ML20213E341
| ML20213E341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1986 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-60090, NUDOCS 8611130113 | |
| Download: ML20213E341 (2) | |
Text
i D
November 4, 1986 DISTRIBUTION DocketNos.50-27/5'
' Docket File B. Grimes and 50-323 NRC PDR J. Partlow Local PDR N. Thompson i
PD#3 Rdg.
H. Schierling C. Vo T. Novak ACRS(gan 10)
OGC Mr. J. D. Shiffer, Vice President E. Jordan Tech Branch Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing N. Chokski Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
SUBJECT:
LICENSE CONDITIONS FOR MASONRY WALLS The staff has compeleted its evaluation of information you provided regarding the subject. The staff was assisted in this effort by consultants from the Franklin Research Center (FRC). The staff evaluation, including the FRC Technical Evaluation Report TER-C5506-648 (non-proprietary and proprietary version), is enclosed.
(Non-proprietary version only to Service List).
Based on our review we have concluded that the energy-balance technique as applied to the masonry walls at the Diablo Canyon Plant is acceptable. On this basis we conclude that the masonry walls are appropriately qualified and the requirements set forth in the conditions of the full power licenses for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Unit 2 (License Conditions 2.C.(10) and 2.C.(7),
respectively) have been satisfied.
Sincerely, Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PD#3 PD#3 OGC Pd CVogan*
HSchierling*:mak LChandler*
S rga 10/20/86 10/27/86 10/29/86
/
8 D
NMEMAh e
\\.
.6 DISTRIBUTION Docket Nos. 50-273 Docket File B. Grimes and 50-323 NRC PDR J. Partlow Local PDR N. Thompson PD#3 Rdg.
H. Schierling T. Novak C. Vogan 0GC ACRS(10)
Mr. J. D. Shiffer, Vice President E. Jordan Tech Branch Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing N. Chokski Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
i
SUBJECT:
LICENSE CONDITIONS FOR MASONRY WALLS'
,/
/
The staff has compeleted its evaluation'of information you provided regarding the subject. The staff was assisted in this effort by consultants from the Franklin Research Center (FRC). Thi staff evaluation, including the FRC Technical Evaluation Report TER-C5506-648 (non-proprietary and proprietary version), is enclosed.
(Non-proprietary version only to Service List).
Based on our review we have' oncluded that the energy-balance technique as applied to the masonry walls at the Diablo Canyon Plant is acceptable. On this basis we conclude.cthat the masonry walls are appropriately qualified and the requirements set forth in the conditions of the full power licenses for Diablo Canyon Unit I and Unit 2 (License Conditions 2.C.(10) and 2.C.(7),
respectively) have been met and, therefore, are resolved.
Sincerely, Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PD#3 PD#3 C
PD#3 CVogan*
HSchlerling:mak LChandler SVarga 10/ /86 10/pV86 10/%/86 10/ /86
I r.
6 DISTRIBUTION Docket Nos. 50-273 Docket File B. Grimes-and 50-323 NRC PDR J. Partlow Local PDR
,N;' Thompson PD#3 Rdg.
' / H. Schierling T. Novak C. Vogan E. Jordan'/-
ACRS(10) 0GC Tech Branch Mr. J. D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing N. Chok' ski Pacific Gas and Electric Company
/
77 Beale Street, Room 1451
/
San Francisco, California 94106
/'
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
SUBJECT:
LICENSE CONDITIONS FOR MAS 0 Y WALLS The staff has compeleted its evaJuation of information you provided regarding the subject. The staff was assisted in this effort by consultants from the Franklin Research Center (FRC)'. The staff evaluation, including the (non-proprietary and proprietary versions), FRC Technical Evaluation Report, TER-C5506-648, is enclosed,/ (Non-proprietary version only to Service List).
Basedonourreviewwe.ha/
ve concluded that the energy-balance technique as applied to the masonry walls at the Diablo Canyon Plant is acceptable. On j
this basis we conclude that the masonry walls are appropriately qual-ified and Diablo Canyon Uni,t'Vforth in the conditions of the full power licenses for the requirements se l and Unit 2 (License Conditions 2.C.(10) and 2.C.(7),
respectively) have been met and, therefore, are resolved.
Sincerely,
/
/
/
Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page PD#3 W PD#3 OGC PD#3 CVogan HSchier ing:mak LChandler SVarga 10/go/86 10/%/86 10/ /86 10/ /86
l 's 6
NON-PPOPRIETARY VERSION OF TECHNICAL EVAltlATION REPORT TER-C5506-648 (deletion of Proprietary Information indicated by bar in margin) 7h7ZWAG+ scoff.
\\
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN MASONRY WALL Dr.;bibr4 FACIFIC GAS M!D ELECTRIC COMFM;Y DIABLO CM;YO! UNITS 1 N:D 2 TER-C5506-648 l
TECHNICAL REPORT l
\\
l 20TH & RACE STREETS PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 TWX 710 6701889 TEL (215) 448-1000 r
- -.. - - - - - - -.. - - - - - ~ - - - -, - - -.
8, TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT NRC DOCKET NO. 50-275, 50-323 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO.
FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81 130 FRC TASK 648
]
MASONRY WALL DESIG!
ad FACITIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.V.PA!;Y DIABLO CANYO!: UNITS 1 A!D 2 TER-C5506-648 I
I Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission FRC Group Leader:
V. Cor.
Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Lead Engineer:
N. Chokshi I
July 24, 1986 I
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the Unitec States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of therr Il employees, makes any warranty, expressed or Implied, or assumes any legat liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
i Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
ftt }lbtAILf $N
$ ker (r y
ju Principal Author U
U' k k Department D/ ecto /
Date: 7,/24/%
7-24-9&
Date:
7-24-66 Date:
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER OlVIsloN OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 30tPI & RAfl $ttilf t Ptol6ADEL mA 84 19103 8
l
TER-C5506-645 g
CONTDJTS Section Title Fa;e 1
INTRODUCTION 1
2 PIN.'T-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND 3
3 EVALUATION CRITERIA.
6 4
LICENSEE'S CRITERIA.
7 i~
5 DIERGY BALANCE TECHNIQUE 8
6 CORRELATION STUDY 9
6.1 SONGS-1 Test Panels 9
6.2 Comparison of Results.
10 6.3 Evaluation of the Correlation Study 10 7
APPLICABILITY OF THE D;IRGY BALANCE TECID IQUE TO DIABLO CANYON MASONRY WALLS.
13 8
CONCLUSIONS 14 9
REFERENCES.
15 APPD! DIX A - EVALUATION OF THE LICDJSEE'S RESPONSES TO ACTION ITD'.S RESULTING i
FROM THE OCTOBER 1984 MEETING g
APPDJDIX B - EVALUATION OF THE LICD;SEE'S RESPONSES TO ACTION ITD'.S RESULTING FROM THE NOVEMBER 1985 MEETING g
APPENDIX C - " EVALUATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DIERGY BALANCE TECFD*IOUE q
TO MASONRY WALLS AT DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT," TECID;ICAL REPCRT PREPARED BY DR. A. HAMID APPD! DIX D - SAMPLES OF WALL MODIFICATIONS iii o
TER-C5506-645 g
TORra'ORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission (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.
I I
I I
I a
V l
o
i TER-C5506-642 1.
INTRODUCTION In an effort to respond to the IE Bulletin 80-11 and as a part of the license conditions, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted its seismic evaluation of the reinforced masonry walls to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and evaluation. Bechtel Power Corpor-tion (BPC), San Francisco was the Architect / Engineer and consultants for PG&E. Franklin Research Center (FRC) was retained by the NRC to review and assess the Licensee's submittals.
Dr. A. H. Hamid of Drexel University was retained by FRC to evaluate the energy balance technique (EBT) used in qualifying masonry walls in the plant.
This report represents FRC's evaluation and assessments based on review of the Licensee's submittals, other published literature, and test data relating to this subject. The report also reflects the results of two I
meetings with PG&E regarding safety issues of masonry walls in the plant.
The main body of the report consists of the following sections.
o Plant-specific background o
Evaluation criteria o
Licensee criteria o
Energy balance technique o
Correlation study I
o Applicability of energy balance technique to the Diablo Canyon masonry walls The following appendices are also included with the report:
APPD.' DIX A - Evaluation of the Licensee's Responses to Action Items q
Resulting from the October 1984 Meeting APPD.' DIX B - Evaluation of the Licerisee's Responses to Action Items Resulting from the Novembec 1985 Meeting APPD.* DIX C - " Evaluation of the Applicability of the Energy Balance Technique to Masonry Walls at Diablo Canyon Power Plant,"
Technical Report Prepared by Dr. A. Hamid APPD.' DIX D - Samples of Wall Modifications.
=_
._=._
r, t
TER-C5506-648 PG&E relied on the results of a test program conducted by Southern California Edison Cortpany for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (SONGS-1) to validate th6 anergy balance technique.
Results of the test I
program are considered proprietary information. As such, Sections 6 through 9 l
and Appendices A, B, and C of this report are proprietary information.
4 I
II i
'e i
!E 4
!B 4
i
!I
,I I
i a
j
'S f
1
,i i
- l A
i
- l l
?
.----.--r,.--.._,-,y..n,w, w.-.-y,.m_.-_
,,- w w
,-ve.r_,w,,~
e, 4
TER-C5506-642 2.
PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND Facility Operating Licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82 for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 have a license condition regarding the structural integrity of masonry walls, which requires satisfactory resolution prior to start-up following the first refueling outage. In the evaluation of masonry walls at Diablo Canyon t-Units 1 and 2, PG&E employed the so-called energy balance technique (EBT).
This technique was used when seismic loads caused flexural stresses in excess of working stress allowables specified by the NRC criteria [1].
This technique was presented in a submittal dated September 26, 1984 [2]
and also discussed in an audit meeting in October 1984.
In this meeting, PGLE presented some preliminary results of a correlation study in which results generated by the EBT were compared with those obtained from a test program conducted by Southern California Edison Company for SONGS-1. As a result of the audit meeting, PG&E was requested to provide additional information to substantiate the adequacy of the EBT, including three specific items to be investigated.
It is worth noting that the NRC staff and its consultants have conducted an exhaustive review of this subject based on submittals provided by the Licensee and published literature and have concluded that the available data in the literature do not give enough insight for understanding the mechanics and performance of reinforced masonry walls under cyclic, fully reversed dynamic loading. As a result, a meeting with representatives of the affected plants was held at the NRC on November 3, 1982 so that the NRC could explain why the applicability of the EBT to masonry walls in nuclear power plants is questionable (3).
In a subsequent meeting on January 20, 1983, l
consultants of utility comparies prksented their rebuttals (4) and requested l
that they be treated on a plant-by-plant basis.
1
(
In accordance with the above request, NRC staff and its consultants l
visited several nuclear power plants to examine the field conditions of masonry walls in the plants and to gain first-hand knowledge of how the EET is l
applied to actual walls.
l Subsequent to the October 1984 meeting, PG&E engaged in a investigation i
using the results of masonry wall panel tests conducted for SONGS-1 to I
l correlate with those obtained by the EBT. Another meeting was held with the i
i !
e, t
TER-C5506-64E NRC staff and its consultants in November 1985 to discuss the results of this correlation study. Although the NRO staff found the PG&E approach to be promising, PG&E was requested to provide additional infortnation on ten items.
Evaluation of these items is provided in Appendix B of this report.
A final report documenting the correlation study was submitted in March 4
1986 (5). This report also contains responses to action items resulting from the October 1984 and November 1985 meetings.
The function of safety-related masonry walls at the Diablo Canyon plant is to act as non-bearing partitions or fire walls; they are not relied upon to I
resist tornado, missile, or building seismic loads. Safety-related systems attached to masonry walls are generally electric raceways, instrumentation, and fire protection piping.
All walls at the plant are single wythe, either 8 or 12 inches thick and are reinforced in both directions. All cells are fully grouted. Horizontally reinforced bond beams are generally used.
I Construction materials are as follows:
o Vertical Reinforcing:
- 4 at 16-inch spacing for 8-inch wall
- 5 at 16-inch spacing for 12-inch wall o
Horizontal Reinforcing:
'M Two 44 at 32-inch spacing for 8-inch wall Two #5 at 32-inch spacing for 12-inch wall U
~
o Masonry Units Open-ended units conforming to ASTM C-90, Grade A.
The average compressive strength of tested blocks is 3830 psi on net cross-sectional area, o
Grout The grout has a minimum specified compressive strength of 2000 psi. The average tested compressive strength is 3285 psi.
o Mortar Mortar type 5 conforms to ASTM-C270.
TER-C5506-64E e,
t Where required, horizontal restraint is provided at the top and/or sides of the walls. At the base of the walls, restraint is provided by cast-in rebar dowels or rebar dowels threaded into expansion anchors. Compressible joint filler is provided at the top and side of the walls where they abut reinforced concrete or structural steel.
A number of walls required modifications so that they could satisfy the working stress method or the EBT. The modifications consist of steel angles at the edges and/or vertical or horizontal steel stiffeners. Typical modifications are provided in Reference 4 and reproduced in Appendix D of this
}
report.
I I
I l
l LO e
a
TER-C 5506-6 4 8
's 4
3.
EVALUATION CRITERIA The basic documents used for guidance in this review were the criteria developed by the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) of the NRC [1], the Uniform Building Code (6), and ACI 531-79 [7].
The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection of safety-related concrete masonry structures should conform to the SGEB criteria. For operating plants, the loads and load combinations for qualifying the masonry walls should conform to the appropriate specifications in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the plant. Allowable stresses I
are specified in Reference 7, and the appropriate increase factors for l
abnormal and extreme environmental loads are given in the SGEB criteria.
6 I
I l
8 e l
_..,,_w.,
.-7
e, TER-CEE:6-64E 4.
LICDJSEE'S CRITERIA The Licensee evaluated the masonry walls using the following criteria:
o Design allowables are based on ACI 531-79 and the UBC 1979 Edition for inspected masonry.
o Damping values are as follows:
5*4 for uncracked section 7* for cracked reinforced section, 4
Both one-way action and two-way action are used in the analysis.
o 6
o Interstory drift effects are derived from the dynamic analysis of the building wherein the walls are located.
I l
Cracking moment was based on the transformed area of masonry and cell o
grout. Masonry and mortar in tension were neglected.
I o
Block pullouts were considered in the analysis.
g Both the working stress design method and the EBT were employed in o
the evaluation, o
The criteria of the EBT are as follows:
If the predicted displacement exceeds three times the yield displacement, a factor of 2 is multiplied to the predicted p
displacement and a check is conducted to determine if the displacement may adversely affect the intended function of safety-related items.
l The midspan deflection is limited to five times the yield displacement.
The masonry compressive stresses are limited to 0.85 f'm based en a rectangular stress distribution.
o The analytical approach is outlined in the following steps:
The wall is evaluated for the applicable load combinations using the working stress design method.
Calculated stresses are compared against those specified in ATI 531-79.
If calculated stresses exceed the allowable stresses, the energy balance technique is used to qualify the wall. -_
q TER-C5506-645 5.
D!ER3Y BA1.A!;;E TE0}C;IQUE The EST was used to predict the inelastic responses of reinforced walls which are well anchored and supported such that the brittle mode of failure is precluded. The rtethod seeks to approximate the out-of-plane inelastic response of a single-wythe reinforced masonry wall. This technique assumes an elasto-plastic behavior system in which the maximum energy attained beyond the elastic range is equal to the maximum elastic energy attained (as if the system was perfectly elastic).
The EST has been successfully applied to reinforced concrete that 8
possesses elasto-plastic load-deflection characteristics.
The analytical procedures follow the key steps outlined below:
o Determine the load-deflection relationship of the wall.
o Calculate the maximum out-of-plane inelastic displacement ductility of the wall.
H o
Convert the maximum displacement ductility of the wall to the traximu-inelastic strain ductility of the reinforcing bars.
o Check the compressive stress of the wall.
I
.t t
_g.
TER-C5505-6 4 5 6.
CORRELATION STUDY In an effort to validate the EBT and to determine its applicability to the Diablo Canyon walls, PG&E used the results obtained from a test prograr conducted by Southern California Edison Company for SON 3S-1 to correlate with predicted responses obtained by the EBT.
6.1 SONGS-1 TEST PANELS To better understand the correlation study carried out by PG&E, the SONGS-1 test panels are briefly described. Three types of panels were selected for the test program and they represented walls located in various l
buildings:
4 Wall Type 1 i
o Three specimens were tested:
1A,1B, and IC o
Test panel was 24 ft high o
No. 7 rebars at 32-in intervals o
Horizontal rebar 85 at 48-in intervals Wall Type 2 o
One specimen was tested:
2A o
Test panel was 16 ft, 8 in high o
Vertical rebar #4 at 32-in invertals o
Horizontal rebar 85 at 48-in intervals Wall Type 3 I
o Two specimens were tested:
3A and 3B o
Test panel was 21 ft, 4 in high o
vertical rebar e5 at 32-in intervals o
Horizontal rebar #5 at 48-in intervals.
The correlation study considered five test panels:
1A, IB, 1C, 2A, and 3B.
It is noted that test panel 3A was unsuccessful because of an actuator malfunction during the test and therefore was not included in the PG&E study.
Purther information regarding the SONGS-1 test program is provided in Reference 8.
_g.
g ZER-C5506-645 6.2 COMPARISON OF RESULTS Results of the five test panels were compared with those obtained based on the EST. Material properties used in the analysis were based on the measured actual material properties of the test program. The accelerations were based on the average of the top and bottom test input accelerations. As shown in Table 6-1, the following parameters are being compared:
maximum displacement maximum rebar strain cuctility.
Table 6-1 shows the analytical prediction for both pin-pin and pin-fixed conditions.
6.3 EVA:.UATION OF THE CORRELATION STCY As discussed above, the test results are in close agreement with the predicted displacements, and the EBT resulted in a conservative estimate for the predicted rebar ductibilities.
i
. Proprietary Information Deleted I
- - - - - - - - -.. ~ -.. -,. - - -
a-----
TER-C5506-645 e,
Table 6-1.
3tpetter Of Couerattler of an.tvitCAL etsutf 5.)
f talt0 (>s 1RAmlFO.57 at$ULil U$lesG lat infilaL CAaCat< soninf CA atify tilfM 18
'8tt LMC4A3tc littt> WIfM liwstoa SICE 08 TMt OLOCa attutto fleslaw Defl titoa Am,(in.)
Beier Duttlltip, y. g /s,
pt..sve.4 tairmlated h t_ m.
p.g.,,in.4 tat + eater fe w I. a. tii.'t W.ritt.1 ftp f r*
Pe.1 S..a/
f.it Pea.1 teit type e i.e Pe.1 f.it Pia-# a Pla-fi 8 d tes. ins Pla-ein Pla.fie,d i
(d)
(6)
(t)
(d)(.)
(b) is)
I
- 4 fi. 0 ta./
ta 9.7 to 3 11.5 Il !
F7 9 32 sa.
18 II.S 10 9 13 0 12 1 IC 10.0 12.3 12.1 13 g 0.3 1.1 2
11 fi, O in./
ta (f)
- 4 9 32 la.
3 f t ti 0 ta./
30 (g) 4.4 f.9 9.0 3.9 aseitia.
(ei in.
.i,ii.i..t...
- 6..e.a act. t mei.r d mi.eist e
- itei.a4 th wit, er t teaii.a sitein ei er iiias is e, a e G eit m Asi.ia, eta-eia eretti a.a in. tw es beti-6 vas.*ies.
(il sis.ia, eia. iii
.a in. i..as ti..e.aviiin.a in. 6.ii. 6 aa.er.
(e) s.. ref..ac.
- r. 3. es 4 e., i.it e.a.1 tre e i. r, es 3 e.ie.< ti..i,.
(.) s.t., e,.iiiii,..is.i.i.4 tr. p. /s,..m.c.
...e.4 c.6.e s treia..ad i,. vi.is.* e 6.e sir.ta f e-es t.1 i=v5. i.ii.
(t)
(si
. Proprietary Information Deleted
ZER-C55 5-645 Regarding the cracking moment capacity based on an assumed transformed grout section on the tension side, PG&E provided the results (maximum displacements and rebar strain ductibility) using the cracking moment capacity of the gross section (including grout and block shell on the tension side) and the results show no significant difference between the two approaches.
Further information on this subject is provided in Appendix A.
It is concluded that the correlation study demonstrates the adequacy of the EBT. The applicability of the EET to the Diablo Canyon walls is discussed in the next section.
I Proprietary Information Deleted
e, TER-C55 M-6 4 E 7.
APPLICABILITY OF THE DIERGY BALANCE TECHNIQUE TO THE DIABLO CANYON MASONRY WALLS The EBT has been employed to qualafy the masonry walls in both Units 1 and 2 of the Diablo Canyon plant. The analytical procedures and the criteria are outlined in Sections 4 and 5.
An examination of the SON 3S-1 and the Diablo Canyon walls shows that they have similarities in wall thickness (8 ;nches), running bond, same masonry block unit, same reinforcement pattern, same mortar type, masonry compressive strength, grout compressive strength, moment of inertia for cracked section, and cracking moment capacity. In addition, the Diablo Canyon walls have a few features that are better than those of the SONGS-1 walls: fully grouted vs I
partially grouted, more favorable rebar distribution (16-in vs 32-in spacing),
and closer bond beam spacing.
In addition, the midspan displacement is limited to five times the yield displacment; if the predicted displacement exceeds three times the yield displacement, a factor of 2 is mulitiplied to the predicted displacement and a I
check is performed to determine if the displacement may adversely affect the intended function of safety-related items.
PG&E indicated that the maximum displacements are small (in the order of 1 inch) and verified that there is no adverse affect on a safety function of safety-related items.
It is judged that the Diablo Canyon walls have construction and I
structural characteristics similar to SONGS-1 walls and that the correlation study discussed in the previous section his demonstrated acceptable results predicted by the EBT.
It is concluded that the EBT is applicable to the Diablo Canyon walls.
TER-C5506-64E 8.
CONCLUSIONS A detailed review was performed to provide a technical evaluation of the masonry walls at the Diablo Canyon plant.
Review of the Licensee's criteria and particularly the energy balance technique led to the follo<ing conclusior.s:
o The Licensee's criteria have been evaluated and judged to be adequate.
~
o With respect to the energy balance technique, the correlation study using the SONGS-1 test data has produced satisfactory results.
o The Diablo Canyon walls and SONGS-1 valls have similar wall construction details and engineering properties. As discussed in Section 7, the Diablo Canyon walls have a few features that are better than those of SONGS-1 walls:
fully grouted, more favorable I
rebar, and bond beam spacing.
In addition, the Diablo Canyon walls are well anchored and supported such that the brittle mode of failure is precluded. The maximum calculated displacement is small, on the i
order of 1 inch. The energy balance technique is judged to the applicable to the Diablo Canyon walls.
o The Licensee's approach to wall modification consist of steel angler I
at the edges and/or vertical or horizontal steel stiffeners. The modifications have been reviewed and found acceptable.
I I
I J
I f
I i
1
'o TER-C55:5-54E 9.
REFERDCES 1.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Standard Review Plant, Appendix A cf Section 3.8.4, h"JREG-0800 July 1981 2.
J. O. Schuyler (PG&E)
Letter with Attachments to G. W. Knighton (NRC)
Subject:
Evaluation of Masonry Walls in Accordance with IE Bulletin 80-11 Criteria September 26, 1984 3.
H. G. Harris and A. A. Hamid, " Applicability of Energy Balance Technique to Reinforced Masonry Walls." Department of Civil Engineering, Drexel University August 1982 4.
Computech Engineering Services, Inc., URS/Blume and Associates, and Bechtel Power Corporation, " Rebuttal to Applicability of Energy Balance Technique to Reinforced Masonry Walls," by Harris and Hamid February 1963 5.
J. D. Shiffer (PG&E)
I Letter with Attachments to S. A. Varga (NRC)
Subject:
Masonry Walls License Conditions - Final Report March 27, 1986 6.
Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials, 1979 7.
Building Code Requirements of Concrete Masonry Structures, American Concrete Institute, 1979, ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 l
8.
Technical Evaluation Report of Masonry Wall Design, Southern California 6
Edison Company, San Onofre Unit 1, Franklin Research Center, TER-C5506-4:5 August 20, 1985 i
APPENDIX A EVAI.UATION OF THE LICENSEE'S RESPONSES TO ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE y
OCTOBER 1964 MEETING g
!I
'i 1
.I I
T 4
i 2
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVl510N OF ARVIN CAL 5 PAN 20th & R A:t $TREET5.7Miu0f.PM A F-191:!
. 'r
a.
TER-C5506-54E During the design audits conducted in October 1984, the following concerrs were raised by the NRO staff and its consultants regarding the correlation study using SONGS-1 test data to validate the energy balance technique. These concerns are:
1.
The difference in the rebar yield length between the test data and the assumption used in the analysis and how this difference affects the ductility prediction.
2.
Validity of the elasto-plastic behavior stipulated by the energy balance technique in light of the SONGS-1 test results.
3.
Sensitivity of the energy balance technique with respect to the assumption of the initial cracking moment of walls.
PG&E provided information relating to the above concerns and they are summarized below:
I 1.
Rebar Yield Length and Ductility The Licensee assumed the yield length of the rebar As shown in Table 6-1 of Section 6, this assumption resulted in calculated rebar strain ductility ratios that are about twice the measured data.
If the yield length of the rebar is higher than the l
rebar strain ductility ratios will be closer to those obtained from the tests. Therefore, the assumption of yield length is conservative in l
terms of rebar strain ductility calculation.
2.
Inelastic Hysteretic Behavior of the Tested Walls PG&E generated a moment-curvature response hysteresis of test panel 1A I
for one cycle of response based on the test measurements of rebar strains and deformations (gap measurements). This loop is shown in Figure A-1.
Proprietary Information Deleted
D <5506-64:
M(htp/ft)
I 9
+ 9 (n d) l l
l Figure A-1.
Moment-Curvature Relationship for Test Panel 1A Proprietary Information Deleted
-2
TER-C5506-E45
, the proposed method resulted in a reasonable agreement with the test results and, therefore, the Licensee's response is considered to be adequate.
3.
Assumption of Initial Cracking Moment PG&E provided predicted results (maximum displacements and rebar strain ductility) using the cracking moment capacity of the gross section (including block shell and/or mortar bed joint on the tension side). The results show that they are not significantly different from PG&E's analysis in which the cracking moment capacity on the tension side was based on the transformed grout section only.
The Licensee's response has resolved this concern satisfactorily.
t I
(
l i
l A-3 Proprietary Information Deleted
APPENDIX B
~
EVALUATION OF THE LICENSEE'S RESPONSES TO ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE NOVEMBER 1985 MIETING j
l l
1 I
i 1
l J
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN C ALSPAN 20tn & RACE STREETS.PHILADELPM A ** 1910'
TER-C5506-645 The evaluation presented in this Appendix is based on PG&E's response to a list of action items resulting from a meeting with the NRC staff and its consultants on November 5, 1985.
Item 1:
Provide additional data for hysteresis loops (i.e., a few more " snapshots" of hysteresis loop for the pin-pin condition).
Response 1 PG&E provided five additional hysteresis loops obtained based on panel 1A test data. Figures B-1 through B-5 show these loops, and Figure B-6 presents the superimposed plots of all loops generated. Figure B-6 indicates a stable behavior of the wall.
PG&E's response is adeguate and satisfactory.
Item 2:
Discuss the correlation and conservatism in the energy balance approach in the light of differences between the assumed hysteresis loop in the ar.alytical approach and the test data.
Response 2 PG&E referred to the discussion given in its submittal dated March 27, 1986, which has been covered in Sections 6 and 7 of this report.
Item 3:
Consider bottom hinge effects in the correlation study by calculating the maximum rebar ductility for the bottom hinge.
Response 3 The results B-1 Proprietary Information Deleted
TER-C5506-6 4 5 e s te ns i
e; j - -
.+,
l l
Figure B-1.
Mornent-Curvature Relationship (Loop No.1) i B-2 Proprietary Information Deleted
TER-C55CE-E45 alw) woenes l
l l
l l
l I
i Figure B-2.
Moment-Curvature Relationship (Loop No. 2)
B-3 Proprietary Information Deleted
TER-C5506-645 N(a no l
- "'I
~
I
. e,_:
(
l I
i l
Figure B-3.
Moment-Curvature Relationship (Loop No. 3)
B-4 Proprietary Information Deleted
TER-C55CE-64E a n.or>
..o:a,m 4(AeC>ad) ene I
l l
l l
i i
Figure B-4.
Moment-Curvature Relationship (Loop No. 4)
I B-5 Proprietary Information Deleted f
TER{5505-645 s te or) l 1
l i.
i
. <me+
. _.1. _ _
-. ew i
t I
t 4
i I
Figure B-5.
Moment-Curvature Relationship (Loop No. 5)
B-6 Proprietary Information Deleted I
TER-C5506-64S als n1 gg
- e < * ~~)
I Figure B-6.
Moment-Curvature Relationship (Loop No. 6)
B-7 Proprietary Information Deleted
TER-C5506-648 a.
Table B-1 EX1 m RESAR DUCTILITY At 80TTOM MINGE Test From Panel Calculated by (nergy Salance Panel Test Data with Assumed Plastic Minge Length L L. 40 L = 6D L = BD 1A 23.7 16.1 1-B 24.3 16.5 12.6 1-C 26.0 17.7 13.5 kB 7.7 5.5 4.4 I
I l
l B-8 Proprietary Information Deleted l
TER-C5506-64E indicate a conservative estimate of the rebar ductility ratios.
PG&E's response is adequate and acceptable.
Item 4:
Provide quantitative arguments to substantiate the similarity between SONGS-1 and Diablo Canyon walls.
Response 4 In this response, PG&E provided information regarding wall construction (i.e., dimension, reinforcement, supporting boundaries), material properties, and engineering properties of both the SONGS-1 and DCPP plants. This i
information is shown in Table B-2.
As can be seen, similarities exist between SONGS-1 and the Diablo Canyon plant.
It is noted that the Diablo Canyon walls are fully grouted and have shorter vertical spans and closer bond beam spacing.
It is judged that the Diablo Canyon walls are similar to the SON 35-1 g
walls and, hence, the Licensee's response is acceptable.
1 Item 5:
Discuss the applicability of the plate action in the enargy balance technique.
I Response 5 e
j PG&E confirmed that plate action was not used in the energy balance technique, e
Item 6:
Provide clarification for five walls where Em = 1000 f'c was used (higher modulus based on the grout strength).
Response 6 PG&E performed a sensitivity study using the modulus of elasticity of 1000 f'm for five walls (T2-85-5, T2-85-6, 72-85-7, 72-85-8, and T2-107-1).
The results show insignificant changes in the displacement ductilities of the walls compared with those based on the value of 1000 f' (f'
is the grout strength); hence, this concern has been resolved.
B-9
M -C55 6-645 Table B-2.
CD0AR15> 0F $0h:5-1 AND DCPP E50NRY NAll.5 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Diablo Canyon Po.e.
(50h:5-1) Tests Plant (DCPP) h11 ceatteu tien Thickness 8 in. (noeinal = 7.625 in.) $ in. (nominal 7.625 in.)
Single or maltiple Single wythe Single wythe wytne B
Bonding Running bond Running bond Grouted cells Partially grouted Fully grouted (only bond beams and vertical cells with rebars are grouted)
Sond bean spating 9 48 in.
f 32 in.
Span length and Vertical spans of 17, 21, Vertical spans of 11 to 17 f t direction and 24 ft (panel types 3, 2, and 1)
Vertical reinforcing
- 5 f 32 in.
- 4 f 16 in.
bars Panel type 3 (typical all walls)
- 4 f 32 in.
Panel type 2
- 7 9 32 in.
Panel type 1 Norizontal reinforcing
- 5 f 48 in.
2 #4 f32 in.
bars Panel types 1, 2 and 3 (typical all walls)
Supporting boundaries Tcp Pin Pin Bottom F1:ed Pin B-10
TER-C550E-645 Table B-2.
(Cont)
CmPAR!som 0F $0%~5-1 AND DCPP MA50hRf MALLS San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Diablo Canyon Power (50%~.5-1) Test Plant (DCPP)
Wall Material Preeeeties Block unit weight Light weight: conforms Light weight: conferes g
to ATSH C90 Grade A to ATSH C90 Grade A Masonry com;ression 1.710 to 2030 pst 1.950 psi strength, f*a Grout compression 3.540 to 7.350 pst 3.288 psi strength, f'c Mortar compression Conforms with ASTM C270 Conforts with ASTM C270 I
strength. No a,
Reinforcing bar yield 54.500 to 62.900 pst
$1.400 psi strength, fy 1
Modulus of elasticity 1.71 106 to 2.03:106 pst 1.95x106 psi of masonry. E, Modulus of elasticity 3.39:106 to 4.89:106 pst 3.27:106 psg of grout. Eg Modulus of elasticity 27.1:106 to 29:106 pst 29x106 pst of steel. Es I
Wall feeineteine Pretecties l
Hosent of inertia for l
entracked section (based on l
transformed masonry section) 7 Including block in 392 to 408 ind/ft 502 in8/ft
.I tension (I )
t s
d d
Ignoring block in 146 to 178 in,/ft 348 in /ft tension (I't)
B-11
.m_m--:.
TER-C5506-64E Table B-2.
(Cont)
CD4 PAR 150m 0F 50N05-1 AND DCPP MA50hRY MALLS San Onofre haclear Generating Station Diablo Canyon Power (50h:5-1) Test Plant (DCPP) d d
Noment of inertia for 13.7 to 30.0 in /ft 13.0 in /f t tracked section. Icr Cracking moment capacity l
For section with block 1.16 to 2.10 kip-ft/ft 2.0 Lip-ft/ft in tension ignored. M r c
I Yleid moment 1.2 to 4.0 kip-ft/ft 2.2 kip-f t/f t tapacity. My I
l I
i i
B-12 I -
TER-C5506-E45 Item 7:
Discuss the shear transfer capacity for the walls where clip angles do not extend to the block but r:oy extend to the drypack.
Response 7 The Licensee stated that the drypack material has a minimum specified compressive strength of 4,000 psi, whereas the masonry compressive strength is 1950 psi, which was used for the drypack evaluation. The calculated shear stress for walls with drypack was compared with the ACI-531-79 code allowables a
and resulted in three groups with different safety of factors as described I
below:
Group I - all walls with a minimum safety of factor of 3.0 except 30 walls given in Groups II and III below Group II - 16 walls with a safety of factor between 2.0 and 3.0 Group III - 14 walls with a safety of factor between 1.4 and 2.0.
I PG&E strengthened Group III walls with vertical steel beams supported by the floor slab at the top and bottom of the beam. A typical detail of drypack connection is provided in Figure B-7.
It is judged that the top connections of these walls have adequate shear transfer capacity.
I Item 8:
9 Provide qualitative discussion on margins of the masonry walls.
t Response 8 PG&E provided the following information:
o The maximum allowable displacement of the walls is limited to 5 tires the yield displacement.
If the predicted displacement exceeds 3 times the yield displacerent.
o the resulting displacement is multiplied by a factor of 2 and adverse impact due to this displacement is investigated.
PG&E indicated that the maximum calculated displacement is on the order of 1 inch.
B-13
TER-C5506-645 i
Concrete or steel bea-I to 1\\ in, joint filler r
Clip angle g
y g
H 3
r v
Varies p.
[
l in.
((**
I m,on,, - g#,i; 9:: #
Drypack
$g.
9
/
Cell grout yg Rebar i
t T
3 0
Figure B-7.
Typical Details of Drypack Connection B-14
TER-C5505-6 4 5 Besed on the above inforwation, it is concluded that the Diablo Canyor.
walls have adequate structural margin to perform their intended functions.
Item 9:
Calculate the yield displacement from the SONGS tests and correlate against energy balance technique prediction.
Response 9 PG&E provided the yield displacements for test panels 1A, IB, and IC.
The measured data and the predicted values using the energy balance technique are given in Table B-3.
The results show close agreement and, therefore, the Licensee's response is acceptable.
Item 10:
Provide a list of the displacement ductilities for the Diablo Canyon walls to demonstrate that they are less than 3.0.
Response 10 Displacement ductility factors for walls in Units 1 and 2 are shown in Tables B-4 and B-5, respectively.
The Licensee reiterated that the maximum displacements are small (on the order of 1 inch).
The response is considered adequate.
B-15 Proprietary Information Deleted
TER-C5506-64E Table B-3.
Yield Displacement Comparison Test Yield Disclatement (in.)
Corsarison Egng_1 30NGS-1 Tests Enerav Balante Technioue E.B.T/ SONGS-1 Tests l
t n
B-16 Proprietary Information Deleted
TER-C55;6-645 ss Table B-4.
DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY FACTORS FOR UNIT 1 MASONRY M LLS Ductility Fatter less than 3.0 Duttility Factor of 3.0 to 5.0 Maximum Maximu-Hall Nu-ber Diselacement (in.)
Hall Nurber Diselate ent (in.)
9 A-3a 0.4 A-4d 0.5 A-3b 0.4 A-Sa 0.3 A-4a 0.3 A-5b 0.3 l
A-4b 0.3 A-6a 0.4 A-4c 0.2 A-6b 0.4 T-Bb 0.1 A-7a 0.5 I
T-8c 0.1 A-7b 0.5 T-9b 0.1 T-2a 0.7 T-9c 0.1 T-2b 1.1 T-10a 0.1 T-13a 0.4 1
T-10b 0.)
T-13b 0.4 T-10c 0.1 T-13c 0.4 T-12a 0.2 T-14a 0.4 I
T-12b 0.2 T-14c 0.4 T-12c 0.2 T-14d 0.5 T-23c 0.3 T-14e 0.5 i
T-23e 0.3 T-14f 0.4 T-23d 0.2 T-14g 0.4 T-14h 0.5
- a T-141 0.5
]
T-14j 0.4 T-16a 0.6 j
T-17a 0.4 i
T-17b 0.4 r
I B-17 l
l
TER-C5506-64E Table B-5.
DISPLACEMENT 00CTILITY FACTORS FOR UNIT 2 MSONRY MLLS Ductility Fatter Less than 3.0 Duttility Fatter of 3.0 to 5.0 Maximum Maximum Wall Nu-ber Diselacement (in.)
Hall Nu*ber Disclaterent (in )
e A2-100-1 0.2 A2-100-3 0.5 A2-100-2 0.2 A2-100-5 0.5 A2-100-4 0.3 A2-100-6 0.5 l
A2-100-7 0.3 A2-115-1 0.4 T2-85-17 0.2 A2-115-2 0.4 T2-107-7 0.2 A2-115-3 0.4 I
T2-119-1 0.2 T2-85-5 1.2 T2-119-9 0.4 T2-85-6 0.9 T2-119-26 0.1 T2-85-7 0.9 T2-140-1 0.2 T2-107-1 0.6 i
T2-140-8 0.3 T2-107-28 0.5 T2-140-11 0.2 T2-107-29 0.4 T2-107-32 0.5 i
T2-107-33 0.4 T2-107-34 0.5 T2-107-39 0.5 i
T2-119-2 0.5 T2-119-3 0.4 T2-119-4 0.4 g
T2-119-6 0.4
' }
T2-119-7 0.4 T2-119-8 0.4 il.:
0 B-18 I
APPENDIX C
~
" EVALUATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OT ENEROY BALANCE TECHSIQUE TO MASONRY WALLS OT DI ABLO CANYON POWER PLANT" o
BY A. HAMID, DREXEL UNIVERSITY b
f b
I 1
I I
I b
i.
6 FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARvlN CALSPAN 20th & RACE STREETS PHILACEiPH.A P= 191*!
+.
I i
l Technical Report on EVALUATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF ENERGY BALANCE TECHNIQLT TO MASONRY WALLS OF DIABLO CANYON POhTR PLANT Submitted to Dr. Vu Con Engineering Dept.
I Franklin Research Center Philadelphia, PA 19103
?
I by Dr. A. Hamid, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Drexel University Philadelphia, PA June 1986
- 1. INTRODUCTION PGendE used the energy belence technique es en alternative evoluetion methodology for quellfication of Diablo Congon reinforced block mesonry
^
wells for out-of-plane seismic loading. The method was used when the flexurel stresses in masonry end in steel rebers exceed IE Bulletin 80-11 g
working stress ellowables.
I The NRC and FRC Staff and consultants discussed the proposed methodology with PGendE Staff in e meeting held in Bechtel office in Sen Francisco on November 1984. The Staff requested that PGendE provide l
further documentations to substantiete the adequecy of the energy belence technique used to quelify masonry wells et Diablo Congon (1).
In en ettempt to confirm the adequecy of the energy belence technique, PGendE used the dynamic test results of mesonry wells performec by l
Southern Cellfornie Edison Company for Son Onofre Nuclear Generating Stetion Unit 1. The correlation study between the results obtained from I
the energy belence technique end the test results were discussed in e meeting et the NRC office in Bethesde on November 1985.
Additional information on certain items was requested.
It is the objective of this report to evaluete the correlation study conducted by PGendE and the opplicability of the methodology to Dieblo Canyon mesonry wells es presented in Ref. 2.
2
- 2. CORRELATION STUDY WITH SONGS-! DATA 2.1_ Scope Six well tests were completed in SONGS-1 mesonry well test progrem; three type 1 panel,( walls I A, IB and 1C ) one type 2 penel (well I
2A ) and two type 3 panels ( walls 3A and 38 ).
Well 3A test was unsuccessful because of ectuator malfunction. Therefore, the remeining I
five tests were selected for correlation study. Wells 2A and 38 did not exhibit en inelestic response during the test and therefore do not give good date for correlation study with the energy belence technique which is en inelestic enelysis. Therefore, wells I A, IB end 1C ere considered here for the evaluation of the correlation between test resuts end the results l
obtained from the energy belence technique. These tests had different input motions and the four wells exhibited inelastic response which provide edequete dete base for the correlation study 1
2.2.C.g.mperison of Anelutical and Test Results y
The comperison of the SONGS-1 test results for w311s l A, IB end IC l
l l
with the enelytical results obtained from the energy belence technique is i
presented in Table 41 of Ref.2. The comperison includes maximum well displacements and meximum reber strain ductilities et midspen of well panels inferred from the tests.
As shown, the maximum dispiecement predictions are in good agreement with the test results. Reber ductilty l
3
predictions are much higher then test values. This con be ettributed to the highly nonlineer strain distribution in the reber between bed joints end the sensitivity of test results to location of strain geges.
The predictions, however, ere conservative end well below the ellowable.
It is interesting to notice the close egreement between analytical and f
test results of well displacements despite of the fact that the energy belence technique is based on elastic-perfectig plastic response which is not the cose for reinforced mesonry walls (3). The peculier pinched hysteretic behevior of reinforced masonry walls (3), which have been confirmed by PGendE enelysis of SONGS-1 test results, suggests lower predicted maximum well displacement for the some energy demand.
2.3 Conclusion The correlation study shows that the energy belence technique was able to predict with reasonable occuracy maximum well displacements in the inelestic range under out-of-plene loading
- 3. APPLICABILITY TO DIABLO CANYON WALLS 3.1 Construction Details The methodology has been evolueted using SONGS-1 test panels A
compenson between these panels and Diablo Congon wells is presented in 4
{
i
_ ~ _ -. _.
Table 6.2 of Ref. 2. The comperison shows similarities in well thickness, number of wythes, cracking and yielding moment cepetities end reinforcement patterns. It is to be noted that Diablo Congon walls heve e few structurel features that are better then those of the SONGS-1 wells, mainly ; fully grouted cells and closer bond beem spacing. Therfore, it is
~
reesonable to conclude that Diablo Congon wells will have the some or 6
better energy absorption cepebility then SONGS-1 wells.
3.2 Noterial Properties I
PGendE conducted e peremeteric study of the effect of the El value on l
well response es requested by NRC and FRC staff and Consultents. The results show the insensitivity of the well response to different assumptions used in the calculation of well rigidity, El.
I 3.3 Stability of Hysterests looDs t
?
A i
Six hysteresis loops were developed from SONGS-1 test panel 1 A.
The superimposed plots of all the loops are shown in Fig. 6-6 of Ref. 2. It is shown that the hysteresis loops are tieble and there is no strength nor stiffness degredation of the wells having 3-5 displacement ductilty factors.
3.4 Well Disolocements and ductilities 5
Meximum well displacements and ductility factors are listed in Teble 6-3 of Ref. 2.
Maximum deflections ranging from 0.2 in. to 1.2 in. ere enticipeted which are very small compared to well height. Maximum lateral displacement to well height retio of 0.0056 is expected which is within the UBC ellowable of 0.006 for slender Icedbearing mesonry wells (4). These dispiecements are not expected to have any detrimentel effect on the operation of the safety related equipment etteched to Dieblo Cengon wells. Because of the small maximum displacements and the low reber ductilities, displacement ductility up to 5 is acceptable.
In cese of ductilities between 3 and 5 the resulting displacement was conservatively multiplied by 2 to evoluete the effect on the support and/or edjacent I
safety-related components or systems.
t l
3.5 Sheer CeDecity et the Supports t
The top connection is the critical element for sheer transfer to the I
floor siebs. The clip engles provided et the top ensure positive sheer i
a transfer mechenism. In cese the clip engles do not extend to the mesonry f
blocks the sheer cepecity of the connection was calculated based on four potentiel critical section. A minimum safety factor of 2.0 was obtained which is compatible with other mergins of safety in mesonry well evoluetion. For wells having factor of safety between 1.4 and 2.0 odequete steel beam connections are provided which ensure e reserve sheer cepecity l
l l
6 1
3.6 Setetu Norgins Adequate mergin of safety is ensured for Diablo Canyon walls. This :s based on the following design provisions:
1-Displacement ductilities are limited to 3 which is conservative for adequately reinforced fully grouted masonry well.
2-If the predicted displacement exceeds 3 times the yield dispiecement, the resulting displacement is multiplied by e f actor of 2 and a determination is made to check the function of the saf ety related equipment.
3-The meximum reber ductility is 6 which is well below the y
maximum alloweble of 40.
i 4-The maximum displacement to height ratio is 0.0056 which is well below USC code limit.
l
- 4. CONCLUSION i
l it has been shown that the energy belence technique provides adequete and conservative estimate of Diablo Congon well response to out-of-plene lateral loading. Based on' PGendE enelysis it is concluded that the safety-related mesonry walls et Diablo Cenyon units 1 and 2 will perform satisfactorily under earthquake loeds, thus assuring the integrity of supported or proximate safety-related equipment or systems.
7 s
1 I
5 REFERENCES 3
- 1. Hemid, A., ' Review of Mosonry Well Design-Diablo Congon Nucleer s
Power Plent,' Technical report, Franklin Research Center, Philadelphie, November 1984.
2.
Verification of Diablo Congon Energy Belance Technique Using i
SONGS-1 Masonry Well Tests." Pacific Ges and Electric Compeng, Sen Francisco, Merch 1986.
- 3. Harris, G., Hemid, A. and Con, V.,' Evoluotion of the Applicebility of Nonlineer Analysis Techniques to Reinforced Mesonry Wells in Nuclear Power Plants', Franklin Research Center, April 1964
- 4. " Uniform Building Code", Chapter 24, Internationel Conference of Building Of ficiels, Whitter, CA,1985 a
t i
)
8 l
1 l
l l
t
- e g, 6 APPENDIX D TYPICAL WALL MODIDICATIONS I
I I
i I
I I
I 1
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISCN OF ARVIN CALSPAN 20tn L RACE STREETS.PHILADELPH; A Va fSCL
.. ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
TER-C5506-64E
-I NEW WE' D CR
[
EX! STING STUO
/
-Q6, L.=., J N g v I
\\
EXIST. JOINT FlLLER
(
V RESTRAINT AT STRUCTUR A L STE E L i
I CONC. SLAS
}.~ i. '.I,,
ll OR WALL Y,
\\l Ex PAN 5 ION ANCiiCRS I
I RESTRAINT ANGLES (EKIST. OR NEW)
\\<
ExtST. JOINT FILLER RESTR AI NT AT CONC. CEI LI NG OR WALL t
l
.J i
{'
EX.!STIMG blocKWAL'
- sNbx s a w s c..,
W/EXPANSlOM ANc. Hoe,s REW -?.RU-5 o' -
- -w-,
v N N
A\\\\
\\"
[."-ll 1
!! :' [ (
EXIST. REBAR DOWEL IN li l'
"5 LUG-IN " ANCHOR RESTRAINT AT F LOOR SLAB Figure D-1.
Masonry Wall Edge Restraints D-1
TER-C5506-648 4*
l l
l I
ON CENTF_R g
g
\\
\\
A THRU-BOLTS x
" "' ^m
- x N i
A Exxx' i
'+
W 1
5 EYlST. OR NEW VERT, g
OR HORIZ. E%TERNAL 7
HELD EEAM I
ADOITIONAL TEE
~
3 I F: REQUIRED I
1 I
Figure D-2.
Vertical or Horizontal Steel Stiffener l
D-2
-