 22 IIow many people do you have in your firm?

O 23 A Just the three of us.,

i 24 Q And hou long havo you gentlemen been in ht: - inanu

@ 25 togother?

l;

, A I think since 1957, but don' t hold na to it.

.e. . . ~ . -.vea.--, ,ee.,- -- .----i.,.+ ,,-.----run *. - , - . . . c., , , -.--m.. e . . . .,r-- -

,-w--c- - s,

l i' 1

i 1504 i 1

2b2 ab1' I

• l Q I~nuppose a fair uay to-- Wall, decoribe briefly j 2 the projecta on which you are precently working, if you would.

j 3 A Precontly? I

}

1 l

' 4 Q Precently.  !

l 3

5 A Hell, Trojan.

}

6 0 Yon? .j i

7 . A Thoro are one, two, three buildinga probic, t, 0 major' building problema thr.t have had dir"Icu'.ti i it! i.

l 1

0 windows. i i- i n

10 ; O And where are thoco?

l l li ; A One in in- Well, four actually. Ono ic in i !

! t 12 ,

i Docton, one in in Worchester, Maucachucetts, one ia in i 13l Minneapolic, and one in Calgary.

I 14 i 0 And they all have similar problema with windows?  !,

s is A There are come similarition. i I- Did they have the sana construction carnany?

is ,

Q 17 A UO.

r i  ?

is ' O In that the fundamental citailanty? i A No.  !

19 !} '

i 20 , O Bonideo Trojan and four sonM/' hat ':imi? .; - ttt 21 of window problema, what other projncts are ina bh c . of t

3' your gentiomen procently uorking on? i o ,

23 A This in probably the c:: tent of whnt in really pf, active at the nioment. If I think of conething cine T'i.1

,e r- mention it to you. l

'l i

g i

4 li Y j i ,

/  ;

4 9

i . . . . , _ ~ . . , - . . - -.a...~,-.---.- )

I s <

li

. 1505 eb2' 1 He h've-a a very cmall group, and wo do not operate I

g' 2 an' office with'a~1arge number of engineers,-and we tend to l

' T t 3 bo involved in.a.rolatively few projects at any one given <

i 4, . tine-

l. {

, i i.

5 O Ravo you ever be~en involved in uaing STARDYnE. '

6, tnalyais for enrthquake-probleme before? j l 7' A. ' I don' t think I have. i.

I l' 8 MR. KAFOURY: It's noon. Whatever the Chair's I. .9 pleasure is, I certainly have a lot more questions.

.10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, uhy don't we go until l

.11 about 12:30,.unless you prefor to auspend now? I'm thinking l .

l It of running until about 12:30, with the usual hour and a half l

g 3 off, but if anyonc is too hungry, we vill yield to

, 14 -gastronomic forces.

l 15 (Laughter.)-

16 How do you feel?

i 17 MR. KAFOURY: Wel), I'm. hungry. I don't know i

i yg whether anyone else is.

1-l l 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right, if you're hungry, 20' and sines you'ro the examinor, we want you to ba well fed b 21 and we'll' suspend.'

22 We will be back at 1:30.

g' 23- (Whereupon, at 12:00' noon,-the hearing in the i

i 24 above-entitled matter was recossed to reconvene at

[ ~ M2 25 'lL: 30 v.m. the same day.)

p 1-

l m I i

1506 l

l 1 f l 2C:agbl AFTEluiOON SESSION 1.

l (1:30 p.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN 11 ILLER:' 'Mr. Kafoury, you may continue.

~4 i- MR. KAFOURY: 'Thank you,.Mr. Chairman.

I 5

! Whereupon,-

6' MYLE J. HOLLEY, JR.

i 7 and 0

BORIS BRESLER s

! 9 were recalled as witnesses on behalf of'the Licensee, and, l

i 10 tiaving been previously duly sworn, testified further as l

II

'follows :

12 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'.mued) g 13 ny nn, gApouny:

14 Do you know what tents may have been run on tho j _. Q 15 STARDYNE program which tected its results for accuracy l

1 1 16 with regard to earthquaken?

17 For instance,-have thore been models constructed i

18- and doctroyed which. tested hypotheses derived fron STARDYNE?

i 19 A- (Witness Holloy) I very much doubt it.

l .

20 g- Do you know of any other tests that have bacu 21- run regarding STARDYNE and _

earthquake analycis?

22 QA You're speaking'of physical tects?

[_e i

J 23- Q:. - Physical'tosts.

t 24 _A' No, I do not. '

25' ' Could such testo be dovised and run?

O 4

h

,...-w..-...--l.-. . . . , . .....,U.

..,-.w...*-_.--_.--.r ...-.,_.,..,r~e,e,'-..+,,,--..v-.-w .,,w.e-,, ,..-r. ,...,v---n..*

L i 1507 i e

l. .; . [

l -' agb2' 'A You're not specJ:ing nou of the centrol building, j i ,,

you'ro speaking of tests in general?

!' 3 Testo to detennine tha accurncy of hypothosen l: O I

l 4 derived fro:n STARDYNE analysis relative to earthquakes. [ l t

'5  % ouppose it would be focaible to compare analytic $1 A

! 6 l predictionn of behavior for which STanDYNE or any other  !

i; y dimilar program gave part of the inpnt, perhaps, to model 6

i. tests of various corbs, Which is not to cey at all that I o

9-think its fencible to moac1 the contro.1 ouilding, but if 19 1 g

one took F particular model, it might bo possible to use  ;

I an nualytical approach which incorporated, at como point of the annlysis, a finito elemant program like STARDYME and h 13 used it as part of the prediction process.

I4 0 You caid earlier that, in response to a question 4

IU from the Board, that one of tha basic purpocan of an

a i 16 analysis following an ODE shutdoun would bn that you vould 4

. i,

l. 17 check thinga out in order to determino uhother the building  ;

F -

W had performed better or worce than it-had been predicted to l 19

perform. j j d, Would there be como advantages to teating that j j

l 21 out on a'model rathor than tasting it out with the Trojan  !

i l 4  ;

4' control building waiting for an earthquake?

l g' j l W I

! :23 A No.  ;

~i

' 24' O Uhy not?

.O 25. ' A Becauae I don't,think that the model that you uced ,! j i

I I I  !

t  ;

-.,--. -l

1508 1

agb3 would be sufficiantly repronontative of Trojan to ba .2enning~

ful and, (b), because I think that we know aufficiently 3

what it in that we're asking STAROYME to do, we know whera (v] -4 it's placed in the entire chain of anu.lyticci prediction and 5

have ovary roanon to be confident that it la dair' i.ts part 6

of tha analycio appropriately.

7 0 You're anying that it would be too complicated 8

to 6cvise a physical scale model of the control building, 9

that that would be -- that was your first roanon for why 10 thit suggestion was impractica?

11 A Unrealistic, yes.

17.

O Would it be poccible to dcVise a simplar model O.

t 13 for the purpose of not touting what th control room would 14 do in an actual carthquake -- the control building -- but, 15 instead, to toot the accuracy of the predictions made by IO i STARDYNE itaclf?

I7 A Let me see if I can clarify for you.

D Remember, I said that STARDYME told un como things

• about the behavior in the linear clastic range. He could 20 take a'utructural element, a plate or whatever you care to 2I select as the model, and subject it to loading in that 23 ranga, in the range for which we are using STARDYME (v~}

23 and measure certain things on it.

, 24 For excInple, put strain gauges on it and infor LJ 25 from physical measuroments what the values were for important

i-f I 1509 1

agb4 forcan within the structure, and compare these with what

]

l vc would got from a STAROYNE analyGic, for e m ple.

3 I'm confident, in that limited ranga for which j.

such a chock would make any nonau at all, ue vould gat.very u .

close correlation. This in not comathing about which ua

. f3 uould have any concern.

I'm not auro that$ a responcj.ve, but that's

! casentially the reacon why it isn't northuhile trying to e

! 9 duplicate the control building, it has co do with what we I

so

, use STARDYNE for.

11 3 Q Go, in other words, in addition to tha fact that t ')~

'the building itoelf in too complicated to be adwJustely

&W g ",

s represanted by a scale model under tuat conditicns, a second 4

" factor is that the STARDYNE itself, the STAROYME analycia l l

D itoolf for your purponos 10 of such limited offectivenass ~

1G-that is, its offcativonaso is limited to nuch a maall range

~U of the entiro calculation that hao to be made -~ that,. for l

< IU that reason, it would not necessarily be practical?

f A It's a very important and very nacful ranga.

'?

Q Important and useful but narrow?

21 3 Aa'a step in the p.coccoc.

0 An a. step.

f3 AmIcorrect,then,thatitisyourteatiltonythat,{'

l kN ' to the boat'of your knowledge, no such feedback tests of

-@. t 25 .STARDYNI? earthquako predicting factors has been done?

- . \

\-

\

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

1510 l

i I I agb5 A Mo such - Which kind are you apeaking of oov ? ,

2 m-Q Scale modelo of simplar building thca Trojan, 3 i

.o, used to tout the accuracy of STARDYME predictions 2.n earth- (

'J g \

quake conditiona, '.

I t-A To ray knottledge, thin hac not occurred. I i

l 6 4' It would not curpriso mc at M 1 people doing '

i 7

cxperimental uork in certain arcas, certain a bructurrt:_ l 1

0 behavior in the linear rango for which STARDL!E ia appro-

< 1 9

priate s have induod uced it and compared uith tcat ruaulta, ,

l 10 But not to my direct knowledge.  :

II Q So if there c.to such reculho , you don' t Jmo'.7 l

12 what the reculta are?

13 Q) A That'o correct.

14 Q You said this morning that the responau in an

'i 5 SSE of the control building could be influenced by prior 16 carthquakes or a serieu of prior carthquakes.

17 Uhat kinds of influencon would you, in particular, 10 be concerned about, uhat kinds of problena uould prior 19 carthquakes create that might significantly lossen thc 20 ability of the control building to uibhnt.and an 003?

21 A Well, if you had, for example, oun or uox t prior

^d- carthquakes of intensity very nearly tha ucrne au ::n SSh

,c

~

i 2.3 but losa, it vould not be curprising if, uhta you then hir.

24 it uith an SSE, the accumulated displacements vore larger than

~' 25 if the SSE had boon imposed., It's a question of hou large

p 1511it agb6 the prior.earthquako you're talking about and hou frcquantly -

.h- you do this.

3 Q Mhere would you want to look in ordar to find 4

what problemu such an earlier hypothetical carthquake might r.

~

have created?' Whore would you look for problem:3?

6 A I probably wouldn't look at all, unless I had 7

rnAson to believe that it was a significant prior enrthquaket.

l l

l D~

Q 'And are you willing to sta.ta-a "g" figura for i

9 That would be a significant prior carthqucho?

10, g ggyy 7:Vo already indicatsd that I thought the i

M procedures that were being followed and that gres.1 out of l

12- the load factor approach, which was in cormon une and which J. h 13'/ wo 'd lo'ad in thin cace, I guess, to 0.159 in the original a M design concept and to 0.11g now, is very conservative.

1 l

) "' Q If we had a 0.11g carthquake, where would you 1'6-want to look to cue if there were problems?

l 17 A. Oh, yor. would examine walls for cracking, be Cn they largo cracka, small crackc, for nigno of distress, 19 Q Uould it be possible that you would have in-l . 20 obvious problems? - i i 21 A. I'm sorry?

22, O Inobvious problema.

O 23 A - An obvious problem? #

24 ~Q Inobvious problems , r .n -o-b-v-i-o-u-a.

h 2" A- They aren't apparent to me, but quite frankly, l 4

v r

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..,-v,-r-, e-= .-,e.<w +.*-=.---e-v=--,e-+=- - - **-e-r - t- + -w - - - - - + + w- e- v r*--r----ww ---=w--- w-- - ---r e e- w-- w a - *-

1512.

agb7- I haven't addrescod' thia - the detailed apprainal that

_O. ono wou1d umaereo if eae earenauane occurrea-3 It'a' not' apparent to me that - you'ra saying, O '4 is there comething bhich was serious but would not bc 5

noticod?

Q That's the question.

~7' -

A ~ I think it unlikely.

O Q Why?

9 A Because I think, if the carthquake were largo 10- onough to cause difficulties of the kind I would bo concerned 11 about, that it would bo obvious.

12 g . Hight there be changes inside the walls which O. 43 wou1a se inesvioue?

14 A It's extremely unlikely.

15 Q Why is that?

16 -A Decauco the walle are of a nature that, if

, 17 something occurred inside, in the way of a crack, for examplej 18 I would expect to one it throughout the thickness of the  !

19 wall.

20 0 Would'it be possible to have a separation of 21 the coro from the sandwiching elements?

22 A Nothing, I-think, that would not show up with P.3 -tapping'or.Various kinds of detection devices of this cort.

24 0' Would you have a concern with metal fatigue?-

0- -25 A; I cannot think,.of.the moment, of anyplace in

1513 1

agb8- the otruccure whero that's a considaration.  ;

2 9, 'A (Witneca Brcoler) I cannot either.

3 - -

A (Witnesa Holley) I don't think co.

~

4 Q If I gave you raoro tino, .do you think you could I

! et

~

thinklof.ane?

0 l A Probably not.

I A (Ultnesa Bresler) Perhaps it may ha woruh noting ;

t

' 8 '

that eac number of cyclan of reversals that are anticipated '

O j in auf given onrthquake is not aufficiently 1crga i:,o expect

rea)iy fatiguo probleran.

t U And fatigue probler.ac in the metala occur when

' 12 t'to ntunoor of cycles of repetition runa in thousands, raany h 13 taousande, i M

And here we'ro talking about cyclon that run in 10 dozens, not thousanda -- 60 cycles,100 cyclea 120 cycles, 10 but'not t:housands of cycles. It is not li.t dy that there 17 f would be fatigun prob 1cmn, i

I8 0 How is the building accured to the rock foundatior,?

I'

[ A (Witucca Holley) This in described, I think, in

'O the report. There are what have been referred to aa 21

] " grade baama," I think in thic case, which are cast diractly l

72 on.the rock. The ualls, in turn, are heycd into theco.

l@

i a

(23

~Q And the stoel beams are buried into Mm rock, o

M aren't they?

4-

25 l

'A The atool beams aro buried into the rock? No, i

p 1 -

,. \

i 1514 (

1.

. 1 agb9 not to 21 knowledge.

g 'O They?re not.

3

- , ~ ifhat kinds of -- Well, strike t' tat, h 4 S

l

.i g'

2D 1

a

. 9

- 1b d

'1 12 g 13 14 15 16 17 18

t i

19

- 20

' 21 22'

9.. 23 1

1 j .. . Me ~

g J-2s t-t 1

a

+-vr+-ww ,w,-ew--+--e'<-wer -

w w -w w w - e- -.we. - -. etws'

l l

3 3 1515 s. l 2D 1 I

lWnB/npbl It would be raost difficult to exanine after an ,

4 g.

g 2 .

carthquake c.ny offects that there might be on the underside

! 3 of the contcol room building, isn't that trno? You can't I

h 4 lift the carner of the building and take a look undcrneath l 3 to ceo hof it in doing?

l O

A Mot readily.

l r i 7 g -Would.there be any poccible cauco for concern l 6 an a f ocult of a significant carthquako that the foundational i 9 gript might in any way be weakened or impaired?

t 10 A I think not.

11 Q Why.not?

12 A Decause I have looked at the calculations of tho

.h 13 pm 1cvol forcon and the otrossen that result, and they are

-l jp.200 14 aodco t. And you're talking of a previous earthquake which f 10 prenumably would be more modest.  :

l

'1G Q How would you deceribe the degree of your exper- i

(

, 17 tico in ovaluating the offects on safety equipment of vibra-15 tiono?- Is that within the range of your competonco or noii?

/ .A I would not say that's in the range of my compe-

"3

'tonce. I k'now the general techniques that they proceed to 21 uno to evaluato accelerations to which the equiprdent is ex-  ;

1 22 posed.

e 23 I'm not an export. I have.not had occasion to f

. M look at the equipment, per so.

},

25 MR. K.hFOURY: Fir. Chairman, is it possible we-1 i

1516 rnpb2 1 could get the chalk board into service for a enriec of dia-n 2 gralan?

(.)

3 CHAIRMM7 MILLER: I assuna therc'c no objection, r~)

(

V 4 if it's in connection with your interrogation.

S (Pause.)

G MR. BANKS: Maybe wc could go an with the part 7 that cloenn't require the chalk.

8 MR. EAFOURY: Very well.

9 MS. BELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a written limited 1

i l appaarance I uould like to hand in for comebody else at this 10 1

11 pi nt., l I P. CHAIRMAN MILLER: Vol.f well. l 13 (Document handed to the Board.)

14 CHAIR!!AN MILLER: Lot the record show that the 13 written limited appearance of Doreen, D-c-r-o-a-n, L, i

16 ) Nepom, N-e-p-o m, has been handed to and receivad by the Board {

17 DY MR. KAFOURY:

p, Q On pago 4 of your teatimony you dacctibe the 39 throo principal modes of failure for a given vall.

20 Would you draw me a picture of three walls and 21 chow me what those kindo of failurou look like, the .; hear -

22 compr salon diagonal failure, the flexura failure, and the 73 23 shear-friction or dowel action failure?

24 (Witnoon Drealer at the blackboard.)

A V g A (Witness Bronler) The chear forccc are I

l

l

. 1 I  ! j j 1517 { l

! l mpb3 L charactorized by in-plano forcea.

)

1 2- .Q Excupo me a minuto, Professor.

l 3 In order for the record to make senua it's going )

4 to ho necessary for you to be rathor detailed in explaining i

G what ycu've drawn, and then doccribing your ope 2:abions in 6' detail'so that comcono reading the tranceript could make

'7 consri of it.

G. A You will have to forgive me. I jumped into this ' .

}

9 .in a clacarcom otyle, and I will now alter my style to con- t i

i 10 fe>rm with the hearing procedures.

11 Each wall can be represented by a square or.a 12 rectangle, and shear forces on auch a wall can be chcracter-g 13 ized by the forces in the plane of the wall along the four

, 1

, 14 edges of such a. rectangle. l

,1 15 I The shear forcen can be resolved into diagonal l y

te comproccion and diagonal tension forces which are equivalent 5

l O in fact to. the cyctem of the chcar forces on the edges of suchl

. 1 i {

,8 a wall, 1

)

19 91nco concreto is a material that is uaak in j l

20 tencion.but very strong in compression, accociated with the j j 21 tensile forces - .

pa Q Excuse me. )

23 What doen it mean to cay, that it'n weak in -  ;

24. run. that by'me again, pleaco. ,

.25 A- Concrete in tennion may fail at the atress of the l

i l

.'1

1 ,

, 1510' i

mpb4 1 order of 500 pounda por aquare inch, and concreto in com-(~3 2 pression may fail at the strosc of about 5000 poundo per

, q)

.3 squaro inch.

Q V 4 This we would nornally any in ucah in tonsion 5 and strong in compression.

6 O Okay.

7 And describe for the record what the diagram 0 you have there in answer to part a, the shcar-compression j

9 diagonal failure is, will you, pleace? ,

1 10 A Yes.

11 I have already so described it: that the shear 12 l forces can be recolved in the diagonal comproccion foreca 13 and the diagonal tencion forces.

t! O So you have a picture of a ractangle. On the l3 lef t side you have an arrow pointing up; on the right side j 1

16 you have an arrow pointing down; on the bottom you have an 17 arrow pointing to the right; on the top you have an arrow i

gg pointing to the left, and you are explaining the diagonal gg force, the diagonal result of thene foreco by means of a 20 . pair of diagonal arrows from the upper-right cornor and the 21 uppor-lef b corner meeting in the contor, and arroua perpen--

22 dicula r .to thooc, no? l

'l 23 E. BANKS:

Upper-right and lower-lof t are the g4 L arrows that are pointing at each other in a diagonal fashion,

- 25 and in the opposite corners th?.y are pointing away from each 4

__ ~ _ . - - . . . . . _ . _ . . . . - . . . - , . , , . . -

, , - . , . . - - , . . , - - - - . , .,,.--.c .. , , , --

,t

b 1519 i l t ,

l 5 I

'mpb5 1 other in:n diagonal faahion.

2 MR. KAFOUIrf: I thought that'c what I said. If 3

notr I stand correated. l ,

4 BY NR. KAFOURY:.

'O O So the reault of' those kinda of forces, you vore t'

6 anying would be what?-  !

7 A (Witnoon Bresler) They'd be equivalent. The B result of the ahearing. forcea would bu ocmewhat equivalent 1 T to the result'of the diagonal forces.

}

. .0 This, then, leads to the fact that norwil to the i 11 direction of the tension forces a crach may develop in the 12 I material.

g 13 Q. And you are putting in cracks which have cut off 1

14 the cornern in the upper-lef t :nd louer -right.  ;

1 15 A That's right. And therefore un have along the 1G comproccion diagonal going from the upper-right-hand cornar l i

17/ to the lower-left-hand corner a ccrnpreanion fow m -- I'm carry}

f I3 a comprecaion zona betuacn the tuo diagonal w 2cks. . And i i

19 failuro in thic mannor is generally characterized ac a chear- *

.1 20 compression failuro.

21 'O And what would we be talking about? What would  ;

22 wo be talking about if it were to have a catastrophic result 1

23 .of those. stresses? . Would that bc -- would it fall into two -

t.

24 pieceu or three pieces, or is that difficult to any?

l A It's difficult to say; maybe three, four, five, 25

. . ~ ~ . - -.-. . .. . . - -. . _ - _ _ - . . . _ _

l 1520 mpb6- -I' six. It could be a complex failure if we reach 'a level where

. 2 failure ~.occuro.

3 0 And that kind of failure would be characterized O '4 by a series of cracks. extending from the upper-right to the 5 lower-left the way you've drawn the forces.

6 A Quito..

7 And the failuro modo derivoc its name from the 8 way the failure is initiated rather than from the way it i

D looks at the end. At the end of all failure noden if you 10' really carry it to the extreme collapse cituation occantially 11 what you have is a little rubble of a floor. But you do not 12 expect such collapse situations to occur in a building that Q. 13 is capable of . resisting these forcec.

'14 So the point is this would be the way tho initia-15 tion of the failure mode is characterized, by such cracks.

1 16 And'if it=can withstand this system of forces after the dia- ,

17 gonal cracks are formed we say that this hac the resistence la capacity to withstand shear compression.

19 Q Thank you.

, 20 And part b, the flexura failuro.

't .

PJ l A The flexuro modo again if we consider the samo

\

22' kiitd'of a rectangle or.squarc.--

'0 23 Q And you have the same arrowc? -

24 A The came arrows on the edges of such a rectangle 25 or ' square would . obtain particularly when the height-to-basa f

I

? q 1a.n

r. <-

E mpb7I l- ratio maybo _ in significant, in which cano theru is a tentlency 1

2 efor thia rectangle to band in a curycd chtga r, thin curvature U in' the direction, cay, of the horizontal forca on the upper g . 4

] cdge'of the.vpil. li.hin type of defor.ation resulta in ttncion 5' on'the edge cf the wall upon uhich the shear forca impingca, { '

i

). U

.comproccion on the oppocito vartical cdge of the wall.- and j . ,

j- 7 where reinforcement is prouent thin reinforcem;:nt along the i

! 6- tension cag.e would begin to viold, and this _viciding. encocint 'I

,s

. ed ulth this tennion Ic what we conslo.or a beginna.ng o.c a  !

I 10 flexural mode 'of .fa: 1.ure. 1 1

i. Finally, the ch%r-friction, or dcr.ul' nation i;? would require that in transferring tha shear frma - sorry. '

)

4 \

j-g

. 3

.D in' transferring the chear forces into the *.*all,. and hora wr [

id- hava a third rectangle nimilar to the othn hizo with ec w. '

l 4

e i

.. is on it nimilar to the other tNo, .that thoro are mht

.nin m , 1 1 , i l- ' ei .along the edges of the forcas - along the n6;ac of the walle ,

4 i

! rj and that either by recans of friction or by means ci dos:al ,

i I It. . ,

30- action the shear forces which are generated by other e.lcranta j t

i  !

l W bounding the wnll can ba transmitted into the uall '

r- fo - f So those are the three possible todes of defonaa--

a f

21 tion, the three posnible modes of failure. And if va can i c

g , _ determine capacity at this stage bosa6 on this mechanism -~

I .h-

=y l-Q You :r.can nun'her onc?

s .

J'

' .M..

l

' A- - On CHG y WO Ci'n dGtorminC tha Ca.pacitV 0 0. OO hC T" , .

, f

,3 d ~tiinsd by mode two; W - can con:sidar ~ the capacity as  !

r 3 i.

1 .

^

j )d. .

/

a-

. 4. e! ' .1 s

. , _ -,41H '. .-,__...u_--..-.._--._,.._,___m.-._ . - . . . . . ,,,....-..._-.-~.~.~--m. . -..- A-

i 1522 ~

I rpbe I determinou by mode th1.ec. And if in all thanu thrv2 coni 1 9 -

2 urations the capacity, the calculated capacity ic cu f ficf.an t 3 in magnitudo to resist the imposed loads, then */a do not

~^'

4 anticipate failure, 6 'the calculated capacitian alona do not datamin' '

6 the safety of the structure. Ascociated with all of those is '

7 another diagran one must bear in mind uhich representr rc- l 4

O sintence and deformation. l l

l 9 In this caco if I aimply show a pair c. anca, l

i 10 ' orthogonal axec, perpendicular aren, and along the vertical l ,

i  !

i 11 axis if I plot the force R -- or, rather, rasist:nce to l i

4

'2

. given force, R, R, than would be the forca, th'.>. ah':ar forco  !

I n 3 (v) 13 along the top of the wall. And along the ha):inontal n: is i l g \

l

\

14 I will plot the dicplacement, dictortion in cr00 one, which j 15 would be movement of the vall, the top of the 'all to the f i

15 left, and the amount of displacement of the top ccrn: i:o the ;

1 17 le f t , lot that be one kind of displaccuent;or tha d% placement ta on the left top corner caused by bending or the displacu mntl 19 of the top lef t corner as a concequence of friction, uhat<:.ve 23 that dicplacement may be, the important thing is hhat I rciay 21 reach a value R very near its capacity.

s 22 But I may havo very larga residud ability to  ;

i i t/

23 deform no that, for exaluple, if I an juct near thic point  ;

i

,_ 24 and thic curve extends to the right bayend th,- limited point,

~'

)

25 this is a very important characteristic of the structure. One; i

4 l

1523

~

mpb9 1 cannot judge by comparing the force R with the calculated g 2 ' capacity. ~0no also has to look at the displaccmont accociated 3 with 4:ais deformation in one, tha deformation in two, the

.O 4 defostmation-in three with the chility of the un11 to deform.

and 2D S f

7 0

9. .

10 i1  !.;

a

$2 g is v

.5  ;

I, 16  ;

f 17 l 18 to

'20 I

at

.- 22 OJ ,

ze O 25 i

a- . _ - -- _ - . . _ _ _ _ . _

s 1524 2c obl 1 0 Now the atriking thing abbut the curve that you 2 have on deformity and resistance to force as it appears in 3 the literature that we have been proviously supplied is that 4 the curve is relatively linear up to a certain point, and S it curves -- and that is an elevation of perhaps and an 6 angle of perhaps 15 degroos, very roughly, off the vertical 7 axis. IJut at a certain point it curves drastically to the 8 right. l l

9 Now that is to say that-- Am I correct? - that I l

10 onco you get past the point of non-linearity, once you reach l 11 that point' where the building starts to crack , than rather --

12 A That's not necessarily the point where it starts l i

O 13 to crack. I interrupt you because you gave me permission O

14 before.

15 0 Picano, go ahead.

16 Cracking, et cetera. At that point, rather maall 17 increason in the applied force would result in larger dia-18 placements. So then is it fair to say that an error in where 19 that curve beginc would be a very crucial error indeed?

20 A No.

21 O No?

22 A No.

23 0 Picaso explain.

24 A The actual load deformation curve may look sub-fs b stantially different. It may look something like this.

25

J.

1 1525 ,

i:e )

l ;eb2 . 1 . Q: And-here you have created a mnoother angle, t \

2 It's a. curve which has a much.more gradual trenci-

- g' .A 3- tion, and 'it has almost a constant curvature, a slightly 4 increaaing curvature as the lond la incroacing. And hora one-p 5 'has a very difficult time to establich.the linear range and

1 0 the"non-linear rango.

7 he .iuportant' point. is what is the capacity to 8 defona? The greater the capacity to deform, the gnaator the i .

l 9 energy abscrption capacity of the element is because the

! 10. onorgy ic measured by the area under the load deformation l 11 cucVe, And the greater the dofornmtion- The difference

, 12 'in arca you ace between these tua curves ,11naar, say, to i

j 13 t. bout F percent of the capacity, say, and then non--linuar,  :

i

14 ' or a gradually increasing non-linonrity in the' cyatem, the

• 15  ; area of the two -- the area under the tuo curves ic very 'l 1.

13 nimilar, i l'

l Q Isn't it a fact that STARDYNE, for inctance, is 17 [ i l-:

!? far more helpful up to the point whero the curve starts to M '

turn sharply to the right, that that's the area where you <

j 20 have fer and away the greateret p2;odictive value and that as l 21 you go beyond that point things b3como inc2.casingly uncer-1 ..

- 22 tain? Is that true? e

. 23 'A STARDYNE is very good because STARDYNE is essen-pf, tially. linear:so that'for a given-displacement, it predicts

[: 'a' force that 10 an upper bound on what ferco actually may F4  :

25-i I

...,.c.~- ...._.L-.-. - -

1526 1

eb3_ 1 be a t: that displacement. j i

2 If you extend the straight line along the first i O 3 i

I initial portion of the diagram, the force displacement dia-4 gram I drew, and'if we use in STARDYNE a certain stiffness, a

5 then for a given . displacement STAPJWHE will calculato a point i 1

t 6 which is the intersection of that displaccuent end the l

I

, 7 straight'line which we call the stiffness, co it will cluays B- givo-us a force which is larger for a given dioplacement than i 1

9 the scrm ture will actually encounter, j 10 0 Stercly . But when you get near that range you 11 are dealing with essentially imaginary concepts, aren't you?

i I

j ta You're imagining the building to have withstood enormous force  !

l r, without deformation, and that's not an accurate reflection 4 .of reality, is it?

l 15 A That's why a few years of experience helps.

1 16 O And that's where your general knowledge becomeu  !

l 17 far more important than anything the ecmputer tells you;  !

ta correct?

i j 19 A I think so. j

)

i 20 0 Looking at Number 1, what would be the result of i j  !

21 that kind of failure at the wall where you would least like j l

22 to see it?

[ 23 A The' result would be an increasing deflection.

And L ainee all" the walls are tied together by the floor slaba 24 I O 2s thee meene thet the excese of the force thet this wa11 <en 9

r  ;

^

1527' '{

eb4' II noc lon' g er' resis't, that that given displacement, that c:cccas 1 12' -of tho? force by.the floor system wi.t.1 be transmitted to l 3 an adjacent wall or to another wall that is still capable 1 60 4 to redist additional.forcos, n ,

5 0 .I'm speaking of failure of the vall. Uhat would i 6 happen --

7 A I thouhht you said what would happen when it

8. reached this limit'at the wall where I would least like to 1 l

l 9 ace 'ita.

10 Q- Yes, that's what I'm asking, and that adds some-11 thing..to it.

12 . Onco you reach the over-all limit on the --

g 13: A. Well,.before you havc to have failure you.have pg to reach capacities of a group of walls that fail together, IS that'no one wall'can,havo a cerious failure, provided it has 'l

, 16 thi's deformation capability.

l 97 0 That's really the heart of your analycic, icn't [

gg it, that no wall can collapsa and that tacreforo, the whole 19 building either'has to all collapse at once or else it will r

j all remain ctanding?

1 20 20 A- As we see it, the building cannot collapse as b 2p a wholo in any event because of the steel frame. We focused I h' 23 a great _ den 1' of attention on all the deficiencies in the 1

.g building. But there is an inherent stability of the building

- 25 that'the steel frame, which recists all the gravity' forces, 6

,, I

.;..=.u.--- -----a----- - ,- . .f. - -

1 1528!

i I

eb5: 1 is going to stand and the gravity-- That meann the floors l t

2 cannot collapse.

.O 3 0 But tte steel is assumed to have no shear capa-

'4 city, no shear capacity has been ca'.culated?

5 A The steel frame in the calculation is assur.ed to 6 have no direct shear capacity except in certain areas where 7 it may act as a dowel.

8 0 Why then can't you have failure A, shear com-9 pression failure?

10 Beg pardon?

Ji - l 11 O Why can't you have failure A, "'ilure number 1 12 on your chart, shear failure?

{]) 19 A With the level of forces that have boca calcu-14 lated from the STARDYME analysis, which as I explained are 15 upper limit of the forcos, and with the recistanco capacities 16 that we have calculated postulating any one of those behavicra, 17 it is not reasonable to expect anywhere near failure. We do 18 expect in some smaller walls come larger defo'rmation and 19 yielding of the tensile reinforcing steel bars. Those are 20 usually smaller walln, and.they have a fairly large deforma-21 tion capability.

22: So that as we look at the entire aasembly of the 23 . walls at any given story, the sum of the cL_ar resistancen 24 is sufficiently great,-well in excess of the upper limit of 25 the' forces that are indicated by the STARDYNE analysis, that

4 l- .: ^

l 1529 l ob6f '1 ve think:that failure la unlikely.

2 Q In Number 2-you havc doformed the reactangle to L 3 the left co that the opper right-hand corncr hac a higher T '4 91 ovation than the upper left-hand corner and to that the 5 side on the left has compression and.is shorter than tSa side i

6. on the right, which has entension and tension.

7' In that the kind of deformation which would j e occur, many cycles por second back and forth no that you

9 would have compression and tencion and then tension.and com-i

. 10 prossion and then back again with enormous rapidity over the 11 time' history of the carthquako?

)

l- 12 A You. I would like to say Yea, but 2 wou.td like g 33 to amplify tho arsacr clightly.

14 What I was. illustrating in thin chat.ch Number 2, 93 dealing with the ficctural mode of failure, is a becic l

1G flaxtural behavior which involved a single curvature or ciraply 1

j g a curvature to the left ac you see in'thic nketch.

1

!  ! l

) 10 What is likely to happen in a panc.1 in a given  !  !

l 121 ;g atory in a multistory building would be ---

gg 3 0 I'll let you doccribo that onc for the record, g; Profocsor. {

22 A- I can only try.

l' 7

23 This represents what one might concider an S-

,4,.

shaped curve along the vertical edges; It is a reversed 25 cunatur , an S-chaped cune, if you think of'this the letter e

I L ,

l 1 i

, 1530 ,

e

~

l

'eb7; 1 5 or part of the letter S. And this of course results from i p 2 'tho :. fact that the floor above and the floor below remain V

]

3 relatively parallol, and that really what we have l here in

- dp 4 half c. story deformafin this fashion of a single curve and 5 the other half of th'e story reverses the -curvcture.

1 l 6 This is niinply to indicato to you thus these i

7 up i,nd down displacements of the corners generally do not i

! O enter 'into en intermediate story of a largo building. And i

j 0 this is what we call double curvature or a fixed face of the 1-l 10 horizontal level at the top of the wall being fixed and the 11 ?orizontal level at the bottom wall remaining fixed and in 12 between, there is a flectural doformation of the sort which is a little more complicated'than this one which I drev here Q - 13 i 14 j for the purpose of 111uctrating the principle.

I 15 Q Now you have a fix in there of -

i 1(r h This would reverse back and forth as you indi-

'y cated.

1

18 Q -- of two parallel lines horizontal and tuo 19 vertical intersecting, and the square between thcu represents 20 a wall between two given stories, and the dictortion that 21 lyou'have shown reficcts S-shapes for the two ve tical sidea 22 of the wall such that there is a deformation, conven'on the j -O 23 upper'leftr concavo at ' the lower lef t, and concave at the i . .

24 upper right, and convex at thedlower right.

25 - A' - Very good, I couldn't have done that.

'y , - - - w NwtT vr ru rMvm"'-DNm-4W ay-t " '#

_ _.s i

I' * {.

1531 ,

, i ob8 I ,

- (Laughter.) l Profeccor, if we'had a building here which had no

-2 ' O i 3 floors in'it, would wo have a drastically difforcnt building f ,

1 j

f

& 4 from the point of view of its' ability to uithstand carth-l i

1 j 5 quaken?

4 0 .A And the'same height, 60 feet, uithout any ficors? j l

7 'O' Yoc.

l 0 A Oh, I think it would be different.

1

- 9 Q- Your colleague is nodding his agreement.

i

. 10 .A (Witness Holley) It would be a different build-1-

11 Ing.

12 ~Q .An enormous difference, a great differencc?

g 13 MR. BANKS: 'I don't see the relovance.

j 14 ' WITNESS BRESLER: It wouldL be a one-story. build-i l 15' ing 60 feet high,.not a four-ntory' building but a one-atory

! 16 building.60 feet.high.

17 . WITNESS HOLLEY: You're going to inave the rcof I

ja on tho. building, I' trust?

19 . MR. KAFOURY: I'll givo.:rou the roof and the 1

i .

20. floor, but nothing-in between.

23 WITNESS BRESLER:. It would be different.

.. :22 EY MR. KAFOURY: i

..L 1 l

23 () And the kind of strean deformity that yau have g . 224 shown us in Humbor 2 would be different in what mayi 1

G. ' Mr. Chairm:in, I'm going to object to j 25; MR, BANKS:

]

i I

[

d N

__i______---__..__ m . ~ . . _ _ _ _ , . ~ _ - - _ . . _ . . - . . . . . . . - - - - . ~ . , . ~ -

~ . ----- er-.-.-mm-

.+ -

Iv- -l

i l

1

l. 1532 -)i .

i eb9- I the'rolovancy of this. We have floors in the building in i

. 2 question and we plan to loave them thero.

! 3 MR. KAFOURY: Mr. Chairman, --

4 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Well, the inquiry is testing

! '5 I ' suppose the effect of the floors which are in the building.

l

' 6 We'll let it go for a little bit until no see the relevancy

7 of it.

8 MR. KAFOURY: I'll catablish the rolevancy when-i l 9 ever you want me to, to the best of my ability.

10 CHRIRMAN MILLER: Well, you can do it now.

11 FUR. KAFOURY: Well, that is @cre is some issue 12 about the structural model that was used and as to whether 13 ,

the building perfectly reflectc a series of independent 14 floors or whehter it to some extent cauld be seen as a hybrid 15 between that examplo and a building which is simply a box, i

16 which is the hypothesis that I had put before him. And I'll 1

17 got into that with subcequent questions. \

, 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right, i

19 .MR. KAFOURYt Would you road the last question l . 20 back, please? _

I j

21 (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record 22 as requested.)

i ' h.

23 BY MR. KAFOURY:

i 24 0 If we were dealing with a box rather thsn a 3

25 building with severa floors? l

! f M--

1. -- - - ,.-.,_._..._.....--...__--,,.m. --..l._.--. , , - - . ....,..-..,....-...--,..,-..._--.-,,...r,~,---4..--

M .l L

1533 l l 1 -ebl'0-' -l'

'(Witneun Breeler) I suppose there are two impor-1

.-[A 2 tant ' things - that -we have to addreas at this point,. We started out_ vith demonstrating the three f ttadamental- prin-l- -3

'4 . cipleo without really reference to a building; and we demon- l L l

,5 started-shear compression in one, floctura failure in tco,-

g l

6 and dowel action.in three, without any referenca to any'given>

7 b'Ailding .

i , 0 - We then proceeded to take an intermediate 1

9' otory, wall panel, and exanine what would happan in that ,

C I l .

10 situation where I have the two S-dhaped curves.

11- 7.f we vant to'addresa the building, ue have to l

! l

' t ?. ;l look at tho'three-dimensional character of the building, '

13 ;j' the fact that it'a a' box and the fact that it's a multi-  !

4 14 . story box. The crocs-walls-have a'certain role to play.ac j

! t 15 well; not only the floors but the croca-walls have a certain  :

IG role to play.

. 17 And in the presence of the croca-Valls and the .

. {

l: 18 floors - [

i I

~, 19 0 I'm norry, what. nro the cross-valls? l i 20 A Eaat-went with'rcapoet to north-couth. l f

21 O Okay. l 2  !

East-wout would be cross--valla to the north-south '

R2l .A l'- 23 walls.

i 3 24 The cross-walls have a role to play and the floord t

j; g- _ > ,

! - 5W . 25 -- havo' a' ro.lo ' to play . i In the behavior of auch a box it is L f*

i . e i ,

s }.

i m 4~ .

{. .

1

-1534 l I' \

ebli I proper'to consider walls between floors an essentially shear.  ;

1 2 panels, as we looked at them in Nunber 1 here, and in the 3 modified -- chall.we callLit Number 47 l O 4, If we'now postulate one single wall without l

I 5 , cross-walls four stories high, it would be a very tall, what 0 we all cantilever, a very tall vertical wall which primarily  ;

7 would behave in.a flecture mode.

G Q. Number 2.

9 A Number 2.

1 10 If wo'take out all the floors and if we don't

.11 have a box, we would have then such a tall wall behaving in 12 a flectural modo.

But if we have cross-walla in a tall box, still

({) .13 14 we might have a large aspect of. ratio of chear wall essen-231 13 tially behaving in this manner with the cross-walls providing 16 the bending resistance. So the relativo shear resistanco, 17 bending renistance will be determined not only by the princi-to ples I described on the board here but on the actual three-19 dimensional shape of the buildin'g.

2c, 20 it 22

.O nc ,

25

.c

t

, - 1535 ' -

, 2f' 3 Ahat if'we vero to assumo no ,

WRB/mpbl~ Q How, you'ro saying i

~

'2 intormediato floors, that.the model of failure that would bo 3 of 'the most concern would be number two, is thr2t correct?

p J$~ 4 A- .Not neceauarily; not if'it is still a box, unless E Wu' re going to take away cast walls from me too.

6 -Q 'I give you the cast and the ucat walla, and ue l

7 mtain the ' north and the south walls. AndLI precurn we're I i

f: 1

! 9' ti;1 king about a north-south carthquaho.

[ 0 A Yes.

. cl1 10 Q How would that assumption that we aro making,

.i 11 that'ic, no floors, affect each of the three possibilitica, 12 :todels?

t

$. 13 A It would be probably comcwhore in between one and A buo . - ,

3 1S 0 she most likely modo of failure uculd be something, i

l . If; between one and two? I 1.

17 A You. 1 la 0 3 didn't maan to interrupt you. Pleaac go ahaca. '

q 19 A' I think that the behavior osaantially uould be a 4

?) tombinaiiion of one and two, and one would still have to tako j i~ . ..

21 a look lat both modos of failure.

i 22 What would' happen then is really somethin that l ~

4

, 23_ we haven't done. As a matter of fact, , it's a cituation so

{ . ng far ~~ co remote that no analysis that uc ha.ve carried out, l

W 23 -

in nono -have we u'se d thin as a model. J 9

Y a

1- r

. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _. _ _ _ _...-#..- m.-m _ - _-*-.-__A.---

-er+*- -----=$m w r* -* -+-*+,ier w ee = W a e ~ -~'-===---**-"-*w=-*' "'v'"-" m ~ ' ~ ' " * ~ ' " ' '

1536' mpb2 1 Where would the cracks appear in number two? l Q. ,

l 2' Would they be horisontal cracks?

3 MR._ BANKS: I guess just to make eure that we l 'g' i

4 .might be getting close to irrelevancy, I will again object, i

5 Mr. Chairman. 8 0 It seems to me we' re way beyond what we're deal-l 7 ing with,, l I

l l 8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I think he has put the wallo l 1

9 and the floors back now, hasn't he?

i 10 WITNESS BRESLER: Oh, back? Well, I had batter t l

11 correct this, then.

c 1

12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Where are we nou? What are we I

g 13 now hypothesizing?

14- BY MR, KAFOURY:-

15 O With or without floors for any vall, the cracks

! 16 that will be likely to appear from the deformation postulated -

17 in number two would be generally horizontal cracks, right?

t

10 A (Witness Drasler) I think if we look at number

[ 19 four it might be more relevant.,

I 20 Let's put a number four here; that'n the sketch I

I L 21 at the lower right, and there will be a crack in here and a  ;

i  !

22 crack in here.

l

!'g 0 You' re showing cracks at the upper-left and -

i' 23 gj, A' Tho upper-left and the lower-right.

F,

.}

25 1 0 - and lower righ t, along the top and the bottom.

r jm i

i lI ,;

. g ,

1537 .t l'

mpb3 .'A Right..

-yy 2- .

O Thht is .at the joints. -

4 'i 3 'A night..

1

~&~ 4 0 To what extent would tho -- n' wall--ac I under- i s U- stand it, in an carthquake, the ' kinda of chaking and vibra-4 l-j- 6 tions that could be produced would.not tend to follow a strict i

7 linear' modo, that.is'to . cay thab there would'be shahing east-!

D' west'and to nome extent up and down and northeact-couthwest b and there would be considerabic variation, in that true?

l ..

l- -10 A It could be. i l' .

I 11 O Would you expect, .thon,f all throo kinds of poss-1 4-i-

12 ible deformation to be operating to varying degrecs on all l

i-13 the walls at virtually the same time?

l' 14~ A I'would expcot. that the walln going in the donth e L

i j- is couth direction will be primarily recponding to the north- ',

! -10 south component of the earthquako. I would expect that the'

l 1'

;g crocs walls or the walla in the cast-vant direction primarily -

}

l -ja to renpohd to the eant-west component of the earthquaho. And i l

4 tg all of'these will be modified by the vartical accelerations or no- vertical: dynamic effects of the earthquake.

21 0.- Dut none of these reprencntationc, one throngn j 1 i ,

n .four, none of them are exclusive for any moment in timo, ara i

[h '

f 4 - '

23 they? You.can have elements of all throo or all four kindo-l g4 of failuro' happening at the came ~ moment, couldn't you?

I:]

.g A Not failure.

n p.

k. ,:

p # ,

_____.-.________.._-____..______.__.._..t..

t h <

e 1S38 mpb4 1: Q Yielding, inelastic behavior, what have you?- -

2 A The character of the thing in dynamic. Therefore i

3 it might be yielding on one side and then it vill recover, and

'4 not yielding on that sido and there vill be yielding on anothes:

j- '5 ; uido.- It'a a transient phenomenon.

6 What we maan by a "trancient", it' c changing in 1

7 time. It's changing in time and once it has yielded it does ,

I 0 not necessarily stay in the state of yiciding. It can re-l lr t t

9 cover. i l

l 10 Another clamont will yield somewhere also. A y 1 i crack having opened no a reault of one kind of dinplacement t;

f l 12 on the roverso cycle will closo and a crack vill open coma- l l'  ;

il g 33 where else. l i

14- h crack, once formed, doca not remain a crack i 15 forover. And it's n transient moment, and the building roc-1 16 ponds to a given input of the earthquake as beat as it can, i

l g .j And one han to assess all the resistences that thic building 1

l gg pococcces and how it will respond to this comple:: dynamic 1

19 pr cess.

1 20 Q Now when does this run? Do you.run it ac railure 21 -

Modo Ono, Failuro Mode Two, Failuro Mode Three? g

[ 22: A U"U2 j 4 23 0. Program.

... Is a program run for the different kinds of fail-ure?

25 4

,l.

I.

1539 t mpb5' I A No, thin has nothing to~do with the program 2t -STARDi'im. -

'- 3- I Q Nothing to do with STARDH2; akay.

e 4 --

Dut all the tuodea of failure would ba taking placcai I

i 5 '

at virtually the name tine?

G- A no, not necoas Irily.

g 7 Q No?

1 0 A No, l h

9 O It could be?

i IO A At any particular place at any particular. panel l 11 I usually one or another made of failuro would be predoninant.

12, J There may be a combined effect of chear and flexurc and chear-

-g 1,! friction, but nonnally cuo mode of failure would be predomi-fi 'nant.

15' }

Q Now the intercoction between the floorn and the  !

l i

lii ' walls, could you describe for us how the floora nro afixed to 17 - the unila?

ja ' '

A The floors are fixed to the valls in a comewhat I

1p ,

complex manner.

nd The floor ic composed of a stael deck - do you 21 know'what a atcol doch is?

t*

. 2$ 'Q It's a flat surface, isn't it?'

h 2f.3 A Not nocoscarily flat. It is fluted.

i I

th Q- Now I don't know uhat you mean. I 2.3  : CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you know what a fluted I

I'.

1 5 4 0 i, npb6 I. .. column is?

2 . MR, IGFOURY: No, I don't.

3 Corrogated?-

O- 4 WITNESS DRESLER: I'm a poor artist, and what I 5 hope to do is to convey something to you.

6 CHAIPJihN MILLER:'. A series of ridges and indenta-7- tions.

O WITNESS BRESLER: This is a fiuted shape. In the 9 cross-section the steel plate has a E,eries of fluted valleys 10 and ridges and whatever. And the floor, then, consists of 11- concrete which fills this stool deck.

12 The steel deck is attached to the steel framo, O 's ve1aea ia careeta arcaa, betweoa ta w=11 e"a enc c "cret" 14 slab, and there is a beam here.

15 Some of the reinforcement in some of the masonry 16 walls, particularly the exterior maconry walls would he con ~

17' tinuous. The concrete core reinforcement may be interrupted.

-18 The masonry wall on the other side might have some anchorago '

19 in the concrete benms, in the concrete infill between the core 20 and the steel beam and the slab. i i

21 So if you look at the submission in the Bechtal .

22 ' testimony there are a number of cross-sections illustrating O 23' the way the floor clab tics into the wall and tiac into the I

concrete around'there. I 24 - But there is a sufficient amount of 25 rainforcement going through, and the steel beam embedded in

I

. 'lt .

l-1541'-  !

1

l. . i l ' Inpb7 .the concreto in many cases .in order to provide the chear tranc -

i g 2 f'er that we talked about in thin Sketch numbt. th ree.

3' BY }UI. RAFOURY:

'O .

'd O What kind of checking have you done in thin 1

-  ?

' I J, . I aren? That is, the connuctions that are mada botucon tno 6 wally and the ficoro?

7 .A (Witness Drealer) I have exanined the drawings i

j 0 ' ann looked at the details, which are typical details for the l'

1 9 various connectionc of the walin and floorn. And I have-i W ocaentially uced my experience in accenning the adequacy of f l

11 these connections for the transfer of the chear forces that 12 arc expected in this building under SSE condition c. I have c (

4 h 13' not carried out any' calculations; but the chear forces cocued F 1& , to be all together not exceanive in terms of the alab, deck, !'

\ ,

15 stool beam,; manonry walla, concrete that's available in that i

10 nrca.

U 0 And thin is one of those areas where you essen- ):

~

li tin 11y looked at it, looked at the renulta that somaano elsa 9 had calculated and said to yourself, or words to the offect T.0 that's about uhat it should be?

21. A- That's about what I did. i 22 Q. To what'entent does your catisfaction in looking j

, 2,3 at the interface of the floor and the kalls depend "pon in-f f 24 obvious. i'ntangibles 'such as the degree or woraanun1p in weld-!

' . .h 25 'ing, for .instanco, and to what extent in it something that l ,

l l I '

h.

i

., f, l

' [ j

1 1642 mpb8 1

-- Ohcre there are no possible unacen variablen?

( "'i 2 A I have anhed the enginearing staff of F0E an6 a l 3 Dechtal and we have discuoced the quality control cad quality n ,

I l 4 accurance recorda.

5 I have not examined overy field ;-spaccion reporbl 4

6 on every inch of the building. But the recponca ha'; he an i-h at f l t,

7 the construction of the building hac boca car.' led cut undci i ,

j l t

G strict quality control uith u %rict gunlity a , n'.ranci,. 'Th at ,

i1 0 gives me confidence that the building as conctructed pretty ,

10 clocaly conforms to the details on the draring.J, evem to the j 11 extent that where their enforcement hao not hacn called for, 12 it han been omitted.

h 13 Q What's your undcratanding of the role that.

11 Dochtol played in oncito supervision of conntruction?

15 A I don t know that I can propcrly S

+ mzar thia ,

e 16 queation b2cause I don't knou for a fact Wu ' their role has 17 been in field supervision and quality control duritg coactrun-1G tion.

19 0 What ic your underst nding of 'ch o ol<' pl:J/aa by 20 PGC in oncito conatruction quality ccn bro.r.'. l; 21 A I understand that there uere nT.a 2 2 repr o on bn Liva i

of PGE on the site during all the tiu0 of cer'. < .. uc tion , I

/m 22 (

i) '

1 23 O Do you know how large a staff u

• onaita?

24 A No, I do not,, I o

'# Do you kncw the credentials of the people w:to ucre 25 Q

b -

i 1543 .i.

j' \ l mpb9' 'I -

[ onsito?' f

g. 7- A No,'I do not.

3

[e Q Do you know what they did with their time?

e 4 1

A -No, I'do not. -l l

5 Q Do you know who, if anyone, had the contract for l

-G oncita construction auparvision?

7 -A No,'I do' sot. 1 8 0 What wore the docunonto that you were shonn or l

0 I what documents were you chown that' helped you to tue conclu- ,

j_

i

. ~10 t, ion that there was atrict quality control in the construc- l f- .

l 11 ,. tion of the Trojan Nuclear Plant? } l f l l

i f2 A I've seen some photographn during field construc~

L

!g 13 tion. I have seen ~~ ,

I to 0 . What can you tell from photographn? What would i

[ 17 you be able to tell, for instance, from photographs of con- i, I

' l

,0 struction?

, ry MR. BANKS: Are you going to let him finich hio i 1  !

j .

)

p to answar? I don't think he.had finished, [

i r I- CIIAIRILAN MILLER: Yea, you're right. He hadn't

{9 3 .

2c) finished, j l

, j j kg Go ahead.

BY'MRf RAFOURY

!

f' O~  ;

23 '

O LI'm sorry. Will you continuo?

I

. _nf A- -(Witiloss Bresler) And I have not seen,. but ue .i O

ll . . M '. discucsod that tho _ usual rigorous requirements of quality Y

- p,3 j

. .' V

___.u. ___ J _ _ 1 _. l .. _ _ _ ___... .__ _ _ .-_____u- __.._._______.__.l_._

t 1544 p 1 mpbl'0- ?1L controlIand: quality assurance required by NRC on construction

• g

L2 *o'f all' nuclear plants has been exercised'in the construction

)

3 of this plant.

• 4 I had no reason ' to believe that this was inade-l 5 .quato. -I know. this is a sufficiently rigorous process of y

, d

'6 quality'c'ontrol.and quality assurance. I had no reason to l ,

7' 'believe there was any departure during' construction of this l 8' plant from thoso standa:Os. l l

~'

9 'O What pictures did they show you?

4 10 A There were soveral pictures of walls during tho i -

11 prococs of construction with reinforcing bars in place-in 1

1 l 12- -several places. There were not many picturec that I looked l

13 at. l l

14' I .did not identify theco pictures specifically

) 15 as to any. location. These were representative photographs. j a

1 i .

1s of construction that I looked at. And I.did not make an 17 attempt to collect all the photographic records and I don't know whether 'all the places were photographed. It was suffic-l 13-19 . iont for. ma to see this .to clarify the nature of the construc-20 tion, the compliance of the construction with the drawings,

. 21 And I relied largely on the inspection and quality control -

)

1 '

i h 22 ~ . quality assurance programs that~ are normally required in con- l

'~.dO . .

struction of such plants..

l 4

23 i 24 MR.cBANKS: .If it will'ho of.any assistancer the 25 pictures.he's. referring'to I believe are the ones that hava m

s. -

\

r, .:

~_._iL-.._.~_:-,..-_.--__..-.--._-.---..

I P 1545 l --

g-

\

- mpb11J 1- been in tha diocovery room for :a number of months.

j. g 2- MR. KAroURY: There are, of couroc, aevaral -

l.

l:.

3 GIAIRMAN MILTER: Well, proceed. This in collat-j -4 eral,

'a-f1wa i

' 5 d

G' i

.7 8 i i

! 9' l

j 10' i

11.

i j 12 j j- 13.  ;

1 I

14

t I

.i 15 )

1G

{

.i 17 j- 18 i-f t

19

! 20 y

l; 21- i

l. 22

.g-23 -

i

. 24 1.

l 23 i-i!

!~

L , , .

. 1

. . _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ < ___._-_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ - __- __~.-...__.___f____.m

1546' !

l 1 l 3Alagbl- . BY MR. KAFOURY:

'Q- In addition to several photographs, were you i 3

' f6 shown anything else that helped you in coming to your con-

,O 4 clusion that there was strict cpality control in .the con-5-

atruction of the Trojan Nuclear Plant?

6 A '(Witncas Drosler) No, I can't say that I was 7

shown anything specific.

8 0 Dut you were told --

9 ClIAIRMAN MILLER: You're gchting repetitious now,

- 10

,' Counsol.

s l 11 l DY MR. ITAVOURY:

4 12 O Woro you told by anyone besides representatives a ' 13

( of PGE and Dochtc1 that thero was strict quality control 1

! 14 exercisod?

A (Witness Dres1cr) No.

O. My laut question on the subject mattor:

17 i Did you consider PGE and Bechtcl to be disinteracted .{

I' 18 parties with regard to their oral observations that thero 19 was, strict quality control at the construction of Trojan

Nuclear Plant?

21 l A' 'No, I considered them intercated parties, and I

.r 22 considered them comoctant parties.

23 ' With what.you know about the joinder of.the floors O

24 ~'

andltha' walls, do you think that what we have in'the way O

Di of n. building'is casentially reflected by a model which i

i '

/ \ i V _ , . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . , - . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ - . . _ _ . . . _ . . . , , _ . . - .

i 1547-

!; 9 agb2 treata cach - floor entirely independently in regard to the

[

kinds -of forcos and deformations that you have diagrantnod, 3 --

g .as'oppocod to consideriug;it something of a hybrid betwacn M. 4-a building reprosenting.several boxes.stackcd one on top s . .

I of the other and a. building representing a cingic tall box? }

-0 .

A- From what I knaa abot ~ the building, I think it i

'7 .

[ in entirely reasonable to concidar cach floor-wall clement I- 6 no a chcar panol, which meanc an independent chear panel.

9

- And the 'only flucturo in it ~is that associated with that one-storyheightandnotwiththetotalheightof.thebuildinh.

l l 11 1

Q' 'And would p u say that, to souc extent, that l 12 view in conditionod 'upon your annumption and belief that there was-ctrict quality control at all stages of construction?

i 14 i 4 A- No, it dependu, first of all, on the configuration i

15

! of the building, on the chapo of the building, on the cross-16:

walls acting togethor'with the f3cora parallel to the ,

j <

3*., ,

carthquake direction and acting together with the floor.

! Do, in the first placo, it depends on the geometry ,

p~

,- . o f.the structure, nud in the cocond placo, it depends on the  ;

"O -

j fact that the building wan constructed in the uny it wou I  !

21 l

drawn. J i

~- U 0-And tho' assumption of workmanship.is one of the

-6: D givana, right? Adequate workpanship? l, l

o ., 1 F # 'A 'It's'one of the givens.

e f 252 " Q ~ Okny.

I:

iL

~. t f L < _ m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ;_ _ _ _ _ . ._ . _ J . _

I 1548 i  ;

I 1

agb3 A If I may add to that, I did vicit tha site once.

.,m g In valking through the plemt, I did not nec anything that 3

would give ma any reason .to believe that poor workmanship 0- 4 or poor quality of the building - I se.w a good quality S

building, and however much value you want to put on a viaual 6

. inspection, I still' cay that this was an indirect corroboratica 7

of the quality of construction, given it in iridirect.

O Q Is it your view that a vall, even if it cracked 9

diagonally, for instance, at a 45 degree angle through a 10 floor --

1 U A Through'a floor, did you cay?

1 0 Through a floor. Well, usin<J a floor au the --

13 A Ch, a story?

I4 0 Yoc, a story. -- that, even if you ucra to have,.

IS say, a horizontal, nay, of a right to louer left fracture, 16 that the stoel' beams would nonethelean aupport the wall, 17 that the wall would not collapce under thoao circumnuances?

18 A Your question is not clear to'ne, But I will 19 attempt to answer it that, given one or more diagonal 20 cracks.~in a given wall panel, it uould still retain sufficient

~

21 integrity and not fail.

22- And I'm going to leave out the part about ateci

.. O.- ,

23 baams becaune I think that's a separate kind of a -

i 24 -Q You would not be counting the steel beams hori-

'O 25 zonta11y?

i i

l'?_______.x___._-____

t 1549 l 1

4 i

(: .. 1!

!' ab4- A- The stcol beam supporto ;the walla, supports all p :the(gravity force's in any event.

, 3 ..

l Q But, -you leave it out as a conservativo factor L.Wg 4 j- when you'ra counting horizontal forces, right?

1 5

A night.

! O i Q And am I right that the reason why a vall uculd 7

not fail,'in your vicu, denpite a horizontal fractura would i

! -8

be that, even if the frc.cturo uns. all the way through c.nd -

4 1

~

f from end to end, that you vouldn't havo cnough dicplacement i

10

-because of the thickness of the wall'for the thing to collapso, i 11

is that yonr view?

1 12 -

A It's confined, and it's confined within the steel lO W 13 frama as well.-

i 1/*

i Q- Do you postulata a vertical fractaro under*any I-M of the modes you have represented on the board?

Suppose we're tall:ing about Nurbar Thrco.

U A It is possible that'there could be a vartical l 1

@ crack in the dowel action or shear transfer betwea.n the 1-cross walla.

20 And gravity would help you out less in that event, 3 Q F

21 . would it not/ than in the case of a hori;contal fracture, a l

l' 22' great deal leria?-

f h.

i.

N3 A Yes.

l' t ~

i

'^ 'O .And tha conservative element of the steel re-j O 25' inforcitig' would' help you a great deal lens in that event, n

4'.

f r

8 i -.

$, l ',/ ,

j- ,

t

[. - 1550- - i t

i

)

1 agb5-

' wouldn't it', since the steel would not be going across the O ' '

3 ereex2-

- A' . That would depend where in the building it is..

.- 4 In?some placas it goes.across,'in some places'it docanft.

l. 5 .

j But in any event, it would be adjacent to a steel ecoluun I- 6 ..

[ and there would be a substantial amount of friction in that 7

area.

8 - .

O Would that kind of a fracture be raore likely to l' result in failure than any other fracturcs which come i

10 readily to your mind?

11 A No, not necessarily.

12 In some walls where the shear transfor. capacity 13' may be limited, there may be larger shear distortion of that L

e panci, so that'would reduce the force applied to that wall 15 but the force simply would be transferred to another wall, 1

16 l

which would have greator shear resistance capacity.

I7 In fact, in various postulates that have been l

l 18' l; made with STAltDYNE analysis, some possibilitics of reduced i

19-I dowel action resistance have been made. And it was shown 20 that, even nith the distribution of forces associated with 91t

~

such vertical cracks, the forces -- some of the forces -

.22"

'still the aggregate, substantially,the aggregate of resistance 23' .is"substantially larger than the aggregate of capacitics and 4

2h hho forces can be distributed'among the group of walls to

! Oc P

[~ 1 SS resist the' total story shear.

I- .

L .1-

_t

{:

' ! 1. . j

' , _...-,..-5...w-.u-e.- - + - , .pe

i i 1551- j L

a b6

~ Q Could you;have a crack that extended from the top p

of the building to the bottom of the building?

o ,

1.340

~

A Not very likoIy.. It'would cartainly be interrupted i

\

' 4 j' by the. floors.

5 O Now the floora do not extend all the way through, G

.in any sonce, to the outside of the building, do thay?

7 A No~, they.do not.

O And at some points they como, what, halfway in 9

and are attached to the steel?

10 A They'ro emb6dded in the.concreto that extends l 1

i U 'all the way through to the exterior masonry. So, in effect, i

l 12 - there is an embedmont of that portion of the floor that L

l r ,

h ' 13-

' bears on the steel beara ao that it's all embedded in the wall l I4 if you will, even though it does not extend to the exterior.

f 15- Q So, even though it does not entend to the 16 exterior, that would be adequate to prevent, in your view, i

17 a fracture frota the top of the building to the bottom of 3-18 the building?

10 ' A In.my view, yes.

i 2

20 g I. don't know the extent to which you gentlemen T.

'21 are expert on earthquakas, but can you tell me whether 22 ' the force of the earthquake in a commonly understcoc'. scale ~

' 23 ~ for instance,- the iRichtcr . scale -'if the forca of the Joarthquake, the, magnitude of the carthoAake, corrhined with 24 t'

2$, .the distance from the observation point. frora the apicenter p ,

/'

4A < ,

I I

1552 l 1

ab7 would strictly determine, given a rock foundation, the

~'s 2

,) "g" forces at the obacrvation point?

,m 3

) A I'm not an export in seismology"and I don't vant 4 l you to consider my answer in this arca an an expert cuiswer.  !

5 Ilowever, from my general know1cdge of the carthquakea, 6

thera can be theoretical extrapolationa based on the certain 1

1 l wave transmission thr:ough the rock and distance s':cm tho l l

0 opicentor and damping and the characteriatics of the rock 9 l and so on, there can be uo:an relationships antablished 2.or l a certain magnitude of an carthquake with diatance from the 11 epicenter and what we call free ground acceleration, rock

,. accolcration, I've seen auch curvea. I'm not in a position

\ d~

~

l

to judge their validity howevar. And I leavc it at that.

14 0 Well, for inctance, very briefly and parenthe.tical}yi 15 there was an carthquc.ka in Idaho, of all places, yeaterday

• with a Richter acale reading of S<.

17 Do you hava any idea what such an earthquake within, say, a milo or two of Trojan might "taan in the uay .

10 "g" forces?

of 20 3 y,m totally unf amiliar with the geology c.C Iduno.-

2I And beforo I could transpitmt an earthquake B:ca W ho to m

lj 22 TI.ojan, I would have to know more about Idaho.

22 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: That was the baaia up:' which yo 24 decline knowledge of the Sen Frannicco carthgecke thic l l

'~' morning, wasn't it?

j ,T ' ' '

0 -N '

1553 p j t.

[:) . >

I: . . 1'

'agb8 WITNESS BREGLER: Yes. This in a littic mora f; $7 difficult'because I'm a resident very closa to San Francisco, i

$ A CHAIRMAN MILLER: We're getting you cloacr, then. I WITNESS BRESLER: ' It's a little more difficult

-3 cituAtion thero, yco.

O i ,

But the princip~ie is the same.

i BY MR. IGFOURY:

l' 8

4 0 From your discussions with the PGE e.nd Dcchtel

! E jeople or othorwise, are you able to cuplain to me why there-10

is some residual confusion about how much secol thera in i

f 11 in the walls'of the control building?

Ie i

^[ A (Witnesa Bresler) I didn't know there w>o l~

!=

g 13 confusion about it. l U CHAIRMAN MILLER: Are you within five or 10 minutes t

'S of concluding your cross-examination?

I 16 gn, gnpouny: go, l .

1 i' i i- 17 CHhIRMAN HILLER: We'll racess now..

i IU (Rocons.) ,

i>

and37, 19 CHAIRMAN: MILLER: You may proceed.

l 20 '

MR. IGEOURY: Thank you, Hr.-Chairman, l

i

21 DY MR. KhFOURY:

j 22 0 Now, you say in your report that one of the l 2} .diatortions;of the STARDYNE' analysis is that it tendo to j,

M- substantially.underestimato displacement becausa it's l

h- .25

essentisily a ~ non-linear model, right?

{

1 a J

__-.___e..___________s____,_______ ___?____..__...__

1554 1

agb9 A (Hitnoca Lresler) The STARDYNU anhlysia, because 2

r~3

(,j it's a linear clastic analysia, gives you an a p;2r~ bound 3

V(~% ,on forces and gives you those displacemants that would bc 4

observed if the structuro were linear clastic. To the extant 5

non-linear behavior entors, the displacements in the actual ,

6 structuro would be somewhat greator. Tho, degree to which 7

_.sey would be greator would depend on the extent of poccibly 0

yielding or decrease in stiffness.  :

9 But it is not a deficiency of STARDYNS analysis.

10 STARDYNE Enalynis ascumes linear clastic behavior. It gives 11 a consictent set of forceo and displacements.

12

,s O And it does not protend to tell you overything?  !

(_) 13 A It duca not probond to toll you ovarything.

14 Q Now, STARDYNE ~~ Explain to mn, just what kind i 15 of results does one get from STARDYNE?

16 For instance, is it somewhat aimilar to a citentior l l

I7 where you progrmn in a given building and then you keep IO turning up tho heat, an it uore, chaking the u.athematical construct more and raore and more and increasing the "g" 20 lovels and getting readings as you go along, or -- more or 21 less, is that how it works or not?

t

/~T 22 "g" V A No, you.stipulata essentially the level 23' for which you have different modal rouponses which you 24 then aggregate to got the response to that particular O

\~J n

' "g" -

level carthquake.

l .

,< .s 1555 l h

! :p 4

d. ~ g;

.i agb9- I. Pe # oc.Profensor Holley can comment.

2 i

.g- '

-A (Hitness Ifolloy) . Let na.see 4.f I can simplify

'J 3 thatLfor you n'little bit.

4' 'Boonuso it's linear olactic that wc're danling-

S .with, t b responce in all its acpects uould be directly

.O proportionato to the.magnitud.o of the input.

Okay.  ;

7- Which maana, for examplo, I would only navo j B. to run it once.

i--

D Q And you got a coafficient and that vould do it? l 1

. 10 A- Wall you might ask it, for exampic,about L.259, 11 let's say, with the particular ground renponse upcotrum 12 that la specified in this cacc.

) 13- From that output I could, by simple arilhmetic,

{-

j l t, foi example, divide it in half and I'd get the corrooponding i

15 valuo.for 0,12Sg, all clan being hold. constant. Go there t

16 would be no occasion to run it up point-by-point.

17 0 So you simply get a coefficient which reprenants la- [

the curvo at whatever "g" level you wanted to apply. In i

! '19 other words,,STARDYllE gives you a very simple figure?

1:

1 -

j. ' - g 2Q A (Witneas Breclor) Annuming conouant damping, I

l: 21 right?.

p 22- A. (Witnean Holley)' Yes, accuming the was conditions:

2h 'that you usod. For example, if you\ro faccuming two percent i

1 .

damping, you would.use the responso.spectrua that goes along n4: ' i

- 2f - j! - with this; and the STARDYbiB output would 'give you the it; g, .. ,b k

_ _ - ._ _ _ _ _ . , . i_. _ ..._ _L _.

1556 agb10 1

corresponding magnituden of forcoc, displacemanta and to m 2

) forth for that model. If it is 0.15g that yea inputend v

1

)l.40 3

and you want to get for acme other "g" levol, it would be a

4 It's not exactly saying it givca you a co -

proportional.

5 efficient, it given you a number correcpondinc; to what you 6

acked it, but from which you could get any other magnitudo.

7 Q If you took a displacement of, cay, of a given 0 amount and, at a certain "g" force, you predict a dio-9 placement of a cortain dictance at a certain apot. Would f 10 you be able to say what the clements of that diaplacement 11 would be? Doca that question nako conna to ycu?

12 A No, n 1

'" 13 g flou have stretching, right, bending of the valla I4 which createc'a degree of dicplacement which dono not nignify 15 any deterioration of the wall, right? The walls can bcnd 16 without damage up to a point, correct?

17 A Uh-huh, 18 O And then, at a cortain point, cracking sets in.

19 A Uh-huh.

20 0 And that increases tend to incronsn dir ,lacanente, 21 right? Correct?

22 A Go ahead.

( s) v.

23 0 And cracking can cet up dioplacements '.inich 24 appear and then dicappear as you've described earlier, right?

, i 25 Acmething can get out of lir.o and then get back in lina.

1 l

s 1557 i 1 ,

agbil As uith Figuro Number Two, you can have a crack which enpanda l h whl.n the building tilta one way or when the call tilts one Q t wi.y and then which clocos when it tilts the other, nand a i,orresponding crack opsna up on the other side, right?

5

.A Uh-huh. '

6 0 11 hen you, therefore, compute dioplacenants you 7

have at least two factorc: One is the banding factor and 6 I) the e*her is cracking, right?

O Arc thera cny other factora that contribute to sc

^

total displacement besidea those two?

1 A Well, let no soo if I can cort that out a littic 12 bit.

13 Let's forget cracking complotoly for a moment, t

14 Q Okay.

15 A -- and talk about a uncracked situation. .

A D,trticular olement, a wall panni, 1ct us cay, I7 10 cubject to a condition of strain which nay be partly W what you would call bending-related, par *cly what you uould 19 call shcar-rolated, j

! l 9 .O The STARDYliE program accounts for both of thasa.

4%

^ In other words, it accounts for all the atrain going on A2 and will output for you deflections, forces and so forth 1,

! l 23 4 i for an uncracked modal undergoing uhatovar kinda of atrain ~~

24 ' be it bending, be it shear, the whole complen of straina.

P.5 ' Now, if you bave cracking, dopcoding upon how  !

i

)

I' #

4 i

.L - . _ .

1558 1

agbl2 extensivo it is, the overall effect on stiffness may be small or large. If you visualize that you have a wall uith a great

/^ - 3 i many cracks, you would, I think, recognize phycically that 4

that is less stiff than the uncracked wall. To whatever 5

extent cracking, therefore, changes the chiffncan, your 6

results would be different.

7 This is a different question, you see, from 0

whether it's bonding or whether it"s ahear or whatever it is.

9 The nature of the cracking will determine whether it's a to <

1arge or a small effect on utiffness. l l

11 But STILRDYNE itself sayL I'm looking at a case ~~ )

1*

uncracked situation, maximum stiffncos cituation. l 13 i 0 So, to the extent that cracking proliferatco l l

14 and loads to increases in displacement by its vc2:y nature, ,

1 15 at the same tima you would pontulate a decrease in din-placement due to bending, is that correct?

U A No, I wouldn't postulate thato j0 Q Would bonding increase under an increasingly i 1

Y great carthquako would bending increase at the same time 2

that cracking incroaced?

21 h Cracking may influence bending stiffnucce It i cy 22 O)

( influenco shear stiffncas. It may influence bobh. So I 23 ' simply any to you, if there in cracking and, depcnding on M the extent of cracking, there will be some decrec.co irt n)

(

25 i

stiffness. f

! t l L i

i.  ;'1559 '

l l ..V i y ,

! agb13 0 From what it would otherwiso be at that force

[ g- .

2~ '

j 'T level?

A In other words, before it cracked. Dut'it in not

.to any'that after cracking bending is going to be greater 4

S .

, br chear is going to bo ' greater, this is not meaningful.

L 6

. O In it meaningful to .say %at cracking takes some 7

prrtasure off bending forces? If'comething is bending, and 8 .

at a certain point it cracks,.at that point it will hand.

S less an a result of the crack at that moment,'will it not?

' 1'O .

AL It la probably correct to cay that, if you gn'c 1;

como cracks in~ n particular wall., a panel, let's any,~they 4$ -

. imply a reduction of, stiffness.

!. 13' - )#

b, , Thic, in turn, L implica that for a given din-14 '

placement of that wall, bo it a 32nd of an inch'or whatever s 15

. it may be, the forces on the wall probably are "lcan than .

. 10

, thef would have boon pro-cracking.

. - 1 To the extent'that they aro loso,.thon probably

,_ bonding and shear offects in the wall are correspondingly

' 19 less for that displacement.

4 20 O I coe. That's very good.

\ .\

'- P.1

, To what extent, if any, does. cracking in the walls

.s g- .

g W. '! roduce'tha ability of the building to trannfor forces from 23-g- ona' wall to aziother?

\

k A. . Cracking in.al wall does not necoccarily have

.e M !anything to do with the'buildingc' ability to transfar torceu

.k __

'k" . . ,

.3 il 1560 1

agbl4 from one wall to the other.

Q ,

Why not?

A Hou should I make this clear to you?

4 l If you visualize a story height foi: a moment, j I

5 and a tendency for one floor slab abova this story height 1

< to move relative ~to the one below it, and thic .novement 7

probably is a combination of translation in two directions 8

and aome rotation -- I'm using my hands again, which I'n 9 .i not supposed to use. .

1 10 CHAIIUGN MILLER: No, you can use your hands.

11 i WITNESS HOLLEY: For a given displaced condition,,d 12 '

A given combination of tranulation and rotation of one floor

( '

13 '

slab with respect to the ona below it, the distribution of 14 forces among the soveral walls connecting thcau two floor  ! ,

i 15 slabs is a function of the relativo stiffnesses of tho l.

16 several walle which do, in fact, connect tile slabs.

I7 Now therefore, if I have some cracking or something 10 which is reducing stiffness in one element, one wall element, 19 this is changing the relative stiffneca of the several wan 20 elements and, therefore, will change the distribution of o

"g forces among the several waI.1 elements.

O 22' V Is this getting at all at what you had in mind?

23 I don't know.

"4

• MR. IW?OURY: I don't understand your answere g

V. 25 WITNESS HOLLEY: It's inconceivablo, with the

i

, ~. i.

1561 l l

]i 11 ,

:agbl5 handa and ovarything.

I .h

, (Laughter.).

i 3 j g Well'I chall try again but you'll have to tell

t. y 4_

! me how to try, tell- me what your problem ic. .{

i- 5 i' 4

BY MR. KAFOURY  ;

6.  !

i [ Q- Well it would socm to a highly non-technical  !

mind,that'it in the clasticity of the valls and the floors i 8

.. -which allows. forces to be readily shifted frcu one to the ,

! o-

~

.other, so tahat you. can say, even though thin wall theoreticallly 10 uill have 'forcos' applied to it greater than its ability to 4

r 11 i., resint, you don't have to worry about it bacauae tnat force b 12 i will be chifted to a big wall next door. It would acen that i

that' ability to transfer forces would bc limited by cracking.-;

': I

~14 l For instance, it would ocem that if you had, .! l i i r

j$ i l l

aay, a horicontal crach and force was to be transferred from F 4 i

' 1G ' l one cida.of the crack to the other, that the c.xistence of i 1

'l .

3,7 that crack would provent an impediment to the ready transfer i k -

Y of' forces from ono cida to the other and that, inatcad3 they l- ,

1

.;f . I would kind of bang together'and causa a Jandom kind of w

~'

behavior rather timn simply 'a balancad systcu chifting l

i. 9 l

' "3 resistance from one sido to the other, as you got with an 3 i: ,

'clestic modolf that's my problem.

O. M A (Witness 11ol' ley) Two or threa commento..  ;

['

,o ep

.I think you may be confusing elasticity with i

4 i - - .h- 2? . linear. clashicity and!with- several other things ' as well.

'i.

L

, I, l~ l

. 1 p;-- ,

l

. . . _ _ . _ _ _ . - . . _ _ . . _ _ . - . . , _ - . _ _ , , - - , , - . - _ _ , . - , ...,i,,_~.1,._._.-

1562

'I agbl6 Dut you may think of clasticity, if you wish, as t'w quality I

which says that when I strain something and then take the 3

load off and go back to where it started. , l

+

O ,'

Lineox clasticity we think of as that same kind l

3 of capability but where a load constrains an upper portion, 1 1

one or the other, so that it goes up and down.

7 I don't understand that.

Q O A Well by linear clashicity, I mean forces, 9 stresses, strains, displacements are all in proportion, 12.190 .

2 10 ono to the other. I double one and the others double.  !

l Il How, we can digress frou that cornplatcly. The I 12 distribution of forces among the neveral wall.a in this l

1 Q 13 example we cited where we have several that are connecting )l

'14 two floor slabs, depends upon the relativa atiffnc9scs 15 of the several wall slabs, not upon their lincar anything.

16 It depends upon how much a particular wall alab~rosists 17 as the floor slab tries to prsh it.

18 So, it is not apparent to me what your concern 19 is regarding the ability of a cracked wall to parmit re- ,

20 distribution if the nature of the crack is such that it f 21 reduces the resistanco of that wall to displaccmant, be it ,

I 22 linear, non-linear or whatever, you uill, in essence, have l 23 softened -- have reduced tha stiffness of that wall and 24 automatically thoro will be a rodistribution. Because, as I

, ,Q V 25 told you, the distribution amongst the several walls depends l

I 1563 I

agb17 on their relative utiffnences.

'~' 2 y)

I'm having troublo understanding why you think 3 a crack or something in a wall affects the ability to e ')

%J A rodiatributo. It causes it. Anything that changec the 5 stiffness of one wall relative to another will lead to a 6 change in diatribution of forcou among then.

7 - If it still doesn't work, perhap:; Pro!.cscor 1

l O Bresler can try, i 1

9 A (Witnous Brosler) Well, at the rink of being l

10 facetious, lot me suggect that if three uen are carrying l

11 150 pound timber and the man in the middle gats tired and I

?

12 cracks and rncaka out from under the timber, the others n

(,) 12 are going to carry 75 pounds cach, id Q I sco, end3A 2 15 1

16 1

i 17 .

l 18 i

19 .

20 21 22  ;

!m\ ,

NJ 23 24 l n >

1564 3b-ebl. 1 Nov if you have major crac%c in a given wall then 2 that Wallis ability to shoulder its charo of the load is 3 ' greatly reducad, depending on the amount of cracking, or not 4 noccasarily co?

5 -A (Witnana Holicy) You must be careful here. Therd 6- are two things you havo to concern yourself withs the stiff-7 ' .nocs of the wall and its strength.- Its ability to carry load y

may be- fino if you push a.t just a littic moro.

9 Q Go ahead.

10 A That's enough.

'cl 11 0 Sc that af ter cracking it may bc --

l 12 A It is not ao stiff. It may or may not be na J g 13' strong.

14 0 And than if added forces are appliad to it from 15 .the other valls, its behavior in difficult to predict, or it 16 could go either way, depending on a number of variables?

gJ -A I wouldn't nay it is difficult to predici..

10 0 What would happen?

i gg< -A You would have to tell me c great deal more about i

i 20 -the situation.- Dut'to answer you generally, if a wall cracksj i

21 and therefore ic'lesc ctiff, you're presuming ' hat the others }

c I

22 are not cracked similarly, there will be, probably, an 23 extremely naall increment of doflection hoyond what otherwise 4 1

24 uould have been thero, until the thingisrondjustsd,probablyl f25 'with como ulight increase in the other walls.

_ a

1365 eb2 1 0 And your belief in that with your crne: ut, th e_:a ,

' J) 2 with the sharp curve to the right, that bacause incroac ag 3 forces would result in increased cracking, that the d mpinrf q

"' 4 offect of thia would mean that no matter how bndly it crached 5 the building would never fall down. Right?

<1' 6 A Well, "nover" in a long timo . I would hate to 7 h?ve the job of shaking that building down. It would be  !

l 0 quite difficult.

9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Ic it correct that an increase l 10 in crud ing increaseo the damping? l 11 UITNESS HOLLEY: Generally, depending on itu I

12 coverity.

(',)

q_

1? CHAIletAM MILLER: Thank you.

'4 BY MR. KAFUURY:

13 0 You npoke earlier nbout low- cycle latigue and 16 this in the concern with repeated, noderato carthquakec. And 17 you said later that metal f atigue froa one or t</o or perhaps 18 oven three relatively moderate earthquakes would not be a 19 factor.

20 When you talk about the word " fatigue" nome, 21 when you any " fatigue," matal fatiguo coous readily to mind 22 becausa it would seem to be inobcervable by direct obcerva~

' '/

23 tion whereas cracka and things are more readil" obse7:vable l

24 What kind of thingu would comprice lo. cycle f

( l' s J 25 fatigue?

i

__, m 1566 t

v3 1 A (Witncou 'Ilolloy) Professor Breclor enawared you 1

2 - before. .Perhaps he'a like to answer this agaln.

I 3 ,

Q. With ' particular attention to the werd " fatigue. "

4 A (Witness Bresler) I'm afraid we will have ta 1

5 define more proci.scly different-kinds of fatigue end dif-- .

6' forent terms ' associated with f atigue. I'm not aura that dd.n !

i 7 is the nort of thing that will 'hnppen in thic particular i G. .

building but nevertheless, when no talk about fatigue in l l 1

j 9 metala in general, there is a lower bound, a bound on strass l 045 to . level below which fatigue plays no- factor whatsoever. We

' f

-11 call this'cndurance limit.

12 Certain metalc hone differcut endurance limita.

13 No matter how many cycles of rtross you apply, theru is no i

3

~ 14 deleteriouc of.fecta. ;j '

I i

15 When you e:cceed this low atross level, c o:ne kind }

16- of failure may occur after a very largo number of cy les.

4

! 17 If you only go a small incromont above this ondursnca limit, ,

i I j 18 the' number of cycles to produce any kind of damcge m.ll' bo i' --

l 13 in millions.of cycles. If you go to a higher strene level, i j

j. 20 ' ropetitive cycling above thin ondurance limit, maybo it vill I i

-21 Ltake'a hundred'thousand cycles to produce acun kind.of 1

i l- ..

!22 _ deleterious ~effect, b

l .. 23 So-you have to go to very large excesses of 4

o

!' i . . - .

l

{ 24 ~stroso above endurance limits to produce some kind of

{

. '25 . fatigue offcato with a small number of cycles. 'That means--

p

• • =-owree-ww re w ww vew ei e mese earaew e w emww, -wo- ,e- ,,,-=.m--w-,-v.-..me m.-re.---.-.m._ _..,_.m._, ,,,,,,-w.www---,,, . - .

i 1S67 ob4 1 This in when vo get to what we call low cycle facigue. That

/q 2 means the ntunbor of cycles usually exceed che clastic limit.

V 3 When deformatior.o exceed many times the yield atrain und then, i

C v 4 if we all the tima c::ceed the yield s train for a large num-5 ber of cycles, ther we can produce a low cycle fatigue 6 fracturo.

1 l 7 '

And again, at the risk of being scItcuhat facetiou , ,

O I'm sure many people have taken a paperclip cud, playing Eith I i 9 it, broke a paperclip by using low cycle fab w , Jut in l 70 ', order to break it you have to bend it with very In ge c' v- ,

l If ycu just band it a ' . :;1e i 11 formations in order to band it.

) 12 bit, you'll be playing uith it for daya without ;reaking li.

i f () '3 So you have to have very large deforrcations for i a number of cycle to produce lower cycle fatigue. l 14  !  :

15 In carthquake nituaticus, cetually earthquakes

'l I

16 are wt quite like that because you have a random serice of .

i l

jy cycles of. low strences, high ctresacs, and lov, the the j l

13 L number of peak cercasos and the pock deformations in er:y Ii .

gg given earthquaho is uaual:t.y not 30 gree to produce ova.1 loa ! )

t I l  !

20 cycle fati,gue. 9; l

1 gj In the laboratory situaticn, a studying behavior  ;

i 22 of the earthquakes wo do evaggerate the situnuion, aubjet c j

/S i G .gertain elements to very large deformations for a uuuber of 23 24 cycles to establich the bound, the upper l>ound on low cycle  !

(

.~ \

's g fatigue. We find in many cases M t at it takea 60, 100, 120, l

l t  !

1 d 1568 i

j eb5 1 200, 250 cycles at these very large overstrescoc.

i 2 Q -And you cay that. low cycle fatigue is Ctructure-l 3 specific for different structurca but that it affecta, with ig

w 4- the very limited range you describod, it affects all kinds 5 of things, maconry,-concrete, and so on?

l

) 6 MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman, I don't like to intcr- l 1 '

/ rupt but it ceems to no we're awfully repetitive. Uc're l

i

! O cach on the cubject we vero covering before the break now. ,

i  !.

9 MR. KAFOURY: I didn't protond to cover every 10 subject that I mentioned earlier, and I e::plained in the )

i beginning that after all, I'm drawing from a wide range of i 11 J l l 12 cources here.

j-g'

!!- CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. Well, I think you arc 14 getting toward the and of this particular inquiry.

{.

2

(

15 MR. KAFOURY: I am.

{

, 16 CilAIRMAN MILLER: All right.

! 17 BY MRI .KAFOURY:

! 13 0 Is-it.the case, and I will try to loava the 1

19 subject here, - that you can have incbvious low cycle fatigue 4

s l ~20, in auch things as concreto and masonry that are not na P

2 ,

.obvioua as cracka, or did I miss comathing?

22 l .

A (Witness Brcaler) 1 do not knou cf any work that 3.

@ 23 would be dcacribed in terms of low cycle fatigua for concrete.

s..

-24 For reinforced concrete where we have steel reinforccment, beams and things of that sort, yes, we do ta]k about low cycle

~

1 25

{. [I)

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

. _ . . , _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ . ~ . - . . _ . _ . . _ . - _ . . _ _ _ - __ _. - ._._-

1 -

1569 ' t -i

! J eb6 .1 fatigue,:but not-for. concrete, not for masonry.  !

d 1

2- A (Witness Holloy) In addition, let me add that if 3- you're talking low cycle fatigue in anything it would be )

1

~ O. '4 very obviouc. .You are talking'large'strainu. l l 5 0 So in cum, you think if. damage were done by an I

l 6 carthquake of. low SSE level at Trojan that you cannot think 4

108 7 .of any places where it would be inobvious, that it could be v

8 found by trained people with keen eyes? Do you both agree 9 with that?

10 -A (Witness Bresler) Yes.

11 A (Witness liolley) Yes.

l 12 0- Now you postulate going beyond STARDYNE dis-

.L v2" "*a"*" " ' o """""

"* r l- O is v* ' *"* "'" ""i2"i"$

l 14 .9 of an inch and this is greater by a factor of 6 than the

) 15 corresponding STARDYNE displacement of . 15 inch, Right?

16 MR. BANKS: You're looking at page 8 of the i

1

. jy report?

4 18 CLAIR!4AN MILLER: The bottom of page 7 and the t ,

1 t l' gg .. top of page 0..

20  : WITNESS HOLLEY: Yes, wo judge that to be a 21 -conservativo estimate, and it may be conciderably'lecc than

_ n that.

L

[- BYHMR. KAFOURY:

1

3 pj 0. And on pages 12 and 13 we're told'that we have a lLO? 2s ear - ach c1eeren- w ueimgbetween um enere bouding, i

+

b________.__._E_ .E_ -w i- ,m.m.a.e..,.w m u mm- .-...% ..,.,-,,.-,e- -

--,,.,e em =

i ,

)

l' p  ;

?

I-l 1570 g ,,

i j 4 h ob7. 1-  ; prostraably at the. roof , and the ' cranew:y ;olunna cf ilho g 2 turbino ; building. 1a.that correct? l.

1 3 A (Witnesa Holley) 'Yes. ,

" g-4 0 And all" things considered, going bayend si'7u1 DYNE 5 '.ato vaur ganoral 'Anowicage of the subject and you: analyais f

G af' the onbject, you think th at the trarat poccible .celative j i

• / diaplaceironb of the two'buildinga "culd b; 2-1/2 inchon ao l l

+ . l 8 * ' t!mt we could rinne a 3--inch clearanac with 1/2 inch to sparo. jj k I

- t 9 (

Corract?  !

i

• i l l 10 A 'I think the worut poacible on . toula b' low than j' 11 2--1/2 inchas. Thic 2 l/2 inches ic on tha faci:, a t an >

j a

i U absoluto corabination and it ucula be nor.thinu Inm. than thia.;

4 i f

You underntand why, boccuse these a n r uidora h !3 1

j 5

14 motionc and you are iit osaence postulatin.r titnt ther both j 5

t is aro at their pants concurrently which is -- l 1

1 16d '

0- What would prevant them from be.ing nE thein piahs

j. <

j rf. concurrently? I know the ccannon-sanca crplana tion is that l -

10 the carth, you know, in only moving in one dircchion at once,- l n i 19 j but can you go beyond that? t a

}

l h0 A (Uitnes:. Brenler) If I may ec.rcraant? mecause  !

> .l 21 .j if you accept f I don't think my own answer is very goou but  !

i l

,- e

. t 22 I can-try, however, t

! l u- .o- I will not e,t ap ye.u . j 4 i

'It 19 PICCiSCly (OI? thO rUsiDOn t}lGt WO CD D TIO t i 7f, d i l I

}

^

gg pr0VG that.they are not at their' peal. nnncurrenC.y that W.  ! i i: <

1

) 1 I

^

k. i a , g g _

. ;g- .f }

{ 1.-(i l

• * . - . . -.,_s._.,a '.'.'c.. _ ._._.. _,,,, _, _ _ ,__-_

,, _ , ( __ __

l J

' ?

f L

1571 i a

i- , .  !

ob8 1 uhowltho figurea in our.roport. This in the worst cacc. }

l ,

( 2 This is a somewhat unlikely case.

3 Furthermore, I think the estimato of .9 deflec-l U 4- tion for the control building is a very, very conservativa 1

j 5 estimate. In looking at the valls and resistanco of the ,

F 6 walls and 6.he deforraations in the walls, I think that half )

7 of that may be a conservative estituato. Whatever lo the 8 . utmost upper-band really to let our' fancy go beyond all good 9 hounda, we still have a half' inch to apare.

10 0 And no > natter how wild or recklenc your predic -

11 tions, out of the 3-inch gap we have a half an inch of abco-

, 12 lute and irreducible anfety margin. In that your tastimony?

}

'13 A You mean if I would put my finger in thero, do

~Q 14 you mean?

10 0 Well, whatever.

to MR. BANKS: I think he has ancwered the cuoction,.

17 Mr. Chairman, j 18 DY MR. KAPOURY:

19 Q Do you recall the approxintate weights of these 20 tuo buildings?'

21 A (Witness !! alley) Which two do you moun?

22 -Q The turbine building and the control building.

23 'A Moi 1'm not sure I knew the . weight of the tarbine 24 - building.

25 Let me think a raoraent.

.O

I u

! 1572 I:

P ob9' ~1' -(Pause.)

g s 2 I don't want to rely on ny taanory at this time ,

3 of the day.

1 4 If comebody can recall for me, I think in the 5 Trojan report --

L G MR. DANKS Do you Want us to supply that?-

I. ./ DY MR. KAFOURY:

l l 8 'O It's ten's of thousand's of tona in any ovent L

9 for each of them?

l iO ~A (Witness Holley) A few ton'a of thousand'c of 11 tons inight bo a reasonablo statement.

i 12 O If you can~ stretch your imaginations to postulate i

g 13 an error of one-half inch across a range of three inches i 14 with the worst caso, and then_some being pootulated, what 15' would happen if theno two buildinga, each wea.ghing ten's of 4

16 .thousand's of tons, vero to moet at the top in a great carth-17 quake?

ja A' I hate to stretch my imagination, it's so un-r to 'lihaly. But help me 'out' on it. Hou much more than the 2-1/2'

! 20 inchea shall I guess? ,

P,1 0: Let's assume an error. When you say that 2-1/2 22- in L the Inanimum,- let's assumo an error of _50 parcont and that

[ the actual margin. at which the 'tuo buildings ' might come n 23: ~

F  !

.. i i  %[ together 'in 5 inchos, and that therefore the overlap would

[.

25; .bo',2L inches.

1

1573 eblo 1 MR. BNJKS ! I'll object to the form of the ques-f 2 tion.. It's assuming somothing that there is no evidence .

3 in the record for.

'4= CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Well,. cross-examination doesn't 5 require that something'be in the record. If it's a nothod l 6 of analysis.or based on something that must be in the record

-7 to have credibility then Counsol either has to cupply it or 1 0 it doesn't have a foundation, but I don't think it impairs 9' the legitimacy of the cross-oxamination question.

]

1 10 I'm not sure, however, just what the real question  !

11 is. What are you trying to get at on this?

12 MR. KAFOURY: I would like to know what happens j O 13 .if they'r wrong. That's what I'd like to know, l 14 CIIAIRMAN - MILLER :- In what respect?

15 MR. KAFOURY:- In postulating a more specific

16. question to'the general question of what happens if you're 17 - wrong, we're postulating'that there is a 50 percent crror 18 and the buildings move together five inches tihen they're i 19 three inches apart.

20 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: There's'a 50 percent margin.of i

.21 crror and'they move togother -- l 22 MR. KAFOURY: 50 porcent, reasoning backwcrd from O -

23. 5-to 2-1/2.

24 WITNESS rIOLLEY: You're postulating 100 percent L

25- .in the'other direction.

i 1574 i

'obil 1 MR. KAFOURYt In the other direction, cure.

f g 2 That' sit 9 way it works.

3 MR. BANKS: Again, it was the form of tlic quca-f '

O 4 tion I was directing myscif to, and I think the Chairiaan --

1 5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: ' Uell, wa've got 50 percent to ,

I 100 rarcont on the one hand, or the converco, and inaybe we're

~

J 7 getting 'a little moro precico.

b i 8 Do you' understand the question, ge. lenan?

3 9 WITNESS HOLLEYr I think I do. L I may try to

10 restate it, as wild na it is: I 3

11 You're postulating that the to buildings, ucre I i

12 they free to do so, would move in such a way as to have a

-h 13 relative dicplacement of 5 inches.

14 MR. KAFOURY: That's correct.

15 WITNESS HOLLEY: To the extott that they are not 16 free to do becauce of their proximity, what would happen?

tf MR. KAFOURY:

That's correct.

18 WITNESS HOLLEY: Have I stated it correctly?

19 MR. KAFOURY: That's precisely the question.

Ucll, again you would have to ask.

i 20 WITNESS HOLLEY:

.I 21 me'in terma of what. In terms of the buildings I think 4

J 22 virtually nothing would happen. There might be a bang. It

9 23. wouldn't enuse.cither building to collapse. I j

l

~

24 You would obviously alter the motions of both

.g

!- 25 buildings.

.3b l i  !

L. m . _ ___. _.. f

4 1575 ;

i. 3c'

.WRD/mpbl l -

BY MR. YJWOURY:

g 2 0 What elce might it do?

3 A (Witness !!olley) What clce would you like me to

.h 'I focus on?

I '

5 A (Witness Dresler) They would quickly neparate I l 6 after they bangod each other.

7 0 But you don't' think the buildings would tend to 0 knoch each other apart?

r

' 9 '; A. (Hitnosa liolley) Prof. Bren1cr hari suggcated  !

I

. 10 they would tend to push each other apart. i

(

I Ii A (Witnesr., Bresler) There would be a mark on the l 12 cxterior masonry. There might aven be ocne masonry blocks g 13 that would be locally crushed, although they are not hollow 14 blocks. It's just like concrete. So thera vmy be a run k, 15 Actually cince the two objects cannot occupy the -

I, 16 same two inches at the name time, obviously they would bang ,

) 17 hard on each other cnd separato. And in the process of bang-4 18- ing there will be some mark of' damage, exterior damage.

10 But it will not be a critical damage to either (

i  :

20 . building. l l

, 1 21 A (Witnens IIolley) It would be local damage which i l 4 l 22 would absorb come.of.the energy. And ita n also worth remenberi '

(

h 23-ing that when they contact, neither vould be at its maximu" l

i l

) l

, 24 . volocity, or in any event they would not be at their common '

4 20 maximum velocity. l t

... t i _ . _ , , - . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . , . . . . . . . . _ - - _ . - - . _ _ _ - . _ _ ~ . - .

F ,

t

~

1576j, I .

].,

mpb? l. I. don't think any horrendo'un would occur to the -l l 2' buildings, 1

i i I' 3 D2 Q Would you expect a largo' increase or a nignifi-]

-O 4l cant incronca on shear forcea.of the building having been i 5 brought to an abrupt stop and thrust back the other way?

j 6 A No, I suppose you might got a brief spike, a 7 oudden, a very,.very chort duration cpike in foreca. [.

(

0 .Q 'What is a spike? t l

D A I mean an extraordinarily ahort durat; ion in time.

10~ 'O A'hi T peak?

s 11 -A Up, up and down vary quickly.

12- 0 Would.you expect a large increase in opalling in j

i g 13 cuch an event?

14 A~ In the walln; apart from tha local -- from the 15 point of local contact?

1G Q Yes.

1 i

s .17 _ A No, I wouldn't enpect any particular apalling I. 10-from that ovent.

i~ 19 O So it'a not a matter of grant concern oven if q i

j 20 .tho ' two buildings did collide?

i l

?.1 .A I think not; ilot in terms 'of damage to either.

4

[h

-23 23-

Q On page 5 of your prepared testimony, the final

. paragraph,'you make reference to the critical shear walls in I

j 24 'the Trojan < control and-auxiliary buildings unda2.' SSH" event

> &c <

- T d5 cither at ochth walls at elevations .45 and Gl.

Y,

' i

..._...,._..___-..,.._,__.._,..___._,,,._.m,. ..,a

1577 i

mpb3 I What 10 critical abouL those walls?

2 A (Witness Dresler) Those are the umjor wallc in 1

3 the building. They are the longcat. Their shear-recistenco O 4 capacity constitutes a major proportion of the total shear-

> 1 3

5 reoistence capacity, 3 l I

O What's critical about elevation 45 to Gl? I i

7 A Eleavation 45 to 61 in the ground ficor. The i

G . shear forces at tho ground floor are substantially higher thant i

9 the shear forces at the top floor. {

1 10 0 And on the next page, in the larga paragraph in j 11 the upper half of the page, the next to the laat soutence 12 reads: '

C 13 "The sum of the coicputed capacition of 14 these chcar walla is well above the cum of the i i

15 predicted maximum chear forcoa."  ;

i -

10, And you're talking again about the north-south r

i*

17 walls at olevation 45 and 61 in the control and auxilicry 18 buildings, aren't you?

19 A- (Witness Drocler) Yes.

20 0 What in the figure which you say is well above?

21 A. We could quickly verify that if we look at the

}

22 Dochtel testimony, Tables 7-7 and 7-0, I believo. If I can  :

O 23 find that.

I 24 Q Table 5-17 25 A 7-7 and 7-8.

i

l. l l

i 1570 ~ ,

, i

! , mpb4 I Let mo just find it and then we can perhaps.... I i' '

['

e

.g 2 All'right, i 3 'For exampic, clovation 45, Tabic 7-7 of the is.

. 4 Bochtel teatimony would indicate that the shaar forces in j ,

5 the north-couth direction are about 11,G20 kips and the capa- l O' city 'in 16,720. So yoit have about' 50 percent over thei capa-7 city, 50 percent over the calculated sum of the forcea.

G This is the order of magnitude that goes through; G typ!.cul stories and typical carthquake dircotions.

10 Q Now Table. '7-7 deals with clovatich 45 foot.

11 A Right. ,

h l 12 O Table 7-8 deals with elevation 61 feet. j g 13 A Right.

14 Q Itnd what's the relationnhip between thone two? <

l 10 ] Aren' t you talking about -~ l C

.l 10 l A One is ' above the other.

(

17 O Aren't you talking about --

13 , .A 1G foot.

O .CHAIBMB.N MILLER: 16 feet,-I gucas.

/

10: BY MR. KAFOURY:

21- 0 Are you talking about a point, or are_you talking i

22 about tho' floor? I l

' $ -- A (Witnonu Bresler) Ono is-th'. ground story, one i.

23 f-34 is the second utory. dne Starts at elevation 45 and goes to

.y .G1.

1 4

5 $

t--. . _ . . _ . . -____.______..u...__,-

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

1579 I

mpb5 1 0 So where it cayo elevation 45 it chould bc l l

L]

2 clevation 45 to 61 for clarity?

[

i 3 3 .ye3, O

V 4 Q On page 10 of the testimony of Kenneth Ucrring, 5 that in his tectimony of -- that's hic testimony that's 17 6 pageo long.

l 4 ,  ;

. 1 l 7 A Whose testimony, I bog your pardon?

I' .

l l 8 Q Tho tastimony of Kenneth IIerring. That vould I

.9 be of -- it's undated; the smaller of his two acrved on l

10 October 13 -- or perhaps it was the 16th.

I 11 , About three-quartors of the way down the pago l

j 12 it says:

i Q 13 "For the most realistic cace mentioned above I

14 the lowest ratio of capacity to lead for the most

! 15 critical north-couth wall between elevations 45 and 4

16 77 war; determined to bo 1.153 and vaa associated '

i i 17 with the vest wall of the control building between l 18 elevations 45 and Gl."

l }

l 10 A 'That's uhat it naya, that's correct. j j- i 4

20 0 Do you agree with their figura?

5

21 A If you ack mo whethor 4980 divided by 4320 givaa j l }

- 22 1.153, then . I agree with that figure.

j O 23 Q Is that simply a STARDYNE co:rputation?

24 'A Ho.

f A N '25 A (Witness Holley) That is arithmetic. You can

____ _ _ - . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .. _ _ - _ _ . - . . . i ._

r 1

1580 I 1

l l mpb6 1 divide it yourcelf. I

! 1 2 C31AIlU4NT HILLER: It's arithnota.c.

3 DY !!R. KhFOURY:

a O Well, the force -

I D A (Witnoan Drenler) Are you anhing me if I agrec 6 with their conclusion or their arithmetic?

i

! 7 O The force f1.gure came from the STARDYNE nnalysis, l I

i B 10 that .orrect? - i 9 A One of them.

f

. 4 1 10 A (Ultncon Holley) One of them did. {

l 11 0 Well, I may be minunderntanding the entira non- j

12. . tence.

That figure 1,153 in haand upon the STARDYME h 13 1.1 computation of load, is that right, for the unst wall between l

1. 3 45 and 61 foot? l 1

4

c A (Witness Urcsler) 4320 in tha only ntriner that 17 comes .f

'om i the STARDYNE analycia.

jg Q Right. l 4

1 39 And the 4900 is from the Ecchtel and ratifica and i 20 approved by you gentlemen?

21 A Yes.

3 O And ao you' agree with the final figure of 1.153. j 23 Is that a significant figure?

{

.o.4 If ono were 'to say Wdll, at the moct crucial  !

4 73 point we have a margin of safety of 15.3 percent, would that b 1

(

I i-

3 I -

i 1

1581 2 i

l mpb7 1 rather accurato? t 3

t

-2 A (Witness Holley) It would be quito minlending.

3' O List all the reasona why that would ho misicading, O 4 wouldyai$7 ,

5 .In thic figure of any value at all, first of all, t

6 and then -

7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Now wait a minute. You can't D havo threo quantions.

i s I think first of all your answar would be very i

10. misicadi'ng. If you don' t ank him, va will. So let's got it {

L 11 over with.

12 In what respects ic it micleading, Profascor?

. 13 , WITNESS HOLLEY: As I attempted to explain 14 aarlier, in judging margin whethe,. a ou are near difficulty or 15 not naar difficulty, it's the dinplacement that's significant.

jg ) IF thic numhor had como out loss than one it might not be 3 J .

17 dia trouning, y This number deals with a particular un11. It

(

gg comparcs a capacity-with a calculation from STARDYNE based on.l I

20 a particular sat of annunptions. As we have explained, the 21 forco 'in a vall'can never exceed its strength in any event. j 2h' It'is ponsible for one wall to reach its capacity and contiEuo

~th g to oxort rociating forces, while other walla pick up part of i .

l

,g. .the load.

O. g ,

Ie ic e1se coeeis1e, whcn ene diccuesec ehe emeiro t

. . . i

( , , i i {

- 1582 ,

mpb8 'I grotrg of wallo, although it in nom che caco in thic nitua-i 9

2 tion, to have a group capacity for those valls, a es.lculated l

. 3 i group capacity which in cubatantially lace than soino STARDYIiB

$h j 'l computed group force. It doocn' t maan collcpco. Il neanc

+ 1 4

'l }

l 5 that the dynamic -diopiccomenta are nomanhat larger than they j l l 6 would otherwise be.  ! I

$  ! j i

7 So the fact thct a particular wall char a ratio j

{

l C of 1.153 between a calculated STitRD7 lie value and uhat is l

9 .i:onservati vc 3 y judged to be the capacity of that wcll is l

10 not particularly cignificant. If th had come out onc it I 1 -

l 11 wattid not necessarily be significant ither.

1 j ~2'l One is intercatcd in the displacements that go j 1

i h 13 0 along with this.

I j 1d BY MR. KAFOURY:

1  !

l B u By evaluating the rr tio of capacity to load for }

i i

'i G all the various Wallo, are wn w.ud anything at all about how i l1 j thosc walla cro likely to bohr a, or is it only the tota'i l

-17 ,

i i 18 figures that are of cignifibance?  !

I j 10 A (Witnr,a Holley) In this particular problem,this '

}  : 4 control building problem, it is of interect to know how cho. ,

i l 2; individual valls are behaving. It la even of more interact I i 22 to know.how.much displacement they are being' asked to absorb 4

1. } n; compared to what is judged to be their capebility << absorbing  :

I

2(, ' displacement.

i; g5 ,

Now I can only repeat: a ratio of thic kind, this f

l

1

, i h.

                                                                                                    \

1583 l mpbfi I individual wall kind is not very indicative of what's going [. T 2 on. I'm sure people are more comfortable vith having it 1.15 i (~/ s p i i 3 than they might be if it said .15; but I can conceive of con 'l l O i ' '\-) 4 figurations where it could be 1.5 and things would still be l l 5 all right. l 6 CIIAIIU1MI MILLER 170'11 have a chort recasa.

                                                                                              ~

7 (Reccan.) l l

        \
                                                                                              \

end 3c; 8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. }l i 3d flus 0 You may proceed. 1 l 10 BY MR.1GWOURY: Ii 11 Q Moscrc. Trammal and Shao for the NRC octimated l i 12 last opring that the as-built building had approximately one , (G

%)          13           half the scismic capacity intended and the engineers from l

l 14 Decntel cix months later cotimated that the scismic capacity ' 15 of the building was perhaps 70 percant of that intended.

1 16 Wnere would vou gentleman place the figures ll l

17 A (Witncan Drealer) I would cay that tha 70 per-  ! 0 cent estimate is conservative in the conse that it probably i Nas more than 70 percont anpacity of that intended.  ! i Let mo just iIggest that all the masonry hac i reinforcing' steel in it. Most of the concrete core has a significant amount of . horizontal stecl in it. The deficiency r~ i' d 23! 1 may be viewed as primarily in some of the vertical otcol I 24, reinforcement in the concreto core for most walls. The steel

?%               I                                                                              c

(_) 24 frame is built as intended, f

             '}.                                                                                 {'

a i I. I

                       ,                                                                         i

x j:u

                                     '         +

L , sa4 o , ,

                                                          -i o

i . 4 Empblo- 1- I believe that the deficiency is comewhere between h 2 15'and 30'porcents that in,.70'parcent is a conservative f t

3 estimate of the deficiency.

l-

                                ~4          10        Is it your understanding of the origins of this 5      problem that contributing to the shortfall was a conscious G'     disregard of'a conservative formula and the selection of a 7      loca conservative formula, and an algabraic raintake as well?

8 8 Is that your understanding?-- l 9 A I would cay that the facts are correct ac you l 10_ ntate them. Contributing are those two factorc. The choice l 11 of .the 3.5 as against_2 on the square root F8C factor is a

12 matter of judgment, md under cortain conditienc, for c

tampie .

1 I: g 13 the 19.77 ACI code haa gono up to 3.3 square root F'F'C from 2, 14 much clocor to 3.5. 15 So there wac a question of judgment. involved. I 16 Then of courso there was algebraic error which ia just a i { 17 human orror. 4 j ta So contributing.to the chartfall are these two b tg' factors, but one was a matter of judgment. { .Q 'Ite learned in responco to an intes rogatory over n the weekend that the group which designed the building had a

1

                            '22-.j     cupervisor who provided guidance and specific instruction, l-
                                      .but that he did not check the work produced in any detail, and <
          ~

23 f 24 * . that checking was part of a separate ' program whose_ implementa-

                           . 25        tion'was the responsibility of tha supervisor, so that                        .

t p

                       +         --

4 - - t- - _ __. __._._________________L..i--

                                                "~            '                  ~             - - - - ^

1585 mpbll 1 apparently they had technical ci:perts whoso funct: ion it was i 2 to check on the designs and the calculations carried out by 3' the group, f O~: 4 Do you know of any reason why the kind of algebrai  :

                 'S         e5ror that was made would not he expected to be picked up in f 6        such a review?.

I 7 A I couldn't speculate on the reason why it uann't. j i' f G Q Would you say in your experience that there is a ' l 0 cink whenever people are assigned a task chocking other peopleh s i 10 cal'culations that there is a substantial rick that those whose! 11 duty- it is to check will have a tendency to cay, Well, L 12 someone as smart as thic person wouldn't enke any mistake and 13 all we necd to do is kind of take a good overall look at it i 14 and see that the responcos caem within the expected rangc ' l 15 and to call that confirmation? 16 11R. RhMKS: I would object to this. 17 I don *t think this la propor cross-examination. i i 18 CHAIIVEN MILTER: Well, it may or may not be. l 4 t 19 Could you ancuer that yes or no, gentlemen?  ; 20 WITNESS HOLLEY: Are you roferring to the original i 21 design? 1 I 22 BY MR. KAFOURY: O- 23 0 'I'm referring.to that ten 6ency among poople who i j 24 you may or may not have oboarved, people uhoca duty it is to

p. '

f 25 check other people's calculations. i _ . _1 . ,. . - -

l 1536~ [

                   . m.pb12i      1                            Davd you in your~ experience coma acrosc a tendencyl                       .

l 2- among people ch'arged with that kind of- review to be a bit

• 3 hap ~ hazard about- it? I

            &-                    4                      A'      (Witnoan hot sy)           I've'como acrosa soma people i
   .                              5          who-are painstaking an. some who'are not.                               But I think it is 6-         idlo. opeculation for me to try to guons -uhat was going on in                                     j
                                                                                                                                           >    iI i

w 7 checking tho' Bechtel Organization at that tima. Indeed we . l l i 0 havo not .been asked by our clienta to do my such speculation. 9 Our concern has boon with respect to it ao it is i j , 10 today. ) ] 11 0- Is it fair to say from the knowledge that you do , 12 ' have of. the algebraic error that was nada that such an error g -13 would ordinarily be expected to be picked up by those charged a 14 with the duty of checking on such calculationc?

's I A fluch an 'crror normally would bo picked .up. That's

16 not to say it would always'bo picked up.  ;

17 ~0 .Do you recall the discucsion tho other day, 10 Dr. McCollom specking to the Dechtel engineers about amplifica- {. to tion factors? 20 A Not specifically. You're going to hava'to give f 21 me something'further gto go on. 22 0; There was a discuccion 'that one gota higher ras- ,

                              " 23,          ponse peaks.as certain parts.of a~ building reconate, and that g

, 24 causes an amplification'of tho'otherwise expected frequency. [; A WC11r _ ,I don' t think you have studied it an .  : 25. ,

  )~                                                                                                                         ,

I

                                         - __,___.-_______z__
                                                               -     _...___..-_.L._._ __
                                                                                             ...;__.___,___.i.._,;..,_.         ..
                                                                                                                                      ^ '

                                                                     ;) ,.

I e i p 1587 i o l- = mpbl3.L J f.; LDr.'McCollom did; but go on.. 4 l

      .g                    2 Q'                  Is the 'amplific * .on factor - are neplificat. ion                                  ;

a factorn matters.which worc factored into your analyaic of I l O-- 4 displacemento? i l-5 1.s - The linear elactic analynes which warb undertaken 4 l "O by. Bechtelf Corporation and~ which we hava diccussed at sono e , b 7 longth reflect the natural modes of vibration of the struc-  ; i , 0- ture, and the response in thcae modes to ground notion. In i ) 0- .that nence the highar order offecto arc. indeed-inclufed by

• 1 . .

l 4 in a combination which includou all of them which could be aig7 l i Y

11. nificant, i.

4 < 1, j' 12 This is'cpocifically what happena. l g~ 13- Q .On.Tablo A-1,.Appandix 1 of the Trojan Control

                                                                   .    .                                     .                                               t

] 14 Budiding Supplcrantal Structuro Evaluation of September 19,  !

1. i

15 1978 - you probably havo it narhed as an exhibit.  ;

4 i 10 MR. DANKG: It's the firct tabic aftor all the d { 2

                        .g                   pageo.                                                                                                           j i

i 13 DY MR. ImFOU tY: I . i to I [Q - Could you explain very briofly fiut why- the TADS !

~

f 20' . figuro for total forces is so low; and cocondly, in what mannet 1 I h 21 tho' lowness of the. figure has been takan ints your analysis i- ..  ? 22.] or diccarded from your analysis?

p. - 23

                                 '~

A .(Witness Holley)' Well, I'm not cure I.can explaint ! . g.; ,

                                             % yo.u?in.ictail why TABS gave different rocultc; but I can e
                                                    'M                                                          $              e       g   yO V

L - p

1588 i mpbl4 1 appropriate to thin tack. l p '2 The second part of your question ached why it was i. ) J 3 taken into accotmt in our evaluation, and of cource it waan't.

  !                      4                 O       To the extent . that it was.

5 h It was taken into account onl'1 to the extent uc l i 6 suggested that it would be usoful to run a third analyaia in l l 7 order to nake people more comfortable since if you had only 8 the original stick analysis and TADS said they diffored 1 9 cignificantly in certain reopects it would be puzzling to , 10. . people. And therefore since the Bechtel engineers and we 11 delt that TABS was less reprocentative it coened useful to run 12 a very cignificant reprocontativo .nodel which was availabic, O is aer=e1r ar^novr's, us 1 eeseizice eue other oar- , 14 l Now it in ry understanding that TABS han been i 15 used, perhaps was developed for particIlar use on conventional 1 g high-rico buildings which concist of stcol frameworkn, steel g columns, supported slaba, generally not chear riall kinds of 18 . construction in the massive cense that we have hero, From 19 uhat has been described to no no to the nodeling with TABS 20 it aimply doesn't represent well the stiffnecceo in the real P.1 = structure, and therefore it's not surprising to r/t that it 22 comes out with results uhich differ quita a bit fren what ( . 23 we would expect for the real ntructure. S 24 '. 0 Whose idea was DABS? ,

 .Q   -

U 25 ,' A Whone idea was it to evolve a program called TABS e f u._

l l. ' p >

                                                                                                                          ,l

, '1589

!. I t-j . .

.apbl5. i. 'or tolrun it? .

                               %.                        To run it.
      . #-                                  O '.      .

3 A Well it had bocn run before Prof. Draclar-and I ~l i 4 entored the picture, ao I really don't know whose idea it was.3 L 1: 5' ' O' . It Was. done by the Dechtel e:tgincorc, wac it not? '

i. -

!~ 6 A. It wan arrangcd by the Bechtol engineera, Whether i 7 .. it .was run by them or run outcide -- i'

                                                                                                                 }

O Q- Excuca no, it was their idca to -~ 1

                                           -A            It van Bochtel Corporation'c ~i5ca. An to what 1

9-j l l cnd 3D to individual,..I can t tell you. I 1

j. I i

11 l ! .I

j. 12 l

,.g 13 14. 15 16 a j 17-1  ! 10 1 ! 19  ! 4 4  ! a3O (

                           ~ Q}

t d e% 1. 23 ,

                                                                                                                    }

24

                                                 '?

I rT 25 i^ 3, - t 3 5 I

!! J 1590 , s h t. 3E:agbl i , O .Are you at all critical of their decision to - g. '2 M pursue it' initially?

                                .3
            .170                 .

A' ' No,.I haven't' had occasion to concern nynclf uith

their.decislon'to pursue it. I thought they vero responding l- 5 1 -- reacting. intelligently in basing their judgnant on the j 6

)- 1 larger. forces output from the STICK model. L 7 0 In your testimony, Pago Six, the final sentenac l i 8 1

                                               - you say 9

l= "It is 'the writorc' understanding that L- 10 l the slab'capabilitien for resisting thenc forces j I' 1! l have been thoroughly investigated. It is further 12 , undorntood that these investigations have.shown l e 13 the capacitics of the slab and the clab-to-unil I :4 ponnections are adequnto to resist the STARDYNU us

predicted foreca."

I 10 In that cection, are you marcly reporting otlun: l people's rcoults, or are you -- do you have com input oi l 10 your own to add? t t: 19 i

                                                                                                                                                                                                     ~

LA You can bronk the question into tuc parte, 20-I So far as the slabs themselves are concerned, )

21 '

j- , tho. analysis of stresses in the slabs is really quito ' ntraight- ~

                             '22 j

forward and not a masonry . block peculiarity, but rather) g l' ' kind.o'f a structural element that has been well' understood i'

                          -gs.
                                               . for years and years.

hnd^it was sufficient to have reported to us ? - 11 - -- _ ,.-_.__. .___ .. . _ _ _ - . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , . _ , _ _ . _ . . , _ . _ _ . _ . -

____;_______._,~. . - _ _ _ _ _ ___ . l 1591 1.' I'

                                                                                                                               \-

t-a-

                    ~

agb2- lthat they had checked, for exampic,'the atroscen'in the-n .. reinforcing ctcel and found them icv, saticf actoq. t 3 M regards the transfer from alnb to vall', you'll ' j O - recall .that Professor Dresler cominented earlic.; today - on . l' U ) that detail and on our judgmant.- s ! E O On.Page 11, the paragraph which con!5innea over . i i

• do Page 12, can you explain that paragraph to'na?

O A -I'll havo to read it first. o' - . (P auso . ) l' 1 I N j Yes, I think co, t II ' l This goca through the firat main paragraph on

i. . " Page 12.

1 3 The STARDYNE analysis outputted forces throughout I4 the ayatem including forcca on tlic two principal atructures  ; 15 and the fucl building. These were'all ab aca wtubl: 'levalu ,- E in fact, I believe the report chown that, particularly on , the fuel building struchures, they ucre ucll La1.ov tiha l 17

                                                                                                                                }.

i 10 ' 'capacitica of those chructurea. F . . M Mou the two' main Eccl building structures, sp'at t 20 fuel pool and the holdup tank enclosurc, are h:'.wy re-21 ' Linforced. concrete structuren. And in ordbr to be conservative \, - F. .

                        ~ 22              ..the engincors ' concerned thomaelves .uith what pocaibla i"                         2 31             harntful'-offache could, occur. at the fuc1 building and on v.hoce

[ t [. u-24 , two' structures if one. postulated . fairly large displacement Ed. ,at the control building und due, fox: example,'to degradation i i i 1 i' g- $I . e . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _m.___.__.. _ __ 2,._. i

1592-(. I agb3 ;of. stiffness in tho shear walla.. An ovaluation of the floor alaba which connect 3 . .

                                                       .from the control building over to theon two fuel buildings

n-

    .U-          4-and deliver a      major part of the force on then,                            was made
                =5 and showed.th'at' there was a. limit to what thoac 'alobs 6-could deliver to the fuel buildings.

7 In other words, thoco slaba are well'abic to 8-' ' deliver the largo-forcas that t,.'ere outputted by STAnozaE. 9 But there is a limit to uhat they can, indeed, deliver, 10 based on tho'yiciding of the steel in the floor alabe And 11 at that limit which is the maximum that can be delivered 12-from the control building to the fucl building, regardless I of how.much deflection is in the control-building, at that

                                                       . la.mit the forces on the two atructures in the fuel building 15 are still'well within acceptable. limits.

That's what those two paragraphs say,'I hope more U concisely than I have just said. N MR. LWOURY: Profoscor Holloy, Profocsor Brealer, Y thank you very much.; 20 CliAIRMAti MILLER: Thank you. 21J Mr. Rosolio',

             .22'                                                    MR. ROSOLIE:     'I realize it's 5:00'and itt's 23                                     .getting lateand.I'm sure we'vo all junt'about had 1%

24 .solif you'll bear with me, I'll try to bear with you.. __ O  : 25 CHAIRMAN MILLI!.R: That's pretty. magnanimous, ~

                                                                                                                                                    .t    !)

                                                 +                                                                                                 1593 [j          .

E agb4 you'll-bear with each 'ohher.

                                           ~'

ROSOLIE: . Pd.ght. MR.. l-IW MR4 ROSOLIE: h -4

                                                         .Q             I guess Professor Holley:                          Locking at your 5

'aofecuional Qualifications, I notica that you've worked on 0 And I wan wondera.ng l !several other nuclear poser planta.

1 if you could tall no what criteria uand in those ~~ for tha l 0 Was it STARDYNE, ~ design of thoco nucioar powcr plants? 9

• L' was it -- y 1:  ! ,

                                    ,10 p                                                           A             (Witness IIolley)- .Z'd have to go out hnd got the                                      I

(. M FSARsEfor all of them. P I !. 12 Q They wore all difforent?. , i G A These are nuclear power planta ontending over a 14 number of years, IO I STARDYME is not a critorion in'any avont. 16' But no, I can't rathle off for you the criteria i t 17 , unca. I wouldn't know where to hagin to do that. j ' i . N 'O So they ware all difforent? G 'A They woro all different, , 1 i 4 20' The problems I was helping with wara different t f' E 40 from plant to plant. And simply, I can't.ccncaivably carry 1 22' ~ them around- in my head what the criteria were in thoco cacas. o e k. 1 ~ T23 I 1 They were.critoria, as with'all nuclear power b l, '

                                    , 24           iplants, which were spelled out in tho.FSAR and approvcio                                                       h W,                                    125;.         rby'tho Cormiosion.

p , t , g ;. j-  : 1; =j

                                   'f       'L i__ _   ;_2_   .._.____-...__.__....____..____.__.__m._.._.                        _ _ _ 2_. u _ _ .    ....,._.J,__,

i-

                                                                                                                          -1594   1 i

a 1- i agb5- But I-can't - .these thinga go on for pagca. I.  ; h ~.can't: tell you- that, there's no way I could tall you. 3

                ;                                      .Q        Well, to your knowledge, though, what is the moat                     .

4

                                                                                                                                      ]

commonly nacd analysis? 70 it the STICK analysia, STARDYNU 5 l-analysis, ' Tans. ~ for deciding the force in a nuclear power 6 I plant?

I 7-A I can't answer that very offcchively for you .4 1 0 cither A nuclear power plant has a variety of diffcrent.

                                   =9          structures within it,

, It's quite posa211.c that -- Remember i firch, as I understand it, STICK is not a proprietary ~~ 1' 11 a program, por ce, but rather, it's a convenient niuae for j I a conventional way ol' approaching a structure of-thic sort,, f

                                                                                                                                       .1 I3            Whernas STARDYNE is.a program of itself and Th3S in, that i

I4 were.especially developed and are used on a grant va.riety of' structures. ' l N~ I've lost your question, I'm corry.  ! 17 'Q I think you've answered como of it.

                                 $.                              Probably continuing on 'that cana lino, is n.bsolute 19            nums usod.over -- or.is~the aquare root cums nquarea used
                            *O                 more often?                                                                               ,
                                                                                                                                     .t
                            'El                         n. o     It's by far the more conuxan.
                                                                                                                                      .l 22                                MR. BANKSi e                   23~
                                                                             .'I'm not so cure the answor reflects the question.- You mean the cocond one?

f S MITNESS HOLLEY: [l 1 24 The squaro of the sua of the I i p 25 i"' squaren. , i

            ,                                                            i

~ r . . .

                                                                                                                                  ,    \

                                                                                           .f a                                                                                                                                                                                             ,

1 l 1595 I i 1 l l agb6 BY HR. ROSOLIE: :l y Q. In your actimation, how long would.it hahe.to l check the accuracy of.the analycin executed by thu' engineers j q 1 i 4' s F 'of the Bechtel Corporation?  ! 0' .

                                                                                                        ~-(Witncac Holicy)

A It dapends, I gueos,.on hou  ; , 6' . . . I you'dsfine chocking the accuracy. Are you enyinge hou } i + y long would it take to check for arithmatic uistakes, or i [ 4 'D i< i what nro you caying? i l 4 -0 .I. gueca where I'm getting that from io Page Two  ! I f to . 9 , of your testimony, in the middlo paragraoh. You stata: l

s 1

                                                         "                                                      "It abould be'noted that the writero lt
                                                         } ,0*                                                .

l

have not~ included any attempt to check the 9 accuracy of the analysia.c/

ccuted by the .

! 14 r 4 Intervenors. Such- checks could not have been a

                                                      'D                                         .nceompliched in the tir.m available."

it CimIRMAN MILLER: We have bnen over this now, < 4 1 l U Mr.'Roaolie. This is about the third tima around on thic ) W subject,'I believe. [ 10

                                                                                                       .MR. RocOLIE:          I don't believe anybody eahsd chem t
                                                        ., 7 that particular queation.                         I realine that hna been gens                                  !

El over somewhat but what I'm trying to ascertain ia, hou  !

j

              -                                         22:                     long would.it tch .them t.o check thr accuracy.                                                                !

n !? ' h~ 23 CIIAIIWAN HILLER: What.difforenco does it make,' i f t I. W' >

                                                                              .they' didn't do it, that's the~ extant of'their'testimonj co.
                                                    . 2,.a .                               . ,

you needn't go beyond that.

' }

Ia..-....;,,n ....-.,__.. _ . i_,_._. - ..,,

                                                                                                                   -..--__u..        -

4-n' j l

1596 I L

e i; - 1- , j .agb7, They didn't, you've got that as a fact, }

O Ma_ aosoLIc= ughe. They didn e de 1e. 1 3  !

Dut these are men.with what I would auccan an j c 4 1 very good qualifications. And if they didn't have time to  ! l i-5 l j check the accuracy or they know the time to check the  ! [

                         '6                                                                                            l    I t

accuracy, then it would help me in accencing, perhaps, other 7 l testimony on thic locue. 2 D CHAIRMAN MILLER: I don't follow that liitter j 3 conclusion. l l d 10 I [ You've got the facts and you may anecac it an } l F ' 11 i you please and as you may legitimately inquire. You've got l F everything you'rn going to get on this, haven't you? 13 gg,,.ROSOLIE: If somebody aays that they checked l 14 l the accuracy within a ntonth's tine and theno gentlemen caid l l 15 that, to their knowledge,'that it would take at least D ' three months to check the accuracy, v7 ell then, we could [ L 17 ! . bring into question - there would be conflicting evidence ' . L { IO' of exactly who.was right and who was wrong and whether f 1 jo ' !' that could be done within month's time or throa months' 2 2b I t$.me. [ 2I CHAIRMAN MILLER: That's precisely the point. 22' 'l

                                     ,What difference would it makof

We'rdinot trying to'go into

23 challengsfeverything that is said. l

                      ;24"                                                                      '

The' maximum benefit you get ia the ctate of th. o p h' '- . 25 record. L. . That's the maximum benefit it in.to you'as a 1 j i I;. , :s

                                                                                                             .         r
                                  .,       N.                    .   ..  -

f _.

i. l -. i le 1597' -

                                         .                                                                                                                                                                5-
                          ;1       cross-examiner.: -Now beyond that, it'n not material,   .

The.t'c agb8' '

2 all we're trying to tell you..

l 3- You are in the -unfortunato position of being l ? i- 4 -' down the lino now on crocc-oxamination no r therefora,. we're l 1 l l s' 5 . starting- to look more alonely at our rules prohibiting  ! !- ) !- 6- repetitiouc questioning. 1 l- ! 7 HR.-ROSOLIE:- tio11 I wasn't trying to be o i i ! -8 repetitiouo.- 1

9- CIIAIRMIM MILLER

Well, you arc. I know you

! 10 aren 't trying, . but. . . . and3E 1{ , 4 l ! 1 i 12  ? l-I 4

      -g                13 i-                       14 i

15 i-16 17 i d IO . 4 i i ! -. 20 ., 0 2?.

       .O.            .,

e a , 1 1 i ..- I

   ._       _ _ = _ _        -

                                                      ._._.-.~.___..__-___.-.___;.___

i .4. 159E I BY MR.-ROSOLIE: 3f obl 2 0 would you consider the analysis you did or the 3 review you did limited in nature or' scope? 3 0 4 'A (Witness Holley) Limited to the extent that wo 1 ! 5 defined it ao being limited. I' j 6 0 on page 3 of your testimony, under number 3, 1 l 7 chcar wall capacities, you mention emethquake resintmit chear O valls in the control room and auxiliary building. Maybe I 9 was wrong but I thought there were chear wallo in the fuel 10 building.

                               .A        ,

11 A (Nitneus Dresler)- There are come unlla in the

                                  '12      fuel building.        Those are more conventional reinforced con -

Q 13 crete construction, very heavy walla in the fuel storage

14 building.

15 The ptrticular walls that have any deficiency i 16 whatever are those walla which are conutructed in the cand-

17 wich conetruction. Thero is no deficiency in othar valle, l

10 as.I underctand it. The henvy walla, the shear loads e.nd i 10 the chear strcascu aro quito low on those walls'. g ,1:0 0 So in other worda, what you did under Humber 3

21. d is just list the walls that have deficiencies?

22 'A Thoso are the types of the wallc. h 23 0 Okay. l

                                   ,24             'A        (Witne'sc Holley)     You'll note thati that says :

25 The carthquake resistant shear walls c d

I i 1599 1 l eb2 1 in the control und auxiliary buildinga...." i, l 2 It'c not referring to the ones 4.n the fuel build ' 3 ing which, na Professor Bresler has said, are very maasive ! 4 reinforced concrete. ' S Q I uns vundering why it van loft out. Whnnk you.

6 , Aro sandwich walls the same as cov acito ualln?

4 . 7 A (Witncan Dresler) I 920su bcth vordo hnva boon l 4 i-l 6 used in these deliberations, yes. < i 9 0 On the no::t page, page 4, right af tar the number , 4 to ' c" it Days: j

                                                                                                                                                                            ).

q i 11 - " Structural behavior of 's ca.Oli ch ' l , e  : i y 1; walla....can be determined approximately...,as li ( tl; there in no experimental data on such walls." g That appro::imation, is that based on Scimeider 13 and what , han been referred to as the Eerholey tas t'i' I l 10 A It depcada in part on general princir>1m of strec Ij 17 l. tural inachmlicn as wall an the rupporting dde of the i -

                                             !                                                                                                                                t ja           Schneider and Darkeley tests.                            Neither ano alena provi& a                                        j
                                       ;g          sufficient bac19.                                                                                                          I 0

70 0 it is my undorstanding ' 'u Darkelay toot in j 1 1 21 fairly new, or the resulto are fairly new. Haw alther of l l grg you looked at that in detail? j g  ; V- .py A 1 cuppose I've looked nc it in greator detail g4 than Professor IIolloy has. .I guess we both :cviewed the g paper. It was published- I ind maybe a little greater I-i' i b_ _ ,_. -- - . - - - - -

     '}.,

1600' '-

                                 't                                                                          .                                        :

ob3 1 advantage of proximity to these.. tests to be familiar with  ! g 2 .them in a littic grea ter detail. 3 0 Wero you aurpriced by the results? , 4 n. I was not. Othera"were. , 5 0 Is it possible that during an carthquakof that 6: . one wall can collapse rather than a whole atructura, that i 7 one wall would collapco beforo the whole struct.ure uculd 8- collapaa? O A Are you talking about the Trojan building? 10 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. 11 UR. ROSOLIE: Yes. 12 CHARIMAN MILLER: YOu may answer. 1 g 13 WITNESS'HOLLEY: What do you mean by " collapse"? 14 -BY MR. ROSOLIE: 1 I 15 0 Well, guess collapsing has boon used here en 16 it has , boon used in this ' proceeding. 17 A (Witnoca Holley) But that's part of the diffi- < I 18 culty. 4

                                            ~

19 ' CHAIRMAN MILLER: Nell, how could it be 1:iod in i 20 general; terms, Professor?

                                                                                                                                                    'l
                  " ' 21                                 WITNESS UOLLEY: ,If you mean                  -
                                                               \

( 22- CHAIRMAN MILLER:. Extremo distress, hot.-Jever you l t >  ! 23- want to ' call it.

      'Y ML                        ;        WITNESS IlOLLEY:           You mean sill it experience a                                      l A*            ,-

25 :-

                                    ' complete loss of.resir>tance to shear force?

m That might be-1 l x  : a

   --                    _L---      ,
                                                                 ,) .

t i L j

. 1601

li

! j l bb4 I one definition of'collapco.  ! l i ! 'E If you mean vill it' literally fall apart, that's I 3 something quite different, and I'm not really being facetioun l-h 4 sh'en I'ack you becauco I think name Ixicpla may visualize i j l 5 "collupao," for example, as the wall falling over on the j ! .  ! I 6 floor,.which.is comething clco quito again.. l l. l !  ! l 7 If you are asking do we consider it possible for  ! l 0 ona uall, let ua cay, niraply to totally loca ita racistanco I l i 9 na there la absolutely no raciatance to chcar whila the i 10 athers continue to function, well, I do not sea that an a l j ..

                                             .ti                                 possibility.          I think by the timo cny one of the valla really i 12                               roached that poing, the deformations would be very lar:go in -                 -l L;

13 'all of them. _ f 1 1 I 1J This is not to any that I am inferring that they l 1 i s l- '3 . all go at once, but 'I cannot visualine one of them coinpletely i i I s- ) j 16 locing ito recintance and all the othera being in perfect J: 17 condition. j' 18 - BY IIR. ROSOLIE: 1- l

                                                                                                                                                                 .i l                                                19                                             0    Well, it's my understanding, and correct me if               !

20 .I'm wrong, what taheu up come of that chear ic the reinforcing i 1 j ht stool. I i ji . 22 A (Witnenc Dracler) Some. ) Okay. 23 . .O E , 4; Now it'is also my underotanding, and perhaps

-                                                                                                                                                                 f
           .                                   g                                your understanding 3100, that One Wall -- I bOliOVO it             

the r a

i a 4 i j. e 1i 1602 . , ab5 I weat'. wall -- han no reinforcing steel in it. l

g. 2 A This is incorrect. The went.vall concrete core i

i l 3 hun no reinforcing steel. Both exterior raaconry fcces have j . 4 1:oth vortical and horizontalsteel in then, so .that there in l ( 5 no' wall in the building that has no reinforcing atcal. Only < ', 6 the concrote core in that vall h'as no rainforcing a cool, and 7' g maybe there are one or. two minor walls where the concrete 4 i 0 cores havo no reinforcing. l 0 0 Bo the lack of the reinforcing otcel in that I l l .l

1) concreto core then is not that important? l l

1 i 11 A It's a deficiency,.but not critical. { 12 0 on page 11 of your testimony you atate in the g 13 first full paragraph: 14 "It in the writers' understanding that i 15 .the capabilitica of all safety-related compo- , ) 16 nonts....to accapt large relativo disp 1ccomants 4 17 have bacn determined by att exhaustiva on-cito 10 curvey." A 10 . When you'say it'a your understanding, in tilat s. 20 understanding achieved mainly through conversations with other 21 People?  ! 22 MR. DANKS: I object'to this, Mr. Chairman. . 23 UITNESS HOLLEY: Yos. 24 CHAIRMAN MILLER: It has been asked and-answered, 25 and it was pointed. out .that Exhibit 11 was the acurce of the  !

     -__J____.___          ______l-___-_--                     ' - * '      " ' " " ' ' ' ' ' " "             ' 
                                                                                                                 ' ~' ~ ' ' ' - ~ ' " " " ~ ~ ' ' '

L e' Y '1G03

                                                                                                                                                                     .i it                    eb 6.              I         information.                                That's my note on the margin from Ur. Kafoury.

4 2 '

                                                 .It really has been-covered.

3 MR.. ROSOLIE: Well,-I guess ho might have answered , 1 4 this illno but I'm not' cure that'he did. I I l 1 5 DY MR. ROSOLIE: l [ - G' O Did you look at Exhibit Hunmer 11 prior to this [ 7 tet.timony? i G- A (Witnoan Dresler) I don't think we naw th'ic no , l j' D. i. report. We have participated in a conference uharc ncma , i . l l 10 of the members of the team who conduct.od the curvcy'made an ~l.

                                                                                                                                                ~

l 11 oral report on their~findingn. And baced on that oral. report

- .12 )i of-their findinga and other discussiona at that conference, I

g i 13 it'bocame clear that the large static displacementa.that 1., could take place wore taken into account, and all the major i

                                      ,5          equipment componento can function or withstand the displace-                                                          t

.g i ,

1-l 16 nient. . That's what we roficct here'in our underdbanding. F 17 A (Witness Holloy) Subatantially more than tho { f i i 18 ldisplacconcut.  ! L, i ' 1 F 4 19 Q' Wall, let'n go back again to page 10. You alco < l [ I 'i i

                                   -20            any'           "It in the wri ters ' understanding. . . ."                                         Ic that also        ;-         l 21           just:throughl conversations ard:not xeally 1c6 king at any                                                              L          i 4

t, I ' R? / written material.or documents?  ! i '- ;23- A (Oitness Dresler) It varied. Sometimes I'd cay u [ -. na , it vould;bc;looking at; written . material, conetimes it would

                                  ~~ 25         .be ithrough conferoness and discussions, communications-of h

F - - . =. ._. __L_____.__.._-__.__.__________._____.._, . . -

l

• 1604 h ,--

4

           '. ob7                           ,

i sor:;e cart or another.- l g. 2 d The time hiatory analysic that's done,that only L 3 handles one: earthquako that lasta between 20 and 30 coconds? j 't

                                                                                                                                                                         -j A                             .

A. (Witness Holley) You've' lost ma. I really don't'; i E ' understand lyour question. _f. 6 -O' Okay. j i L 7 Earlier during-the proccodings,-witnescen non-0 tioned the time history analycic, and that's one rencon 9 why the squaro root cum of the cquares . in used over the I l 10 abcoluto num becauce tho. cum root num of the ?.quares conformcf 1 11 more with the tima history. , ,- i 1 1 , 12 li I may be miutaken and I would have to go back i i g 13 and check,'but if mycmemory.cerves me right, the reforonce ! 14 was to time history analyaco which had been' undertaken s I- 7 l 75 probably prior to Trojan, in other worda for the affacted  ; 10 time liintory on atructures and in comparison with the' modal I 17' respcase to got aLfocling for how the combination of raodal i l I h 18 responcoc is most realistic. } l 4  ! 10 I don't think there was a reference to a tima i 1 I l 20 history analyain of Trojan ao a bacis fcr this compilation 'j

i

! 21 but maybe 'iti s Inte in the day and maybe I'm forgetting 1 g

                                    *2         somothing..                                                                                                               
      -g'                                                                                      CHAIIGiAN ' MILLER:            My recollection is that that

{ l23 24 is the r statejof the' record on that point.. 25 WITHES'S.HOLLEY: . Studies _were mndo by BechteI, I _-_ -. ,--- - _ _ - . . . _ . - _ . . --_.--. _ _ . _ .___ _ _ L _

1605 l , eb8' I and they've been made by others as wall, of what happens when p). you feed the actual time history in and look at the behavior 3 and then compare it with what you get when you make what is

         .t                     ?

called a modal analysis using response upcotrum, for exaraple, 5 in combining by SRSS or by absolute cum. k I think this in what you're referr'ag to probably. BY MR. ROSOLIR: 4 7 g y' guess what I want to kr- or what I'm trying to .!

                    'O     got at in that the time history only takes into account onn                 {

9 ' earthquake that last between 20 and 30 seconda, and uhat would , 10 occur during that carthquake. I 11 A (Witness Holley) Well, time history, you woulu I l 12 certainly only. put in one earthquake at a time to your analy-13 a10. You could put in ceveral different earthquaken 3f you 14 co desirod and I guess you could make thera l'at as long or 15 as ohn,rt as you cared to. [ 10 Now if you're asking me exactly what kinda of time 17 historica waro used in the studios to compare theco two ways 18 of combining modal responses, I'm afraid I can't anover.

10. O Can you tell me the difference between a fraa 20 dynamic tost and a dynamic tect?

21 A (Witnocs Breoler) What? 22 A free dynamic test and a dynamic tact? l 23- A (Witness Holley) I don't think I know uhat a free ! 24 dynamic tost is. 25 -O. How about a forecd vibration tost? , O

                   .- e .                                . - , .          ..~.          .

rc s v 1606 } i I'l* f eb9 9' A That is 'u tect, if it is a tact, in vnlich you a:a l

                                                 ,I I

2 forcing vibration to occur. 3 0 Uculd that test be valuabla in anacosing Trojan? 4 A I havan't any iden. You would aave to describe 1 S the test to me. j I 6 0 You coe, you can test anything. I l'

                                           "       ,                        CHAIRMAN MILLER:       You've annwared I think..            You dor.'t have to expand on your annuer.

O WITflESS HOLLEY: Thank you. , t  ! 3f da fla . n ,- la li! ,

                                                       },
                                                                                                                                             . l' b=     ,

i^ 5. 4 t* 4- , e e. I-ct s  : IE. t 4 i

                                       'e t l

1 7,3

O 2o.

tn - 24 O. ui \ i i f

                           ,,                          i I                                                                                          !-

1

1607 4A.wbl 1 , DY MR, ROSOLIE: 2 .O- Exhibit 8, which is the Supplomantal Structural 3 3- Evaluation dated September 19, 1970. I would.inanine it'a

1 4 Appendig 7t, pano A-a, 5 . Have you both found it?

                        '6                                   A                      (Uitnoan Drenler)                     Yes.
                         '7                                   0                   Under 3.2 "Ueight Datermination," there neenc

S to ho'- well there ic'a difference between the re-evaluation .)

                         -9           weight, which came out 13 percent lower than uced criqinally, ll

) and, over on the nont page, the usight used for the control a JO-l 11 building, the' auxiliary building and the fuel building and 12 ), tiin total weight of the entire conpler l l g 13 Can you explain the reason For thdt difference? . 1/. A (Witness Holley) Try.it again. What'c the j :3 difference you uould'like un to try to explcin? - i 4 j- 16 m Okay. 17 In the re-evaluation study the calculated 18 weight - the calculationc indicated a weight 13 percent , 19 1 wer than that that was uced originally. That's on 20 Ph98 ^~4* l-21 11 w the weighta in the Stardyne analycia -- and 1: 22 I believe that was the waight uned in the stick analysis, was 13 percent' lower than the original. !- '23 - m .

                                                                                                                             ~

pj tiow if we go over to A-9 you see the. control

   )                   g             building wainht in the Stardyne analysin is 8.2 percent lower J
                                                            -          L...           . . - , - , ,       . . . , -,n~      - . -.~.- -..,--... ~                           - , - - , . + - , . . - . . - -         -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        +

l t 1600 I wh2l 1~ than that used in the original analycin. And whan we lock 2 .at all those weiqhts wo don't cono to 13 percent lower than 3 the original. . And I was. wondering if you gentlenan knmt O 2 why enae is. f 5 A Ilou did you - What sort of calculatica di? You I' l g maha trying to get to the 13 parocnt?

              ,              7                       MR. BhMKS:       It'c on pago A~il.                                         .I I

l 0 WITiiDSS DIL%LUR: If I may 'junb ccicnant brit ?!1y: i 5

9 I could not e>: plain precisely the differcreas to you. But 10 it was my reco'.lcation that in the original design at-rtain  ;

i. J 3; estimaten of the equipment weights and structural weighta l 12 ware made. For the re-avnluation the weights were recalculated ) g for the structure in the as-built condition. And for the more precisely deternined ceruipnant weights. And thenc voights, equipment weights uere further reviaca iure accurately 15 which resulted in some increa.ce in the vaight. Eo you ao have 16 1., - indeed threa nots ,f weights that were used in the chrno l e  : i analveen.

                                            -                                                                                     i, 16
                                                                                                                                  )

It's connon that in the preliminarv analvnia oniv 19 -

                         ,g.

the rough estinatc of the weight is used. And. escrall, l that still is a fairly e nsarvative figura., Eut as no.ru 31

                                                                                                       ~

l l , ,,,,. ' refined calculations nnr eterminations arc made., and j equipnont weights, sena ninor variations like thin are not

                         .a                                                                                                        ;     ,

L - uncommon. And for Stardyno the most preciac recalcu]ation I 24 f ' j of ths Weights UDS laade. So the final weights used for the l l 1

1609 ; 3d)3 1 idifferent' proportions -- for'different portionc of the  ;

                          ;2     'hcilding are roficered in the Stardyne analynic.

i g' L 3 I might say that this becoman necescary hacause tho' Stardyno in a more cophisticated analysis and requirca S a more detailed assignment of the mass distribution, the 6 weight distribution, to different buildinga. And in doing 7 thia'for the Stardyne analysis all theco differences were 3 found, and reflect probably much nore accurctoly the weight  !

                           .g    ' distribution'than the original.

q

                                                                                                    . l
                          'j)           O     I'm going to no back to something you caid            l     I
                                                                                                          )
                          ;g earlier in the day. And maybe I michcard you or nnyba i        !

12 didn't.

                                                 "  ""   *   *   ^    ""          "   "  *"

h 13 displacement; in that right?

A' (Witness Itolley) You probablydidn't hear m"'

1 15 l t 16

                                  * ***** Y' i

l- All other things being equal, a larger earthquake 4 17 4 l ought to lead to a larger displaccmont, if it's the cane < 1 0 yg kind of earthquake. 4.290 , 20

   -                      21 i

22 i ll . 23 . 24'  ! 25' i l 1 _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __~J

[L - t

                              )                                                                                                                      f i                                                                                                                                              1610   !

4 -- f3 - 1 0 Lot'sLjunt nasume for a minute thac Proian van i WRB only capable of .withatanding an SSR of .2 incteed of .25.

    . g /mpbl           .2 l._                        3                                     Would.that have a nignificant difference upon l,-

4 the displacement of the control building? i 5 A If I accumed that it is only capabic of taking ! 6 .2 than I'm assuming that in come fachion it's a different

                       '7'             building, since I believe the capability in to tako substan-3            tially more than .2 in the axiating building, p                                     Thorofore you're talking about a different build-10              ing, and I suppose it could be a different building iTich                                                       [
                       ;j              could take .2, and it could have either a larger or smaller i

j p, displacement than the existing Trojan, depending upon how it  !

i. g n; was dcaigned. I l' 74 O Pleace turn to - I don' t know if you have it, ! l

j. g but Hoforence 1 to the testimony of Ando': con,1(atanics, }

I g sTohnson, and Whito. j ,' i '+ j gj MR. DhNKS: That'c Exhibit G.  ; i  ! 5  ; i 1g BY MRo ROSOLIE: j 4 i l 79 Q Do you have it there? i e 4 l 20 A (Witnoco Holley) We're looking for it. 1  ! HR. DAUKS: That'a the original roovaluation. l g

.p, . UITNESS BRESLER

c I have i'. ,

a.A , Which particular -- f i

q. DY MR. ROSOLIE:

l 'h ,~ 4l) i 0 Attachment 3, page 7 of 7, which is in tha first 4 l l d i __ ___ l____ . _ 1., )

                                .1 F.                                                                                                                             1611  .,

7 F

.- ;mpb2 'l' re'forence. i L

g 2 A - (Witneas. Brealer) Page.what? l 3 ;g page 7 og 7, Attachment 3.  ! j 4

                                                     -DR.'HC COLLOM:                        About halfvay back.

i ! 5 UITNESS DRESLER: Is-it Tcbic 17 6 MR BANKS: Yes.  : 1 l t 7 WITNESS DRESLER: Yes, we have it. ) 6 BY MR. ROSOLIB: a-l 9 0 How if we look under Column 3 and va go down to 10 the safe shutdown earthquako, which -is the third equation 11 down, and we go over to column three, you see an SSE of .2? p i 12 How, does t.his - havo you found that? 13 A (Witneas Dresler) Yes. i 14 0 Okay. Good. 15 Now this is ucing the AFSAR for Trojan, and it 16 'Says .2 17 Does that mean you have an entirely differant

                   '10        building than you do?

] 1

                   '19                 A                  (Witness Holley)                        Ho. Mo, it doecn't.

I 20 0 What does thic table tell you? j j it- -A It tells me calculated values of G-leval capacity F. . . 22 :according 'to a variety of different assumptions regarding r . e' 23- .carthquakes and according .to a differing variety of ways by 24: which tho'capacitics and the forces were computed. Por exampla 25 the number.you refer to in column threc'is based on the I' '

                         \.

i. ,

j 1 '. .

         ,                                                                                                                               4
                                     ,     ----.--.--.._..____l._,--.._.-_,.--___..._,.-~.~~,.-.---.,-.-.                                  .ml

i ,v ,; 1612

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ,l mpb3                     1            abcoluto summations of 'tha modal effecta rather thhn the 2-             SPSS.

3 O And are you awaro thatn a perfectly acceptable Il ' .' 4 method, according to the Trojan AFSAR? 1 5 A (Witnesa Droulcr) I would say accy tnblo; I don'tj 6 P.now if it'c perfectly acceptable. l

.                                                           7                                 0         Well, we'ra all not perfect; I r ealine that.                                                                                   I D                                          MR..R050 LIE:                                I have no further ciroac~e:: amination.

g CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you, Mr.~nocolio, j j i 10 I- Ma. Ball, are you ready to proceed? f I  ! 11 MS BELL: I really dan"t uant to start unlcoa I j 2 g i m can got an indicatio- of when I'm going to be able to ntop

                                                           ,3              tonight.

ja CHAIRMAN MILLER

Wall, how about nine ofclock.

4 , .; IS You ackod me --- you toll no how long you're going j ! IG to croca-examine. l 17 MS. BELL: At thin point I'd any about an hour. yg C1mIRMAN MILLER: All right.  ! i 79 We'll resume at 8:30 in the morning.  ! l i i 29 MR. DANKS: Mr. Chairran. we have ona grchlom uithj i 21 that, _ and that in I think that Mr. Gray indicated that he i I; , 22 wanted'to put Mr.'Dodds on tomorrow morning.  ; 2,j CHAIRMAN MILLSR: I told him he could intorruot i l g uhen he hasLhim. .If he han him hero at 0: 30 he can put him onj i khDN.- ' 1k . he han ' him at ..nine , he can put him on then. We'll L , I l i _ __ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ , - . _ . . . . ~ .

s . u,, ,s ( i / 3 1613 4 i L4 mpb4 1 interrupt, but wo"11 start with the witnesses unicas Mr.. Gray  ; g 2' wanto:to go ahead-at 8:30. It's up to him. 3 .MR. BANKS: The problem that I havo - I just O 4 wantLto bring this to the Chair's attention. 5 The. prob 1cm is Prof. Dresler cannot stay longer p .

            -6       than tomorrow'.

7 CHAIRMAN MILIER: Well, we don't intend for him

                                            ~

O to stay longer than tomorrow. 9- MR. DANKS: Is there any reason uc couldn't maybe l 1 i 10 -- I don' t know how much more timo thora is, but -- 1 l 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: If Ms. Bell has an hour, that i j 12 would be 9:30; and there will be no particular problem, I i

g. 13 take it, in Staff finiahing Prof. Brealer at least in tima for

. 14 his travel plans as well as pucting on out-of-timo their own 15 witness. 4 .

16 Isn't that true, Mr Gray? i i l i l' 17 MR. GRAY: Yes, cir. J l j 18 CHAIR!!AN MILLER: Very well. We'll break it up. l l 10 MR. DAUKS: I just was interested in how long we'd ! 20 bo (toing after Ms. Bell. i 21 CHAIR?D\N MILLER: She's estimated about an hour, 2a and overninht'shc811 have a chanco perhaps to concolidato G 23 - information and consider what's repetitious and what isn t. t i 1

           -24                          :So we'll recess until 8:30 in the morning.
    .                                     (Whereupon, at 5:40'.p.m., the hearing in the g                    above-entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene at                                                           i 8:30 a.m., the following day.)

i u_. .. _ - 1.}}