ML20210C166
| ML20210C166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1986 |
| From: | Con V CALSPAN CORP. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210C170 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 IEB-80-11, TAC-59874, TER-C5506-583, NUDOCS 8603120099 | |
| Download: ML20210C166 (34) | |
Text
'
e TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT NRC DOCKET NO. 50-346 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. --
FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-41 130 FRC TASK 583 MASONRY WALL DESIGN TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY a,
DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1 TER-C5506-583 i.
3 Pruparedfor Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon FRC Group Leader:
V. Con l.,
Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Lead Engineer: N. Chokshi
~
l March 7, 1986 j
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States l
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any s0ency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any le0al liability or resoonsibility for any third party's use, of the results of such use, of any information, appa.
ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third hl party would not infringe privately owned rights.
i Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Vs, Yewt N h h*
/s'tt, PrincipafAuthor V
/ Depart' ment DJ[ec' tor 3 7-l4Eb 5///ft oste:
3 7 f6 Date:
Date-i
(
PRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN seen a ence erseets.mnassunaa.pn toes Dbo383.008'\\
XA
s TER-C5506-583 l
CONTENTS i
)
Section Title Page 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Plant-Specific Background.
1 1.2 Wall Construction.
2 2
REANALYSIS METHOD 5
2.1 Conservatism of the Original Structural Analysis 5
2.2 Conservatism of the Wall's Analysis 5
i l
3 REANALYSIS RESULTS.
20 4
EVALUATION OF THE LICENSEE'S REANALYSIS 25 5
CONCLUSIONS 27 9,
6 REFERENCES 28
.I P* t i
o r.
P I
lii
1 TER-C5506-583 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The
~
technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC.
,a,.
NP J
E MI J,
W>
P*
l 1,.
is l
I N
l l
l TER-C5506-583
)
i 1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND l
In response to IE Bulletin 80-11 (1), Toledo Edison (TED) Company submitted documents regarding the safety related masonry walls at Davis-Besse Unit 1 to the U.S. NRC (2-9].
Franklin Research Center (FRC) has been retained by the NRC to review the submittals prepared by Davis-Besse Unit 1.
As a result of this review, a technical evaluation report was prepared to summarize FRC review findings (10]. Based on FRC's report, the NRC staff g
Ll -
issued their Safety Evaluation Report (SER) [1d],whichfoundtheLicensee evaluation acceptable for 95 walls and the remaining 74 walls qualified by the energy balance technique were unacceptable' without further confirmation of the m
methodology. The SER identifies three approaches that could be used to reevaluate these affected walls. They are sununarized as follows.
1.
Implement modifications so that the walls can be qualified relying on
['~
the SGEB criteria (12]
L5 2.
Develop a rigorous nonlinear analysis techniques, supplemented with a confirmatory testing d
3.
Validate the energy balance technique with a comprehensive test i
program.
1 Ji i
On March 12, 1985, the NRC issued an Information Request pursuant to 10CFR 50.54 (f) (Log No. 1716) requesting the Licensee-planned actions and schedules to implement the NRC staff position concerning the.de 74 affected
~
walls.
In a meeting on April 25, 1985 and subsequent submittals (13, 14), the Licensee provided a reanalysis method using working stress method to qualify these walls.
The Licensee's reanalysis method has been reviewed, and the results of that review are presented in this report.
TER-C5506-583 1.2 WALL CONSTRUCTION Of the 74 affected walls, 73 walls are located in the auxiliary building ll and one wall is in the intake structure. The construction details of these l
'I walls are as follows:
Masonry Units ASTM C-90 Grade N-1 Mortar ASTM C-476 Type PM 1
Reinforcing Steel ASTM A 615 Grade 40 Vertical Reinforcing 2 # 5 at 16 in Horizontal Reinforcing Dur-O-Wall Extra Heavy Truss s,,
Type per ASTM A-82 spaced at 8 in m
Typical construction details are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
l All reinforcing is anchored at the wall boundaries. At concrete / steel
~1 interfaces, vertical rebars are anchored with self-drilling expansion sleeves, as shown in Figure 1.
At steel beams, vertical bars are secured by sleeve W
nuts welded to the beam. Horizontal reinforcing is lapped and secured by self-drilling expansion sleeves at concrete boundaries, as shown in Figure 2.
O re l
l' l '.--______.__.-_.,.__-.-----__--_--_--___,________--___..____--_,-._-.___..l
a TER-C5506-583 e
i.
1
/
,e 9...
?S t 14' M.TdtEADJAR
/
,N ANCN04 t.LDCATE
- to.MA1C.H;.vsaf.3 CME
- ---. %
/
l ~;
)
w
/
4 Q
d.
f
- e l
F02 E314F.951 Fl4 SD
/
/
l
' 'f ? ' +
j id, 6..
7 1
g'
/
FLoon LtytL
/
3.
L ie...
.wgg.
.[e:% v
L DeLuM6 ANCMOR."
4 APP #ovFD sedu.'
i 1
I Figure 1.
Section at Floor Level
TER-C5506-583 l
l i
' +.
J l
- "j--
C0ccTALE Olr* COL.
iP
'S n 14* ALL 7HREAD. 5&L. *.
IN ANCROR 9 24' &C -
i
.g g**..
4
,,,, yg=8.hdit.U85 WED NEAD
u d
h,',
, $ ELF..ptil. LIV. APst@lt l
E.,,f g 4 ?(('l)
N
'M a maovusom y
=
e
.U
~
T siis } y;,,
.*s?
s //
4
+ ~
j g.. -
,.r.
r.
u Fest REltG ME FE 25 u
I i
l l
\\
l Figure 2.
Plan at Concrete Wall or Column Intersection i
l l
i !
t
. - -. -, - _ ~. - - - _ -
r TER-C5506-583 2.
REANALYSIS METHOD The basic philosophy behind the reanalysis method is to identify and quantify various known sources of conservatism included in the original analysis. These sources are included in the original analysis of the structures housing the masonry walls and in the analysis of the walls themselves. Discussion of these sources of conservatism follows.
6.
2.1 CONSERVATISM OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS L.
The original seismic analysis of Davis-Besse Unit I was based on the 1935 modified Helena, Montana, time history, which enveloped the modified Newmark I
L Spectrum. As shown in Figure 3, the time history exhibits conservatism at various frequencies compared with the modified Newmark Spectrum, which resulted in a conservative estimate for the floor response spectra. This conservative estimate is particularly obvious in the areas of the spectra away I]l from the structure's natural frequencies.
To illustrate this source of conservatism, a comparison of the floor response spectra from the original analysis with the analysis performed later in 1980 is shown in Figure 4.
It is noted that even for an increase in g 1
level from 0.15 g to 0.2 g the Regulatory Guide 1.60/1.61 response is less than that obtained from the original analysis. The spectrum of the synthetic time history used to generate the floor response spectra is shown in Figure 7
iQ 5.
The amount of reduction varies for different locations of structures and floor levels. Detailed results of the two analyses are shown in Table 1.
2.2 CONSERVATISM OF THE WALL'S ANALYSIS A number of sources of conservatism have been identified by the Licensee and are discussed below.
Boundary Conditions In the pre"ious analysis, pinned conditions were assumed for the walls except for some cantilevered walls where a fixed condition was assumed. The Licensee indicated that, in 1 typical wall, at least partial restraint exists on all sides.
Based on the Licensee's analysis, at least 20t, of the maximum -.
TER-C5506-583 l
.. -...WF,.,
6 m
h:
I
)f R. S. 1.. N,,. WECTRA
,8 x.j 4Iu
{
m swini
~.
- u.
s
.o.
- im) i, !)
q %g/
~
q S
4, NVS j,4,,
sQ---
N I
(45DNF,.)
J f
q A
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
e.1 eJ em 14 as e.e to.
se, es..tes FIItqutIICY (M)
I l
Pigure 3.
Davis-Besse Horizontal Acceleration Design Spectra i
TER-C5506-583 a
\\
l l
L-I F
AttILEllAffgli SPECTillst l~tLtf=Sf3.08 5198 = 7 W a
a a
a a
a a an a
a a
a a a a m a a
a a
a a a
- L
{!
- - +- - -
,- r -
c - - -, 9 +
9
+
pysien masts (.19999E) f
-r a- - - - -am
+
+
~ as t.se/tst masts
.(
0.39 ssal a
5
+
+
+
+
+
4 a4 E
ll m
- U a g
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
- n
- T I
lI I
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
M f'j es' tas aos eco 'toos e
/
J J
.a tm as I
FiltqutilCT Dit) l
- I l
Figure 4.
Davis-Besse Unit 1 Auxiliary Building Area 7 Newmark Spectrum Floor Response Spectra i
_7 i
~
TER-C5506-583 M
f F
k*
j
,7...
'J-j llAlF a
.r j
"c i
~
s i
~~
f
\\
IM
'9 l
}
A 2
.... n/.
tj e
es a
aa a a ta a
a4 e e too ao ao do so soon t'
mers:v ian I
l l
l Figure 5.
Regulatory Guide 1.60 Time History 1
.g.
TER-C5506-583 Table 1.
Seismic Loads t
REDUCT1088 FACTORS FOR DSE Or RIGMATORY GUIDE 1.60 (.23) TIME RISTORY FEAK c
1 AREA DIRECTION MATURAL FRIq0ENCY RIDOCTION FACTOR 6
N-S 6.7 0.8 E4 6.8 0.6 7
W-8 7.0 0.8 (1)
E-U 5.2 1.0 1J.
8 m-S 9.1 0.6 (2) s-U n.2 0.6 (3) p.
s (1) REDUCTION FACTOR Or 0.85 POR 1xxx AND IIII LITIL MALLS C
(2) RancCTION FACTOR Or 0.9 r0R 1xxx Asp 2xxx 12TEL BALLS d
(3) R DoCTION FACTOR Or 0.8 r0R 1xxx ano 2xxx tur L MALLS (4) 72 DAMPING OSED FOR REGRATORY GUIDE 1.60 ANALYSIS l
ia 1
l r
.g.
TER-C5506-583-JMISRESSE JWILIApf JIL914 y
SttstC WBELS EL.6668 EL.651-3" EL65i-3' l
EL.6486*
$I EL.6418
.Ek.9,.4 $8 Q
f!
EL62T 6 ELS2$8 EL. 2M(
ELS11 Ef d
D J
EL6oS#
0 EL56(#
EL56$#
EL.564'8 EL57( &
un a 7
~
EL56f-F Es a EL56$v EL56$8 EL.5581 EL545'(
EL546#
}
AREA 4 AREA 7
&#EA 8 q
Figure 6.
Auxiliary Building Seismic Models l
lI
, 1.
. - -... - - - ~.. - - -..
TER-C5506-583 moment at the center of the wall will be transferred to the top and bottom supports for as-built conditions along the boundary. The Licensee'also stated that both top and bottom connections were checked to assure that the connections details were able to absorb 20% of the maximum moment.
i For the horizontally spanned wall, the horizontal reinforcing steel is L
either anchored into existing concrete walls by lapping with 3/8-inch-diameter by 2-foot-long all-thread bars inserted into expansion shields or into existing masonry walls by lapping with "Z" type rigid steel anchors. The
}
Licensee's analysis showed that these connection details resulted in a u,
reduction of as much as 67% of the original moment is experienced and the maximum moments occur at the boundaries rather than the mid-span of the wall.
~
Figure 7 sunnarizes the above discussion.
Material Properties The Licensee identified conservatisms that exist in the reinforcing steel.
tb.
Vertical Rebar A summary of yield and tensile strengths taken from certified material test results for the No. 5 rebar is given in Table 2a.
It can ta seen that the minimum yield strength is 50.6 ksi, compared with the minimum specified yield strength of 40 ksi that was used in the original analysis. Wall 5367 is the only one that has No. 3 rebar, and the Licensee stated that certified L
material test results for No. 3 reinforcing bar show a minimum yield strength of 53.6 kai (Table 2b). Based on the results indicated above, the Licensee r-3 reanalyzed the walls using a minimum yield strength of 53.6 ksi for wall 5367 and a value of 50.6 ksi for all other walls.
l J
Horizontal Reinforcement Joint reinforcement was installed at every course, and typical connection details are illustrated in Figure 2.
The joint reinforcing at Davis-Besse Unit 1 is Dur-O-Wall consisting of 3/16-inch-diameter longitudinal deformed wire with No. 9 gage plain web. The Licensee introduced test results on Dur-O-Wall performed by Wire Reinforcement Institute (15, 16), and these - -.
TER-C5506-583
'l
[ k, (4
r
~
,l..
McMENT MOMENT MOMEN7 I
3 0
7
_s#4 % - -7 e*/.(13 j
>> x m i.. v. _
.. % _..n
_., x-M WOMEN)
, ONENT MOMENT IVALUATION ISOEL E RTICAL STRIP IWRIZONTAL STRIP
.. "(
1
\\r v
{
ACTUAL CoelTION$
(1) Ansberese is two 3/4" 9 teserts with see 3/8" 9 ell-thread rode lopped with eesh layer et Det-e-eelt.
3 (3) Aashorese is one "B" type etsid steet enseery escher nepped with eesh
.{
layer et See-e-= ell.
Figure 7.
Wall Modeling Techniques Boundary Conditions -
t-TER-C5506-583 i
i Table 2a.
Mill Test Reports for Masonry Walls No. 5 Reinforcing Bars I
ASTM YIELD TENSILE QUANTITY CF STEEL sFECIFICATION (ESI)
(ESI)
EEFRESENR O (TORS)
A415 Grada 40 70.0 115.2 41.9
. L.
A415 Grade 40 50.6 79.7 41.9 l
A-415 Grada 40 51.0 40.0 15.6 4 a, A-415 Grade 40 54.8 86.5 19.8
~
A415 Grade 40 56.8 84.4 20.5 P
A415 Grade 40 55.5 90.6 20.9 u
A415 Grade 40 55.5 87.1 10.4 7
4 lJ _
A415 Grade 40 54.2 88.4 41.7 A415 Grate 40
.51.0, 76.1 51.3 A415 Grade 40 56.8 88.4 51.5 TOTAL 275.1 TONS
[
7 l
iI f
l.
TER-C5506-583 Table 2b.
Mill Test Reports for Masonry Walls No. 3 Reinforcing Bars ASTM YIELD TEltSILE QUANTITY OF STEEL SPECIFICATION (ESI)
(ESI)
REPRESENTED (T0llS) i A-615 Grade 40 53.6 81.6 0.3 r'
A-615 Grade 40 53.6 81.6 O.9 TOTAL U Tolls r,
,g.
n
.I j Le
- D t
4
?*
l l
l.
i -.
TER-C5506-583 results are given in Figures 8 and 9.
These curves indicated that the steel strength has yielding in excess of 60 ksi.
Further discussion on this subject is provided in Section 4.
Plate Action To quantify the conservatism resulting from one-way action (as opposed to two-way behavior), the results of 30 walls that were originally analyzed by
'~
both strip and plate method were compared. Table 3 shows the results of this P
comparison. The moments obtained from plate analysis range from 3% to 84% of these obtained from one-way action. The Licensee indicated that a reduction u
of at least 15% to 20% can be realized due to the redistribution of loads to
{
I all four wall boundaries.
r1 Damping Values Some of the affected walls were originally analyzed using damping values
~
lower than those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.60 (2% for OBE and 4% for SSE as opposed to 4% and 7% by Reg. Guide 1.60).
The reanalysis used the values specified by NRC.
't Other Conservatisms The sources of conservatism described above were used by the Licensee in the reanalysis. In addition, the Licensee identified other conservatisms that existed in the original analysis of the walls but were not included in the i.r-reanalysis; they are summarized below:
o A modified floor response spectra: The floor response spectra were l
modified so that the peak acceleration was used for all frequencies f
below the peak frequency. Figure 10 illustrates this modification.
3 o
Moment combination: The maximum external moment and maximum seismic l
inertial moment are combined as an absolute sum regardless of their j.
location on the wall.
l!.
o Conduit loads: A significant portion of the external loads are the results of seismic consideration from conduit supports. The original analysis conservatively assumed that all conduits were loaded to maximum allowable fill. l t
TER-C5506-583 l
100 -
7119003 119002 80 -
L' 119001 n
d 60 - -
12
[,
PLAIN WIRE. Group A I
U eO Dia = 0.188 in 2 g
40 -
Area = 0.0278 in El Test Nos: 119001 Q
119002 119003 f
20.
54 f
0 l
i s
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 STRAIA - PERCENT
.n.
Figure 8.
Typical Stress-Strain Curves for Plain Wire [15],
,---.-,-,..,,,w
TER-C5506-583
. a l
PO 100 --
119413 lgg,4g g c.
119412 80 --
OEFORMED WIRE, Group E 60..
Dia. = 0.211 in (D3.5 ga) g Area = 0.035 in2 Test Mos: 119411 119412 0
II'"I3 g
40 --
m 20 --
l-0 l
l l
l 0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
(~
STRAIN - PERCENT i.
f Figure 9.
Typical Stress-Strain Curves for Deformed Wire [16]
l I j' l
TER-C5506-583 Table 3.
Comparison of Plate to Strip Analysis MA1.L 50.
REIG57/WIDTM REDOCT1001 FACTOR
- 1068 0.76 0.60 2207 1.27 0.36 2217 1.10 0.06 c_
306D 1.10 0.19 308D 2.44 0.07 r
309D 2.55 0.08 310D 2.44 0.08 3247 1.49 0.84 3357 0.64 0.79 L
33tD 2.61 0.08 4046 1.85 0.09 4137 0.65 0.03 5137 2.32 0.04 6037 1.90 0.27 lr-6097 4.54 0.27
{.
3016 1.29 0.41 3026 2.68 0.41 3036 1.27 0.41 3287 2.10 0.30 4036 1.38 0.29 2.68 O.42
[,
- },
1.43 0.i8 489
(-'
/ 311D 2.26 0.06 5207 0.74 3237 1.57 0.72 lP 2297 0.81 0.21 4026 1.42 0.60
.f
- The original analysis (strip analysis) results are multiplied with these factors to obtain results based on a plate analysis.
l l
1, I !.- -
TER-C5506-583 4
I im I
pg r LEGEND:
~ FRS l
FRS McDenED BY
'J gy pacGasu
.:)
l (s9 L-____
]
.+
N f
1.
Figure 10.
Representative Floor Response Spectra l -.
TER-C5506-583 3.
REANALYSIS RESULTS The Licensee performed a reanalysis using the above identified sources of conservatism.
Basically, the ratio of the calculated reinforcing stress and the allowable stress obtained based on the energy balance technique was modified by factoring appropriate percentages of conservatism (from each category specified above) into this ratio. The results are presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6.
The last column in each table shows the new ratio. Table 4 shows the results along with appropriate reduction factor for walls analyzed by a vertical strip analysis. Table 5 is for walls analyzed by a horizontal strip analysis, and Table 6 is for walls analyzed by a two-way action.
I It is noted that, except for five walls, all other walls have a ratio less than or equal to 1.
For these five walls, in addition to a two-way action analysis, the reevaluation considered the following:
l o
The floor response spectra based on Regulatory Guide 1.60 and 1.61 (0.2g) were used a
' J o
The minimum yield strength (vertical rebar) of 50.6 ksi was used for walls 1038, 2371, 5157, and 5197 and 53.6 ksi for wall 5367 l U o
More precise attachment loads were calculated for wall 2371 o
Modal response were combined inta SRSS fashion.
- [-.
i 9
The results of this reanalysis are iven in Table 7.
h I
x
(
l
n TER-C5506-583 Table 4.
Summary of Vertical Strip Analysis t
EIDUCTION FACTots aDJUE1HERI 10 MATG ACGPTANCE SE15KIC EIDUCID WA1.1.
Le ISI SEISNIC CRITERIA TIME SOUND MAT FI. ATE is NO.
Fall ORIENT DAMP. SSE 31810tf COND.
PROF. ANAI.YSIS PRODUCT W
.44 0.50
.8
.8
<m 2237 0.78 I
.51 0.43
.8
.8
.8 307D 0.85 W
.54 0.49 1420 0.91 3
.75
.9
.8 0
2067 1.02 N
.7
.7
.85
.8
.O
.29 0.30
.31 0.32 g.
1987 1.03 5
.7
.7
.85 Caet.
.8
.64 0.G6
.0
.8 1147 1.03 N
.64 0.67
.8
.8 1337 1.05 E
64 0.68
.8
.8 2247 1.07 E
.64 0.71 tS
.8 2317 1.11 5
.8
.8
.64 0.76 2177 1.19 E
.54 0.66
.35
.8
.8 2107 1.22 N
48 0.60
.8
.8 c
1348 1.26 I
.75
.48 0.07
.85 Caat.
.8 2337 1.28 N
.64 0.83
.8
.8 liff 1.30 E
.64 0.93
.8
.8 305D 1.46 E
=
=
.64 0.93
.8
.8 3.
4087 1.46 I
.27 0.40 2277 1.48 N
.7
.7
.35
.8
.8
.64 0.99
.8
.8 y
2447 1.55 E
a
.64 1.00
.8
.8 5147 1.56 E
.8
.8 0.84
.54 0.04 4917 1.58 E
.58 0.93
.9
.O
.8 2010 1.60 N
0
.29 0.44 2007 1.65 N
.7
.7
.85
.0
.8
.51 0.86
.8
.8
.8 3367 1.69 R
.29 0.54
.8
.8 2057 1.72 I
.7
.7
.8
.8 0.84
.54 0.95 2367 1.77 E
b 3257 1.84 E
.7
.7
.31 0.57
.8
.8
.85
.0
.8
_0.54 46 0.86 U
2257 1.88 N
.97(2)
.8
.8 0.04
.52 0.99 3227 1.90 P.
48 0.94
.8
.8 1227 1.95 I
.75 68 0.95
.8
.8 f
1267 1.97 I
.75
' ['
3127 1.97 N
,.8 *
.0
.8 0.84 43 0.85
.25 0.51 313D 2.02 N
.7
.7
.8
.8
.8
.93(2)
.8
.8 0.84
.50 1.02 3017 2.03 3
.8
.8
.8 0.84 43 0.89 3267 2.07 N
.29 0.59 2147 2.21 N
.7
.7
.85
.8
.8
.93(2)
.8
.8 0.84
.50 1.10(1) 3197 2.21
.I
.8
.0
.8 0.04 43 0.97 l
3107 2.25 N
.68(2)
.0
.O 0.84
.37 0.87 l
3407 2.39 5
[
3277 2.42 N
.79(2)
.8
.8 0.84 42 1.01 1
n07 2..,
I
.8
.8 0.u
.=
0.07
.7
.8
.8 0.84
.54 1.39(1) 1938 2.58 E
.8
.8
..S 0.84 43 1.19(1) 2371 2.79 R
.27 0.93 1237 3.49 it
.7
.7
.35
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8 0.84 43 1.32(1) 3157 3 07 N
1.
See Table 7.
2.
Reduction based on comparison of floor-specific response spectra.
3.
This ratio was obtained from the original analysis where fs = calculated stress and Fall = allowable stress (0.9 fy = 36 ksi).
l 1.. _
1 r.
,e TER-C5506-583 Table 5.
Summary of Horizontal Strip Analysis RIBUCTION FACTORS ADJUB AHrJU A 10 MATG 4
ACCEPTANG SEISMIC REDUCED WALI.
Le SEISKIC CRITERIA TIME BOUND MAT PLATE fa L.
30.
Fall CRIENT SAMP. SSE EISTURT ODED.
FROP. ARALYSIS FB000CT "Ta'lT~
.29
( 0.23 4106 0.77 E
.7
.6
.7 3347 0.86 5
.7
.7 0.60-
.7 0.64 j
U-1157 0.91 E
.7
.7 2427 0.97 I
.7 0.64
=
3177 0.98 I
.7
.7 0.69
- T-3167 1.03 5
.7
.7 0.72
. I 3107 1.07 E
.7
.7 0.75 1
.7
.7 0.77 2267 1.10 N
.6 0.70
.85
.7 2227 1.17 5
.7
.7 0.90
[2 2077 1.29 I
.7
.7 0.90 4447 1.40 I
.85
.7
.84
.5 0.97 2167 1.91 3
.84
.44 0.09
.7 3417 2.00 5
.75 3397 2.35 I
.7
.7
.7
.34 0.80
.84
.59 1.99 (1)
.7 l
3367 3.16 I
.7
'j 6107 3.39 I
.7
.7
.84
.29 0.97 (1) See Table 7 1
O l r i
l. - - - _ _
f TER-C5506-583 I
Table 6.
Summary of Two-Way Analysis t
EIDUCTION FACTORS ADJinansma TO BATCE ACCEPTANG SE!!SC REDOCTION REDUCED Ball CRITICAL Le SEIENIC Ct1TE11A TIEE SOUND BAT FOR FIATE fe
. 30.
BIRECTION Fall SEIENT. SAMP. SSE E18T087 ODED. PROF. AEALYSIS PRODUCT Fall
.8 0.83
.8 3277 5
1.04 E
.5 0.85
.8 3287 5
1.06 I
.8
'Ral?
.8 3357 E
1.09 I
=
=
48 S.5T
.6
.8 4046 T
1.16 I
.8 T3T
.8 A867 5
1.26 5
.51 0.71
.5
.8
.8 3836 V
1.39 5
45 Sal) 311D E
1.54 5
.7
.7
.4
.8
.6 0.97
.75
.8
.l 4796
- 1.61 3
3297 5
d'
.8
.8
.5 0.84
.43 0.95 4886 T
2.21 5
4096
.8
.8
.8 8.84
.63 1.00 4036 V
2.34 5
.34 0.88
.7
.6
.8 304D E
2.6l!
E (7
~
la O
f f
.m 1
P I
't l
l l l
l TER-C5506-583 Table 7.
Sunnary of Review of Specific Walls by Plate Analytical Techniques WALL NO.
VERTICAL SPAN BORIZONTAL SPAN MAX. RERAR MA1. MASONRY MAX. REBAR MAK. MASONRY STRESS (ESI)
STRESS (ESI)
STRESS (KSI)
STRESS (ESI) r
~
1038 0.15 0.01 2.47 0.01 2371 19.87 0.48 20.79 0.16 5157 1.05 0.09 11.62 0.09 m
O.40 10.07 0.08 T
5197 16.47 5367 6.63 0.16 58.68 0.36 I
4 l
,A l
=
l I
i l
l l
TER-C5506-583 4.
EVALUATION OF THE LICENSEE'S REANALYSIS Based on the information provided by the Licensee, the following assessments are made:
o Boundary Conditions Since the walls are vertically and horizontally re'inforced and r
anchored along the boundaries, it is expected that the connections at the boundary are able to transfer some amount of moments. The calculated moments obtained based on simply supported conditions in the original analysis will result in a conservative estimate. The
,3 Licensee also indicated that these supports were checked to verify J-their structural capacity; therefore, the Licensee's approach is considered adequate and satisfactory.
o F.aterial Properties Vertical Rebar: As indicated by the Licensee, the test results of
=
the vertical rebars demonstrated that the steel yield strength is higher than the minimum specification. In a number of other nuclear plants, the test results also showed somewhat similar results. It is
,~
(
judged that the minimum test value used in the reanalysis is J
reasonble.
Dur-O-Wall: Stress-strain curves provided in Figures 8 and 9 show
~
that the steel strength has yielding in excess of 60 ksi.
It is noted that for reinforced walls meeting the minimum reinforcement requirements of ACI 531-79 codes, the joint reinforcement can be used l
as a tensile-resisting element. However, the analysis should follow j
the working stress design method, and stress in joint reinforcement should remain within 30 ksi.
[.
The major concern associated with joint reinforcement is the lack of applicable test data to determine ductility, bond and anchorage capacity, and strength degradation of joint reinforcement.
~
Based on the reanalysis results provided by the Licensee, it was learned that a total of 21 walls were qualified with stress in the Dur-O-Wall higher than 30 ksi.
Eight walls have stresses that vary between 30 ksi and 40 ksi, 8 walls have stresses that vary between 41 ksi and 50 ksi, and 5 walls have stresses that vary between 51 ksi and 54 ksi. All of these l
walls have vertical reinforcement (2 #5 at 16 in) and Dur-O-Wall at every course. The walls are either fully or partially grouted.
Physical restraints exist all around the walls. The walls are considered to be well constructed and anchored.
Since the walls are well constructed and anchored and the test I
results show a steel yield strength in excess of 60 ksi with l
indication of some ductility, it can be concluded that the use of l 1
o TER-C5506-583 joint reinforcement as a tensile-resisting element in Davis-Besse Unit 1 reinforced mansonry walls meets the intent of the SGEB criteria and that the concerns associated with joint rein'orcement f
have been resolved.
o Plate Actions It is expected that the actual walls (where restraints exist around the wall's boundaries) will experience a two-way action, and therefore, the one-way assumption will result in a conservative p
estimate. It is therefore reasonable to account for this in the reanalysis.
o Seismic Input As discussed in Section 2, the floor response spectra generated from d
the seismic analysis of the main structures were conservative and
' fM ~
y therefore the original analysis of the wall also resulted in a conservative estimate. In addition, for a wall frequency lower than the frequency of the peak spectra, the peak spectra were used in the g
analysis.
It is judged that the removal of the conservatism associated with input motion is acceptable.
o Damping Values d
As discussed in Section 2, in the reanalysis, damping values specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61 were used (instead of lower damping values used in the original analysis). Since these values are in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.61, they are in compliance with the SGEB criteria.
[
d.
P.
TER-C5506-583 5.
CONCLUSIONS The Licensee's reanalysis of a total of 74 walls originally qualified by the energy balance technique has been reviewed.
Based on the information provided by the Licensee, the following sources of conservatism have been identified and used to reduce the stress levels in the walls:
o Boundary conditions o
Material properties o
Two-way action vs. one-way action o
Seismic input
- j o
Damping values.
f-The working stress method has been used in the reanalysis, and stress results have been significantly reduced. Therefore, the energy balance technique is no longer needed.
Each of the above items has been reviewed and judged to be adequate (as discussed in Section 4).
J With regard to the joint reinforcement, as discussed in Section 4, a total of 21 walls were qualified with stress in the Dur-O-Wall in excess of 30 ksi. These walls have vertical reinforcement (2 #5 at 15 in) and Dur-0-Wall at every course. The walls are either fully or partially grouted and well anchored all around the boundary. In addition, test results show that the steel yield strength is in excess of 60 ksi with indication of some ductility.
Therefore, it is concluded that the use of joint reinforcement as a tensile-resisting element in Davis-Besse Unit I reinforced masonry walls meets the intent of the SGEB criteria and the concerns associated with joint reinforcement have been resolved.
.P u
i 1, _-
TER-C5506-583 6.
REFERENCES 1.
" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, 08-May-80 2.
R. C. Crouse Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.
Subject:
Delay in Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 7
Toledo Edison, 30-Jun-80 Serial No. 1-149
_[i.
3.
R. C. Crouse l
Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.
Subject:
Response to Items 1, 2a and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1
~
Toledo Edison, 14-Jul-80 Serial No. 1-150 4.
R. C. Crouse Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.
Subject:
Response to Item 2b and expanded response to Item 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 for Davis-Besse 7 -
Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 J
Toledo Edison, 04-Nov-80 Serial No. 1-169 5.
R. C. Crouse Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.
Subject:
Delay in Completing Re-evaluation required by IE Bulletin 80-11 Toledo Edison, 15-May-81 Serial No. 1-200 6
R. C. Crouse Letter to J. G. Keppler, NRC.
Subject:
Final Report for IE Bulletin 80-11 (Attached)
Toledo Edison, 29-Sep-81 Serial No. 1-217 7.
R. C. Crouse f
Letter to J. F. Stolz, NRC.
Subject:
Response to Request for i
Additional Information Concerning Masonry Wall Design - IE Bulletin 80-11 Toledo Edison, 16-Jun-82 8.
R. C. Crouse Letter to J. F. Stolz, NRC.
Subject:
Schedule for Completion of Masonry Wall Modifications - IE Bulletin 80-11 Toledo Edison, 14-Jul-82,
TER-C5506-583 9.
R. P. Crouse Letter to J. F. Stolz, NRC
Subject:
Response to Action Items Resulting from Meetings of June 21, 22, and 23, 1983 Toledo Edison, 19-Aug-83 10.
S. Triolo and V. Con
" Masonry Wall Design - Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1" Franklin Research Center, Technical Evaluation Report TER-C5506-163, November 27, 1984 r
~
Safety Evaluation Report, Masonry Wall Design, IE Bulletin 80-11, 11.
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Docket No. 50-346, Structural and Geothechnial Branch, Structural Engineering Section A 12.
SGEB Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evalution, Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch of the NRC
.[J 13.
J. Williams, Jr.
Letter to J. F. Stolz (NRC)
T
Subject:
" Masonry Wall Re-Evaluation Response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Davis-Besse Nuclear Response Power Station Unit 1" September 23, 1985 Serial No. 1183 d
14.
J. Williams, Jr.
Letter to J. F. Stolz, (NRC) g
Subject:
" Masonry Wall Re-Evaluation Response to IE Bulletin 80-11,
[]
Davis-Besse Nuclear Response Power Station Unit 1" December 17, 1985 Serial No. 1219 0
15.
" Investigation of Stress-Strain Characteristics of Plain Wire," Wire Reinforcement Institute, Wi, Janney, Elstner & Associates, September 7
1969 J
16.
" Investigation of Stress-Strain Characteristics of Plain Wire," Wire Reinforcement Institute, Wi, Janney, Elstner & Associates, October m
1969 1
0 F l
.- __.