ML12213A352: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:LuDold. Timothy/11ý I/From: Sent: To: Cc: | {{#Wiki_filter:LuDold. Timothy | ||
/11ý I/ | |||
From: Sanchez Santiago, Elba 1. | |||
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 20111 7:38 AM To: Murphy, Martin; Lupold, Timothy; Cameron, Jamnes; Wilson, Adam; Kimble, Daniel; Rutkowski, John; Hills, David; Rezai, Ali; Gonzalez, Hipolito; Thorp, John; Haskell, Russell; Nolan, Ryan; Mahoney, Michael; Hernandez, Pete; Mitlyng, Viktoria; Chandrathil, Prema; Neurauter, James; Cardona-Morales, Pedro; Briley, Thomas; CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel; Zimmerman, Jacob; Thomas, George; Hoang, Dan; Logaras, Harral; Barker, Allan; Auluck, Rajender; Sheikh, Abdul; Lehman, Bryce; Morey, Dennis; Snyder, Amy; Wiebe, Joel; Bozga, John; Meghani, Vijay; Stone, AnnMarie; Smagacz, Phillip; Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource; Riley (OCA), Timothy; Jessup, William; Graves, Herman; Pires, Jose; Hogan, Rosemary; Case, Michael; Richards, Stuart; Manoly, Kamal; Orth, Steven Cc: Hiland, Patrick; Shear, Gary; OBrien, Kenneth; West, Steven; Reynolds, Steven | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
FW: Davis Besse Shield Building: Technical Review Discussion Items Attachments: 11-15-2011 briefing with licensee.docx Good Morning, Attached is a summary of the discussion Jim had with the licensee yesterday. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. | |||
: Thanks, Elba From: Neurauter, James Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:26 PM To: Sanchez Santiago, Elba Cc: Hills, David; Kimble, Daniel; Meghani, Vijay | |||
Technical Review Discussion Items 11-15-2011 briefing with licensee.docx Good Morning, Attached is a summary of the discussion Jim had with the licensee yesterday. | |||
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. | |||
Thanks, Elba From: Neurauter, James Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:26 PM To: Sanchez Santiago, Elba Cc: Hills, David; Kimble, Daniel; Meghani, Vijay | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Davis Besse Shield Building: | Davis Besse Shield Building: Technical Review Discussion Items Elba Pass on to technical reviewers. | ||
Technical Review Discussion Items Elba Pass on to technical reviewers. | Thanks Jim 1 | ||
Thanks Jim 1 Davis-Besse Shield Building Laminar Cracking Licensee had extended discussions today with Professor Darwin.Professor Darwin could not support an analytical determination of rebar splice strength in presence of a laminar crack. Basically, the licensee needs to identify sufficient uncracked zones at top of shield building so bond at rebar splices can be credited as effective. | |||
Licensee plan going forward [1900 on 11/15/2011]: " Lower portion of shield building-vertical rebar controls -seismic" Upper portion of shield building -circumferential rebar controls -thermal loads" Perform additional IR / core bore mapping at top of shield building to identify uncracked concrete areas* Demonstrate effective circumferential rebar is adequate for design loads. This will be somewhat subjective since actual splice locations are not known and licensee has indicated rebar mapping is ineffective. | Davis-Besse Shield Building Laminar Cracking Licensee had extended discussions today with Professor Darwin. | ||
Professor Darwin could not support an analytical determination of rebar splice strength in presence of a laminar crack. Basically, the licensee needs to identify sufficient uncracked zones at top of shield building so bond at rebar splices can be credited as effective. | |||
Licensee plan going forward [1900 on 11/15/2011]: | |||
" Lower portion of shield building- vertical rebar controls - seismic | |||
" Upper portion of shield building - circumferential rebar controls - thermal loads | |||
" Perform additional IR / core bore mapping at top of shield building to identify uncracked concrete areas | |||
* Demonstrate effective circumferential rebar is adequate for design loads. This will be somewhat subjective since actual splice locations are not known and licensee has indicated rebar mapping is ineffective. | |||
* New design basis calculations: | * New design basis calculations: | ||
o At bottom: make sensitivity calculation that removed rebar in shoulder regions a design basis calculation o At top: based on IR / core bore mapping, show that circumferential rebar connectivity is sufficient to demonstrate adequate load capacity for design loads NRC technical reviewer challenges: " Is licensee's proposed success path a viable solution" How to define good concrete areas* What portion of the shield building requires good concrete for sufficient bond strength at splices o Portion of splice in crack zone vs installed splice overlap length o Even though rebar splices are staggered, basis to credit load transfer of failed splice to adjacent rebar NRC reviewers need to come to a consensus: | o At bottom: make sensitivity calculation that removed rebar in shoulder regions a design basis calculation o At top: based on IR / core bore mapping, show that circumferential rebar connectivity is sufficient to demonstrate adequate load capacity for design loads NRC technical reviewer challenges: | ||
is licensee's proposed success path a viable solution to identified circumferential cracking}} | " Is licensee's proposed success path a viable solution | ||
" How to define good concrete areas | |||
* What portion of the shield building requires good concrete for sufficient bond strength at splices o Portion of splice in crack zone vs installed splice overlap length o Even though rebar splices are staggered, basis to credit load transfer of failed splice to adjacent rebar NRC reviewers need to come to a consensus: is licensee's proposed success path a viable solution to identified circumferential cracking}} | |||
Revision as of 00:25, 12 November 2019
| ML12213A352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/2011 |
| From: | Sanchez-Santiago E NRC/RGN-III/DRS/EB1 |
| To: | Jamnes Cameron, Timothy Lupold, Murphy M NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB, NRC/RGN-III |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2012-0121 | |
| Download: ML12213A352 (2) | |
Text
LuDold. Timothy
/11ý I/
From: Sanchez Santiago, Elba 1.
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 20111 7:38 AM To: Murphy, Martin; Lupold, Timothy; Cameron, Jamnes; Wilson, Adam; Kimble, Daniel; Rutkowski, John; Hills, David; Rezai, Ali; Gonzalez, Hipolito; Thorp, John; Haskell, Russell; Nolan, Ryan; Mahoney, Michael; Hernandez, Pete; Mitlyng, Viktoria; Chandrathil, Prema; Neurauter, James; Cardona-Morales, Pedro; Briley, Thomas; CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel; Zimmerman, Jacob; Thomas, George; Hoang, Dan; Logaras, Harral; Barker, Allan; Auluck, Rajender; Sheikh, Abdul; Lehman, Bryce; Morey, Dennis; Snyder, Amy; Wiebe, Joel; Bozga, John; Meghani, Vijay; Stone, AnnMarie; Smagacz, Phillip; Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource; Riley (OCA), Timothy; Jessup, William; Graves, Herman; Pires, Jose; Hogan, Rosemary; Case, Michael; Richards, Stuart; Manoly, Kamal; Orth, Steven Cc: Hiland, Patrick; Shear, Gary; OBrien, Kenneth; West, Steven; Reynolds, Steven
Subject:
FW: Davis Besse Shield Building: Technical Review Discussion Items Attachments: 11-15-2011 briefing with licensee.docx Good Morning, Attached is a summary of the discussion Jim had with the licensee yesterday. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
- Thanks, Elba From: Neurauter, James Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:26 PM To: Sanchez Santiago, Elba Cc: Hills, David; Kimble, Daniel; Meghani, Vijay
Subject:
Davis Besse Shield Building: Technical Review Discussion Items Elba Pass on to technical reviewers.
Thanks Jim 1
Davis-Besse Shield Building Laminar Cracking Licensee had extended discussions today with Professor Darwin.
Professor Darwin could not support an analytical determination of rebar splice strength in presence of a laminar crack. Basically, the licensee needs to identify sufficient uncracked zones at top of shield building so bond at rebar splices can be credited as effective.
Licensee plan going forward [1900 on 11/15/2011]:
" Lower portion of shield building- vertical rebar controls - seismic
" Upper portion of shield building - circumferential rebar controls - thermal loads
" Perform additional IR / core bore mapping at top of shield building to identify uncracked concrete areas
- Demonstrate effective circumferential rebar is adequate for design loads. This will be somewhat subjective since actual splice locations are not known and licensee has indicated rebar mapping is ineffective.
- New design basis calculations:
o At bottom: make sensitivity calculation that removed rebar in shoulder regions a design basis calculation o At top: based on IR / core bore mapping, show that circumferential rebar connectivity is sufficient to demonstrate adequate load capacity for design loads NRC technical reviewer challenges:
" Is licensee's proposed success path a viable solution
" How to define good concrete areas
- What portion of the shield building requires good concrete for sufficient bond strength at splices o Portion of splice in crack zone vs installed splice overlap length o Even though rebar splices are staggered, basis to credit load transfer of failed splice to adjacent rebar NRC reviewers need to come to a consensus: is licensee's proposed success path a viable solution to identified circumferential cracking