ML19346A089

Rept on Re-evaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls in Response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Units 2 & 3.

ML19346A089
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	04/17/1981
From:	Chaudhary M, Hafeez A, Mathur L BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML19346A088	List: ML19346A087 ML19346A089
References
P-226-7, NUDOCS 8106050054
Download: ML19346A089 (60)

Text

-. . _ . .

BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION REPORT ON THE RE-EVALUATION OF

. CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS IN RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 FOR THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 & 3 9

P-226/7 i 8306050 0DN

.,m... _

)

i REPORT ON L THE RE-EVALUATION 1

OF I j

CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS l

FOR THE  ;

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 & 3 JOB NO. 11187-049 BECHTEL PCHER CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

- PREPARED BY L

L. K. Mathur A. M. Hafeez M. S. Chaudhary APPROVED BY l bWW44 A. K. Sarkar Civil Group Supervisor f

I 1Q H.h Elias

\

R.

).

K. P. Buchert Chief Civil Engineer Project Engineer

- Issue Date i 4

a

-i-j P-226/7

._..y, p._ ,_,, .,, , . . , _ , - _ . , . , , , . _ . . , , , _ , , - , , . _ . . , , _ , , , . - - , ,-. ,,, - , . _ , . . . _

ABSTRACT The re-evaluation of masonry walls at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3, was required by NRC Bulletin IE 80-11 dated May 8,198 0. Physical survey of the masonry walls was performed in May & June 1980 and interim 60 day and 180 day reports were forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission thereafter. This report completes the re-evaluation work as required by the Bulletin. It contains a description of the masonry walls, their configuration and construction details.

The re-evaluation criteria considers both ACI and UBC require-ments and addresses all applicable load combinations. Conclus-ions are based upon each wall meeting the requirements of the re-evaluation criteria. Applicable information from interim 60 day and 180 day responses to NRC has been included here to make it a complete report of the re-evaluation.

P226/7 -ii-

CONTENTS REPORT SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 GENERAL 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF MASONRY WALLS 1 2.1 IDENTIFICATION AND FUNCTION OF WALLS 1 2.2 WALL CONFIGURATIONS AND DETAILS 2 3.3 MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION 3

~

3.C CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES 4 4.0 RE-EVALUATION CRITERIA AND COMMENTARY 4 4.1 CRITERIA 4 4.2 COMMENTARY ON THE CRITERIA 5 5.0 RESULTS OF THE RE-EVALUATION 5

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 TABLES TABLE NO.

1

SUMMARY

OF SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALLS 2 LIST OF WALLS SELECTED FOR RE-EVALUATION 3 LIST OF SAFETY-RELATED WALLS ANALYZED WITH WALL CONFIGURATIONS APPENDIX l APPENDIX NO.

I RE-EVALUATION CRITERIA AND COMMENTARY PART I: CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS PART 2: COMMENTARY ON THE CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EV? LUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS 1

P-226/7 -iii-

REPORT ON THE RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS P-226/7

REPORT ON THE RE-EVALUATION OF j I

CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS IN RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 FOR THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 & 3 1.0 GENERAL This report contains the results of the re-evaluation of concrete masonry walls for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3, in response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 dated May 8, 1980.

2.O DESCRIPTION OF MASONRY WALLS 2.1 Identification and Function of Walls All concrete masonry walls at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, which are in proximity to, or have attachments for, safety-related equipment or sys-tems were identified by a review of project drawings and confirmed by a physical survey of the plant.

(Proximity is defined as being within a distance equal to the wall height, such that wall failure could render the safety related system inoperable). A procedure was developed for this survey and was conducted by prcject personnel. Additionally, project drawings were used to determine wall height, width, thickness, type of construction, wall function, etc.

The on-site masonry wall survey revealed a total of 86 walls which have safety related systems either attached to them and/or in proximity. Of these, 56 walls were identified as single wythe walls and 30 walls as multi-wythe walls.

Table-1 identifies all safety-related walls, their primary functions and the safety-related equipment and systems attached to, or in proximity of, the walls. See I footnote at the end of the table for an explanation of wall numbering system. For the purpose of re-evaluation, similar walls were arranged into groups according to thickness, span, loading, configuration, boundary conditions and location in the plant. The

! single wythe walls were divided into 14 groups and the l multi-wythe walls into 13 groups for a total of 27 groups. One wall was selected from each group to I

P-226/7 - _ .

l i

1 I

conservatively represent that group. Table-2 gives the list of walls selected ;or analysis, their thicknesses and the walls they represent.

i 2.2 Wall Configurations and Details Wall thicknesses range from eight inches to forty eight inches depending on requirements for shielding and/or fire resistance. These thicknesses are not dependent upon shear considerations because the concrete masonry walls are not used as shear walls at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.

Table-3 lists, for each group, the safety-related wall analyzed with wall number, height, width, thickness and boundary conditions.

Vertical reinforcing has been placed in single wythe walls and in exterior wythes of multiple wythe walls.

In partition and/or fire walls, block cells in which vertical reinforcing is placed are filled with grout.

In shieldin, walls all cells are filled with grout.

The space between exterior wythes in multiple wythe walls is filled with concrete or concrete brick.

Reinforcement is provided in horizontal joints to control shrinkage cracking of the walls ind bond beams are provided at 40" intervals. At wall inter-sections horizontal reinforcing is placed to provide continuity at these intersections. Where required, horizontal restraint is provided at the top and/or sides of the masonry walls. At the base of the walls, restraint is provided by steel angles bolted to the floor or by expansion bolts projecting into the block cells at the same spacing as the vertical reinforcing.

The reinforcing placed in the masonry walls consists of the following:

1) Vertical reinforcing: De formed bars, ranging in size from #4 to #8, are l

spaced 24" to 32" o/c.

2) Horizontal reinforcing: Bond beam reinforcing con-sists of #4 or 45 deformed bars with beams spaced at 4 0" . Bond beams contain l either two or four bars.

In addition, 48 gage ladder type reinforcing

' is placed in the horizontal joints spaced at 15" .

i l

P-226/7 1

3) Maconry Tioot In walla of multiple wythe construction, #10 gage wall ties are placed at a spacing of 48" horizontally and vertically.

2.3 Materials of Construction Following materials were used in the construction of masonry walls.

1) Concrete Block: ASTM Designation C-90, grade U-1, with dry density of concrete as 145 pounds per cubic foot for heavy weight blocks and 110 pounds per cubic foot for light weight concrete.

2) Mortar: ASTM Designation C-270, Type N, minimum compressive strength of 750 pounds per square inch at 28 days.

3) Grout (concrete): Grout was proportioned to develop a minimum compressive strength of 2000 pounds per square inch at 28 days.

4) Reinforcing Bars: ASTM Designation A-615, Grades-40 or 60 deformed bars.

2.3.1 The following table gives minimum and maximum strengths found by tests made during construction for the material used on the site along with actual stresses used for the design /re-evaluation.

All testing at the supplier's facilities, at the plant site or in the Testing Laboratories, were carried out using appropriate ASTM standards.

Only those materials were used which met the quality control requirements.

I I STRESSES (PSI) l TESTING l lNO. MATERIAL l MIN. l MAX. I USED IN l PROCEDURE I l t 1 RE-EVA- 1 STANDARD l l

l I I I LUATION l l I I I I 1 I

11. Conc. Block i 1,470 l 1,520 l 1,500 l ASTM C-140 l I 1 I I i l

12. Mortar / 750* I 2,857*l 750 i ASTM C-780 1 l I I I I k

13. Conc. Grout i 3,890 1 6,048 l 3,800 l ASTM C-31 &I l l 1 l l C-39 I i I I 1 i I

14. a. Gr-40 Rebar l 48,400 151,940 l 40,000 l ASTM C-615 I I b. Gr-60 Rebar i 61,400 177,520 1 60,000 l ASTM C-615 l

• 750 psi strength obtained on 2" cube tests and 2,857 psi strength obtained on 3 1/2"x3 1/2"x7" prism tests.

P-226/7 _ - _ . _ - _ __ _ _ - - _ - . .

'3.0 CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES Plant construction was sequenced such that all major aquipm:nt was installed prior to the construction of the masonry walls.

The general construction sequence followed was erection of structural steel, pouring of concrete slabs and walls, installation of major equipment and construction of masonry walls. The masonry walls were built around small pipes

( 2" diameter or less) whereas sleeves were embedded in the masonry walls for pipes larger than 2" in diameter. Adequate penetrations were left in the masonry walls at the time of construction.

To assure proper construction practices, requirements were defined in the project specifications for masonry walls.

While work was in progress and upon completion of masonry wall construction, inspections were made to assure proper workmanship in accordance with drawings and specifications.

To assure proper conformance with strength requirements, appropriate tests were performed on specimens of concrete masonry units, mortar, grout fill, and the reinforcing bars.

Documentation of the above inspections, tests and QA/QC are maintained in project files.

4.0 RE-EVALUATION CRITERIA AND COMMENTARY 4.1 Criteria Part 1 of Appendix I contains the criteria used for the re-evaluation of the safety-related concrete masonry walls for this plant.

Licensing commitments contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), including Supplement No. 2, as related to loads and load combinations, are incor-porated in the criteria. In addition, the criteria considers present day state-of-the-art analysis and design techniques as follows:

4.1.1 Stress Criteria

a. Consideration of cracking for frequency de te rminations . (Section 7.1.1 of Appendix I, Part 1).

b. Recognition of a potential plane of weakness at the collar joint and conservatively ignoring its strength.

(Section 5.1.2 of Appendix I, Part 1).

c. Stress increase factors for abnormal and extreme environmental loads. (Section 5.2 of Appendix I, Part 1).

P-226/7

d. Realistic damping values. (Section 5.3 of Appendix I, Part 1).

i

e. Interstory drif t ef fects. (Section 7.2.3 of Appendix I, Part 1).

f. Frequency variations due to uncertainties in material properties and effective mass.

(Section 7.1.3 of Appendix I, Part 1).

4.1.2 Operability Criteria Energy balance technique and arching theory, and evaluation of safety systems. (Section 6.0 of Appendix I, Part 1).

4.2 Commentary on the Criteria Part 2 of Appendix I is a commentary on the criteria and contains detailed justification of the criteria used by referring to existing codes and standards of practice.

5.0 PISULTS OF THE RE-EVALUATION The re-evaluation considered loads from all attachments on the walls, whether safety-related or non-safe *y related, and addressed all postulated loads and J;ad combinations contained in the re-evaluation criteria.

The following assumptions were made in the analyses:

i) Collar joint strength In the analysis, as a conser-vative assumption, collar joint shear and tension strengths were completely neglected. In all cases, composite action of multi-wythe walls was not deemed necessary for the structural adequacy of the walls re-evaluated under this program.

ii) Wall anchorages Types of wall anchorages were considered to determine bound-ary conditions. In general, wall edges were conservatively assumed to be simply supported. Lacking i

any supports, free edge conditions l

were assumed.

l l

P-226/7 ___ _ . _ - _

iii) Block Pullouts Block pullouts were investi-and Load Transfer gated by considering punch-Mechanism ing of the masonry walls by bearing plate or by shear pullout of the block at the mortar joint. In all cases, the existing capacity of the block joint was more than the applied forces. The mechanism for load transfer into the masonry walls consists of either through-bolts or expansion anchors, depending on the magnitude of applied loads.

iv) Interstory Drift Since there are no rigid connections between the top slab (or girder) and the masonry walls, the interstory drift effects are not con-siderei significant. The masonry walls are not part of the lateral load resisting system of the building in which these are located and as such are not affected by the inter-story drif t.

v) Thermal Effects Studies were made to deter-mine the moments and forces caused by thermal loading.

It was determined that the temperature gradient across the thickness of the wall was not severe enough to induce any significant stresses in the wall.

A total of 73 walls out of 86 walls were qualified in accor-dance with conventional working stress criteria. Additionally, 9 walls were qualified by the alternative acceptance criteria of Section 6.0 of Appendix I, part 1, to demonstrate their acceptability functionally and structurally. For the walls qualified by the alternative acceptance criteria, attached safety related systems and the systems in proximity, were checked and found not to be adversely affected by up to twice the calculated deflection of the wall.

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 All walls evaluated under this program, with the exception of those mentioned in para. 6.3, meet the requirements as set forth in the re-evaluation criteria.

l P-226/7 .

6.2 Following walls were qualified by the alternative acceptance criteria of Section 6.0 of Appendix ,I, Part 1:

Serial No Group No. Wall Nos 1 3 68.2 2 3 68.3 3 12 532.1 4 12 532.2 5 12 532.3 6 22 45.1 7 22 45.2 8 22 406.1 9 22 406.2 6.3 In order to fully meet the requirements of the re-evaluation criteria, following walls require some minor fix. This fix is required because of our conservative assumption that collar joint tension and shear strengths are zero (Ref. Soc. 5.0 of this report) .

Serial No Group No. Wall Nos. Remark / Recommendation 1 11 418.10 Modify support condition 2 11 418.11 at top of the walls.

3 11 102.8 4 11 102.9_

The recommended modifications have been completed for walls 102.8 and 102.9 in Unit-2, and will be completed during the current Unit-3 refueling outage for walls 418.10 and 418.11.

l l

l P-226/7 - - _ . - . -

5 6

- TABLES -

t t

f 0 4

9

TABLE-1

SUMMARY

OF MASONRY WALLS (SAFETY-RELATED)

PEACH BCTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 & 3 I

a.

l. I , . . . e e

3, g w

g y

.m a.v rr r4 awe s

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ] 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 rr wo npP r s r r

e t e

t l e i W 2 I

n F e t

. e c t TQ 7 r e n i m v

n g

t r w a u r e e s e .

p t P

( a " S e

C 1

n t ' yt &

m l t

u e e s ei e

e p t s n nu A

/) s O t l od h

S sI y n i u

en sn r o l e

s3 S o d e

s eC e y t e n t( t i2 t n r hd r n s n o e a yt e et l l c w o

r e d a h st m ei nu C e t eht d P t a me nn a f e l .

t e 3 t C i er k r ,

e A F 7a m T e rne t i

t o T r r a up c

e s oi p C e e D er sT e

e) Cb r h t

0 8 I C S u ed ena y G et d 4 V U r u r pr

- r I

I s e O e TD oT - .

ye - a e O tK r t h m

o t c y D u n &

D O oo m r

h e e D t

t r i D s o  !. B p Mtsn a et 7 7 aa Ep m

ed t

- a e ie -

r e s 7 G

i 'p t n DP e S RL S a S m

a n

i r

m u )t 3 nI s( 1

) & Y 1 D SL b E 2 n*

8

'ur I T h ,

A S 1

E T

I m*

2m O t

1 2

D M J

ea . 0 0 e sm 3 t - 3 1 Y

• e e 1 e 7 .

O n 0

T E

F A

N O

I T i em sA 7 7 R n

o N

n o

n n

o 7

N n

o 1

, 1 D

- 7 ~t io 6 7

1 2 2

8 S A s 1 (

S T r. e

- t c S. o n e t.

t R

E N r e

a t A W n J t

e n W O o Nm g o

n e

t e

a F I Y

r Ra g i l o PT n - . - - t b p C -

d

- O Wise T R -

o O 7 - .

O N I sM i

d 0 O O O D

o D

O D

O D

O D D l

o t D D t V

I e O M E l 1 D D - - - - - - - r S

A O

T G

'J i 1

.t t

o - -

- - - - - t t

e F i

F A h M A P te S r M o O E.

t 2 n e

r e

l a

Y T S t c m r

t y ( ei , o t l e s ( m R l 4 D t r n t U o a a i a F e

• t 2 M n s d e p

r n M H C

e m

t e ,

l a k & A r mr i e ee &A g n

e v

t i

t s A e t

a oe n y Pt r l A mpn i n

o m

t s

e e r 3 a m d E o r t A T a a gi nF r e

oi a l C .

F l T t e h e hr l T

e ey s r a t

a e

s t

i dt e l & D i &r a m e

A h d e e i nl o D n oi bol ab C

D O CP t

. l u t s

t s -

I P e r - .

rk t n eu ea to O y

s 1

b y

D

- rg on O

- s e n O

- e n

e D

D O

D rl e oe n O

D O

D na oT eh eI e .

%t D r

e a d D t i D e e a D - C w dnt te m

- t ut t c - sm - d - -

d i

r am er

- cl eo t

e nr m a 1

> F s u f l nA na uh t

e e t o eo e oo F&D I aF OC D sD DC w Cp C w

r e v .

0 . - - - - -

O

. 0- 0- 0- O

- 0-r O6 O O

0 O

O O 0 G O O D 3 D 5 D S 61

"- u L -

D D 9 D 6 D D 9 D i

- - 3 - 3 1

- - - - 6

=

t N9 - - - - 1 1

- 1 1 1 1

)

. r e

n u

G at C e N

I . . - - - - -

( wr - -

o D t . - - . .

O S O O O O 0 0 et D e o O 0 O O D D D D D 0 0 eS D t L e D 0 D D D - - D. - t - -

I t

U w - tl di r o D t ur I Tt

) 1 0 3 1 2 LI L( 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3

h. 3 1

n. 21 1 8 5 3 o Ao 5 5 6 6 6 2 2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3 y W 6 $ 7 2 3 b WN 1 1 1 1 1 3 L 8 A 0 3 b 5 6 T t o sos 1 2 3 b 5 6 7 8 9 1 1

1 u 1 l 1 1 I 1 E

S i!' 1 } , l li -

d a

,8 e l- j l _

I p g g s l r

ug e v Y rnT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e u* aJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 nmh e

mmI aS 2

2 e t C 6 t

i n 3 Dc

, . s m DC 8

3 h

7 i U 2 %2 t 2 t f e 0 i & & CA t Tpt . . ,

s m t n ,A ,

.A C E B D o s eni D

,t t U C 2 3 3 I eh D

e.

I h Cs Ce ,t U .n U & & &

2 y & t .

,i & t t t

.le Cen, De n C t t i D

t h

e e a m

C D

3 3 &

9

.e wAa h t

h t U n

B n Ah

,a n &nC Ahl a &anA 9hl Ce n . C l e s

A l

e l

e

/ l l t t A Ah l p C Ce e e S e e a e D C n o C o n el n n n i

I n n n h e m e sn n n n n n U e & & & l

• l en a

a. ()l t l l s e

• ee asM eaM a m oC e a a e ee a ns net h h h h . . n mm h 3 e A C C kl C C D C n ao C o e no ap nwC C at 2

m. ,2 , l l h a

h aD , l e

l l h aB h ,h , ,

rt r eta rt r e e C C e r e e e C e Cer Cerser e a a

,i n a

e n

n n

n , ,u s a e

a m

m m

a m .w .se ue .ue e ei e n wU e

a

& tyU g a a k t F Me a a a tF c kFMtFMtw c c h m_

rTC T h t l h h c c h h ad a ,e a ,c e e . c e . e C C e ad C C C p n SCt tpat t t 9 t tC t B D n t y a

, i t i i y a t ,

il t e -, ., y e - - yle yt w u vl s

w S s O 0 D r3 reS reS S2 ee n mD ee s o D r

e r2 e D 0 D e en en vn v gn n t nV V t t tnf rm ao T

k

- - t t

t t ti T

t

- - - tt t i t an tMk a

k t u

h a h

t 3 sP kM

%C b B a a n BU b BU an eh DCb nCh 4 U bC b&

s n

7 1

3 1

2 o b 7

7 1 7 1

A 1 1 1 0

, 7 b 1

3 , , 1 b 1 3 w)t 1 4 1

3 1, .

I

, 4 2

9 b

) a a(I cL 2

1

'ur 2 1 .

I 2 1

1 1

, b D h 7 , b 2 1 3 2 I A

, t , 2 I 3 7 'ur 2 1

2 1

1 1 1

• 1 r s D 0 1 , 1 1 1 h " 'u a 1 6 1 b

'ur 'ur . ,

t a

p T

I N

U mW-ei 9

3 9

, 0 1

I 2

1 2

1 0

h t

0 1

t 7

3 8

0 1

8 h

t 0

1 8

1 1

9 h

t 8 B h

t r

Y T N tW r

7 2 8

3 8

, 0 1

9 9

2 a O 2 1 6 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 7 7 8 r

A I

T eM sA s A

( T s e

s. m c t.

r n t

A

, e et t w o r ,m l o

s - - -

r mTC i

e - - - - - - - - -

o O O 0 o e

o O O e

e t se D G D o O D D D 0 t O

D D O

D D D D D D D

1

'.u s t -

o n e - - - - - - - - - - -

s a

o t uf i r l n

r o o A

t e

a t

F 2 2 A

r a

r T

0 2 2

t t 3 t s

e 2

t t

i t

n t

i e

I N

A 9 3 t h t t h U h e

G t i t t i t e i t

n w . ,

t u

t c

i n t h , U S e

m 3

s A E

0 0

m 3 3 U n a 2, 3

& c o

m o

m o

I F 5 0

T A

p o

r t

i i m

t U

n a

m m

a o

m a

r t

t h

t t

a h

t t

i m n

U o

o s2 n

ot D

r a

n r

e k

r e

R a R pt O

t a R p e e e C e . e , . ,

yt h g h g O

0 O

- y r

y r w 0 o

O

- y r r O h Me ke t h 2 e e

't e D D e e . D c t r c D D D - - t t r - t t a t t - - - t t t D. t t e i t t 3 s

u e R

t t t ii wn a a e a a o S w

s e&

r B B S B D t

- SU r

[

- V 5

0 D

O G

D O

D 0

0 0

D G

D O

D D

o oD 0

9 O

D 9

0 D

G O

D D

O 0

" U F 1 3 - - - - - - - - -

= .

~

)

G e N l r - - - - -

I eou - - - - - - -

O O G O

O O 0 G D nrt O O O D O O 0 D D D b D D 9 D L it c D D D D D D 9 - - - - - - -

b nu - - - - - - - -

I U r or uct B T( S

) 3 b 5 6 7 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 u( 1 8 9 1 1 2 3 5 6 7

_ b. O 0 o 0 O O O O 0 Ao O 0 O 0 0 O O b b 4 b b b b 4 b b 4 b b b wpe b b I,

A 9 0 1 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 b ro 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 an s

s 1 i I i ' i l .i  ! <f3 ,

I ._

t v M I

T A

m 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 g p 1 1 2 r m w 0 T

t 1 5

2 2 2 3 3

, , e e C 3 o d t t t t s n e t l *- 0 D a  ! t t i D i n e 9 h

t h

t t h ht

? U a. e 3 3 2 r

T N .

s e - s u

T8 t t

A 9

B A

e E B h t E t

( si 3 P t

P C

C F

f t

h t

I.ln eU h

t l

e n

l e

n l

e n

l e

n t f p 3 C r t , Dn. n n n n n e M L C &aA D a a a a e E e s

B h h h h h h

S

/ l e D B

A l Cl l

e C c C C 6I e ne e ,en nn C C C DI I e e & n l sn a t C l

C C TI S v C A n

na e

t eeansh h 3 rM I M

a C noC C Y r & &

S s e aM r

l l h , h ,

r r r r e D a e C r Cer r a 3 a a e a e

r f

e n - - e sa eg e e e e r

T n t,Ce

,ae t a g s a A#

2 h n

h a

c&w t c t B g i h i

h h

c h

c ti e

h e

T M t e C3 &3 pae a t

p e At ,te t c t t t

t i i t t 1

d r

i ,t it we e w w e a Y v .,t yl eiw yte t

B S S B u - - -

T T

F A

e v .

Ot Nin r eS r es Dh Du t

- et nnv tnv hr en S h v

t n- O D.

o t

y t

V k

v h

T t r g

e e

ND D n O I

I g t 3 t ah t ah b & eh eh bp a b b b b 8 D Cb BCb m

i 81 W b l

b 7 b

1

'u I 1 2 7 1&

3 N. 7 h

t r

2 3

1

• p 1

u r

D M 1 1 b

1 1

1 t

t m 'h t

E 2 D , 1

, 1 T 2 2 ,

1 1 1 9 S U 1 1 2 1 A

t T , ,

9 1 E I 1 , , 0 9 $ 7 D N U

N 1 1

1 8 8 1 e e u

r

'ur Y Y e e e . e

• n n 6

h h e T N T 9 9 7 7 8 n n no n no o

o o , t n T o o ao D t

o E O , , , , , p n s n p W b 1 1 1 1 N F I 2 8 2 1 b A

S T

A W

( T S

S._ R e 1,

E t c L e n A W J a a N O N t e

n P i Y R#

I P

t e - -

d l

R N

C I P e

0 0

o 4

D D 4 o O

D 4 4 D

D D

O D

0 0 o 4D- 4D-h.

e t.

1 t O

5 M

O SN J e 1

- D. t. - -

t

- - - - - - - h B

r A T M i M A N F F M O O T 2 I.

T A

Y 3 2 R O e t t t A B i i y t m a

n N

M h r h o M H t U e t g U C , ,

t t ,

S A N s m a s 2 3 3 2 3 g E 0 m r o B a n I P o o o t t i G

1 3 t t t n R & B t i t t i d T n n a A r r ri t

r h t U h h t t U e r

C a a en a p I D

• e eU e , , , . , .

R S -

1 h

e Nc O l

m, D s O O

0 D

O D

O e o O

D o o c D e e D le D D D D t t t m - - - D. D. D. - - l - - - -

O t t t t i i3 i t m t b T v w u o e a P e& S BR D C I

t 1

T E

I V J

0-o 0

O O

O 0 4D O o

D O

D O

D

. 0 0 - hDO 4 O

D

- R I

2 E

5 3

1

t. 0

- D.

D D

1 D

t

- D. - - 5 1

- - D. -

0 0

G N

)

e P

l r - - -

I - - - - -

D eou nr t O O

O O

O D D O O O O O 0 O O O D D D D 3 D D L

I i t c b n u r or D

- D.

D

- D.

D D

- 5. - D. - D. - - - -

U uCt D T( S t

)

6 7 8 9 0 L

L (I 8 1

9 1

0 2

1 2

2 2

3 2

b 2

5 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1

h. S.

AO f

O N 4

0 b

O b

0 b

O b

0 4

0 4

0 0 4 b 0

b o 4 0

4 0

b O

M 8 6

8 6 MM L

A ) 0 2 lQ 5 3

6 3

7 3

81 9 3 b o 4 1

b 2

b b

b S

b 6

b 4 7 8 b

9 b 5 1

5 5 pH E

S

l

, ig ,3* 1 j i lI e

~ '

E t

v Y T 2 1 g 2 2 b b 1 b 1 b b b 2 1 1 7 I p

A T

j o ,

N t a f P e

t o i t

t m ug d d d , e N e n, o I d t om C 7 n e e ce U C &egn r r a s l l N e e d e Nt b

e f M

e F

e s

e v

t, 1

D n.p a 7 I

.ne ei eL v

t I r l l d

n sm 1 em ea l l e e e

T A T e e a ee , wt T w v e vt e h

e W

/

d r n s

r "A l

an 5

1 5

1 l E a sr S a e e To T .p ed EI D I u t h t r . r , r e nm ih TI g t t e nt e 0 e 0 ee t t ni 1I a e i n oe t n

1 t n

1 t o t T i W S

Y f

e l

oe w i

L ie tt e , .e C 9 C

o t en e

ed S D ot d ae C 9 l o t n t in n ld d , d , d ei a D s ua e o e 7 e 7 e ot t f e td e ee nt T l nnt t tg m u o u m t c e e r A e eor e a I r

t r

I tt 3 o mC e s e th h l ne sme s N b i n

.e mt oi 8 ne eo l

e e

h t

1 e

c t e e

eD ' t n ei acl u 1 ml e 1 i 1 i me t Y i n.

l t o ?d s r r r nD T o nsD

• l n 5 iU , t . t t s ee oR le Co r t Y osR 1 eC c - c - e t h e e CC M t n

CA C . B tW nI I e o e o a ne n s S O ) ) . o l D l l em o ))

E - E D. E CI p mb C e b 5 c&

WI I

W l

/

3 M' 5 2

)

D m 1 1

F 2 0

T 7 A

t E

S T

I m

2 S 1

b 8

1 5 1

S D N U

M , 5 0 . 'ur T

e 3 1 1 e e o e e e 3 h T N n

o n no 1 n m n n t E

F O

I m D 2 2

S e a p p 9

, o s s o p o

2 p a

6 6 2 2

A S

T A

W

( T S e .

S-R c

t. t n t E t J

e A W t N O e g Y

P I9*

J R3 t

e

- - t o - - -

o - .

p C P 8 .

o oO p o o G d o 0 O o N

O S

I M

O S

A l

t e

o

t. t.

O D. t. D. e r

t. t. n. D l

i h

e t. D. D. t.

h i A T F s F

M A e

mU B r t O o n e

T T T m .

R t O p

, r 3

p A t i

e , m t , p a e

• H a g

, C U C C l u e C e S A N e n , . v E O v n ,

t . l P I l u g e e a T n a T y

. r l T A

n v e e s e e T e n C p n p , t n l o D o i a e e l - i l i P .

g C - - e e r 0 t o og -

o o n.

I -

s t

D o e m t r

l a

h. n e t. g

. d t t.

0 D.

t t

e no el D. l o

i n o e , n D. - l pF o r o s t , e o t P C I S g t o

1 t t

l r

s n

I V 0 0 . - . 0 - - . - -

0- 0- -

0

- o 0 o5 0 o O o D 0 b D 5 t

n a

n R

I 5

6 1

5 3

1

t. 0

t. 61 D. D. D. t. D.

8 1

3 2

D 3

1 n.

II G )

N e ,

l r . .

vou r I . -

- - - - - r O D O& .

- rt o2 O O O 0 O O O 0 0 e3 L t t c t t I b nu r or et ni D. D. D. t. D.

9 D

- D. D.

0 0 .

. et mt D.

U ta ct en oh D T( s pt J ht l

)

0 , 1 2 L (1 6 7 8 9 1 1 8 L

1 1 2 h. 66 r r 6 6 AO 1 S S S S 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 0 o b o 7 b 7 7 7 7 7 b NN b L b 7 1 l b L

A tO 0 1 2 3 b 5 6 7 pN E

3 b

S 6

5 7

3 M 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 e 6 M S

l  !; j D3 Cl2l ym7 e

l y_ M WgYT Ag0R g I

b 2 I b b 2 1 2 1 2 b b b b 1

Mr9 p, $

o e t t i t u o d e d d e t n n t it un d o o e de e m C C l c n ne o T d d eo os t r e e et st 1 cl E d t t o e s A e 1, 7 d n e 5 n. a W

5 t l 0 1, ap p

o p e &t e 1 b y 1, m =

t e eD 7

b 1 ee ta

- d d r 1, 2 vT P h n n t e l en s a e o n , 1 1, vo r T e k

e r

1, 1 i eT M()I I A

A eae t e 0 1

1, 0

at ac ta N w ,

t Lt n t e o

ma t e

n e

n t

eUe n

C e 7, 1, 7 tt ae gt ne Dta 7, n tD i

L i

L lewe Ce d 6, 1, n i n I o pt a 5, 2 5, 1 ee t e ar TF n n t E o 1 1, tn o t

e e e e t ne d l 3, 0 3, 0 tk e

cd MT na ya n T

t t n ar e

l 2 1 2 1 ee I 8 s u a , , , c M n n mot ata e c - - ., eL - ne I

R o o O l t r n eu e o i

r 0 ot. St. o t. r tU aC o e r se

) t 1

% t.

NP M Y m

T t

n u

D. t dp p nn m oo CCT e l E

c e

tW nP o

C&

rt e n e e hC T

N M

I I

J U

t

/

i f

P}

1 l 1 T I S

j 6 Y(

D S1 1 2

1 E 2 DA ,

T I H 0 A ST R

T AU 1 E I 21 2 ,

D N e e e e e e e e U MD 1 5 n n n n n o

n o n 8, E e , , o o o n o Y V I p 5 3 B $

l I n i s D D I s

6 6 b T N TM E OI nT F AT A T SA S A

( T S

5, e e R c c I

L E r e n n A J e a W e t t W O p N a s ls P l t g t f as n s n e R C P7a i . . - . e o

nI. ot. -

O

- i a g o p

e N I s d n 0 0 G o p D l t.

g OM n e t. I. t. e r. - e , e S O A T

'Am t

t r t h i r

h h i 8 F M A B P W

F M O O T . r f T t e p r O a w A D a o p o M e t m T M HC r o e l A t C n

_ t S A N e s o r i

_ E O n e le v o l P n v I o o

_ I u l l o o T T e ea v e r V l

F c A V e C e i r n e y p n ta A t n e n c O t o rr e - - - . t i . n P i O o O o e e

L t ee ns C o t e

l e g g m a h. h. l e en d t. D. t. D. g f

u t. r en l e a na a oa e f t e ei o e* h r

g S l R e L f* D I g

ri E.

JV 0 . - 0 - - . . -

O

- 0 0 O

. 0 o O o 0 O o -

L2E

- 0 0 4 lE i D t. D. 6 5

D. t.

0 D. t. D. 8 1

3 2

D. %1 1

W 1 3

t t

G h y

. N t c I

- - . - - - - . - - ng O 0 D

L r o

o o ot. o t.

o ot. O o t.o

t. t.

O e n sir I t t. t. t. D. D. D. el e nw U c ao S a mCT N

)

t 0 0 0 1 L 6 9 7 1 6 7 8, 9 1 1 1 1 1 L( 1 o 0 o 0 0 2 8 8 2 Ao 6 6 6 9 0 i 1 1 1 1 1 3 WN 0 o b 4 0

4 0 1 b b i

4 1

b b 4 4 6 4 5 4

L A b 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 Io 0 1 2 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 RN (4 7 7 7 7 E

S g ) ,, s g I !

I

.e h

g%w .

o

. &Mr I 1' l! t j'

Ilt . l ei  :  ! I, .l . .

e ,

g .

ggV T

,w *I b 4 b b t, R R g gP p

g 7

f o

g 6 n e i c

t h

e e g) i i

r p

B 3 . r

i. e g(3 r t.

w gm a. i e

c

. v

m. g . r

. . s 6

t r e

e m -

m u, m a.

O e

s r

o t.

gp o.

i a F

W M

I f

L Q

E

/

6I rI 3 uI a

s(

& u .

JD L lJ r 2 Dd h f Tl A S Ui I T JD E I 3 D N RD e e U B n n Y o o s p T N 0 i E O T 8

F A

S

(

I T

A NT A 8 8 T .

S S .

L R e L E A W M .n W O P

MN I( t.

Y C

RI PT t.. -

R o ot.

N I S E D s o O

S M

O 'J,P L .

r

t. g A T t

% i M A S r

F M O O T ,

f T .

p O .

m D o e T t H U C .

S A g 9 i E O F I t.o T c A

C ,

m D e o .

e I

. o s o n

o m t. p m

t.

i . u r .

p n r s.

9 r

g_

y .

r v O - 0 I - O s

I I

as l I

2 1 h.

• t 1 r

e

t. e G wru 8 r ee _

I I e

. g - .t .

D . n 0 tur o p _

L

_ I mir l e o w 0

- t. t t$

U oo u D mCT cp rs i.

cm

)

L t 2 3 3 L(

A0 2 2 1

6 t 8 t 8 3 5 5 3 8 c

Mc  %

L

_ A

_ IO 3 S 6 RN E

S 8

b O S 8

)3 3

=. -

CC C _ 4 .h i

i' i 31 lj ! ' a l

! : : ,  ! I

l het 7 or 7 (Mat 4ARY OF MP':onkT War.t3 (SArtTy prtAfrp)

PFKH luFrTTwt ATietic IWPR f;TATIoII imitn 24)

IEITFSt I.

Each well te desteneted try a unique mueber such that the first part Indicates the Clett/Structurel Drawing netwr end the second part gives the well manber on that particular drawing, e.g. well No. b5.2 indiretes well member 2 on Ct ett /struetc. ret Drewing flo. 6 5.

!!. Berety related systees are deoteneted as below:

1. Seector Core toolation Cooling IDCIC) .

2. Peactor sleet paeovel (pHR) 3 Core Sprey

b. Minh Pressure Coeleet Injection (fGCT)

5. Primary Contalsment isolation

6. Proceae/ Area Dedtation Monttoring

7. Standby Cao freeteent

6. asernency servlee water (amt)

9. amersency Diesel cenerator

10. Sereauerd b80 VAC hver (MtT,14)

11. Befaguard b hv Power

12. Safes %:4 121/2$0 TDC Peser 11 Bereguard 120 TAC Power Ib. parenuard 24 TDC Power

15. Contetsment Atasepherte Mletion (CAD)

16. Sanctor Proteetten Byeten (pts)

17. Befagserd MTAC Syst a

19. Steam t.eek Detection system "1l3 CD .

lll23 C3 ll23

':E==

r---

l i

TABLE-2 LIST OF WALLS SELECTED FOR RE-EVALUATION O

- TABLE-2 LIST OF WALLS SELECTED FOR RE-EVALUATION No. of Walls Selected Wall Wall Walls Group No. for Analysis Thickness Represented Represented 1 40.2 8" 40.1-40.26 26 2 25.1 8" 25.1-25.2 2 3 68.2 8" 68.2-68.3 2 4 68.4 8" 68.1,68.4 2 5 76.6 8" 76.6,8,10:410.6.8.10 6 6 76.9 8" 76.7,9:410.7.9 4 7 C-86.1 8" C-86.1,2 2 8 32.3 12" 32.3 1 9 32.5 12" 32.5 1 10 32.4 12" 32.4 1 11 418.10 12" 418.10,11:102.8.9 4 12 532.1 ,

12" 532.1,2,3 3 13 56.1 12" 56.1 1 14 15.1 16" 15.1,2 2 15 16.3 18" 16.3 1 16 32.1 18" 32.1,2 2 17 16.1 24" 16.1,2 2 1

18 78.3 24" 78.3 1 f 19 32.10 24" 32.10,11,12 3 l

20(a) 71.1 30" 71.1 1 20(b) 68.5 30" 68.5 1 l 21 40.27 30" 40'.27,28.29,30 4 22 406.2 36" 406.1,2:45.1.45.2 4 23 406.6 36" 406.6 1 24 406.9 36" 45.4.45.6,406.9,10 4 l 25 412.1 39" 87.1,412.1 2 26 410.1 48" 75.6,409.7,410.1 3 P-226/7 E

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

I I

J l

TABLE-3 LIST OF SAFETY-RELATED WALLS ANALYSED WITH WALL CONFIGURATION t

1

8 I ' .

Shsat 1 of 3 i TABLE-3 i

l LIST OF SAFETY RELATED WALLS ANALYSED I WITH WALL CONFIGURATIONS l BOUND /'8Y '*

t 0$O y WA' L No. HEIGHT W1DTH THICKNESS CON 01TIONS

. S

' 1 40.2 14'-0" 22'-4" 8" S S

' S

F 2 25.1 12'-0" 25'-6" 8"

, S S t

S

- i g

3 68.2 12'-0" 18'-6" 8" S S

, S S

4 68.4 14'-0" 47'-0 8" 3 3 5

s 76.6 12'-8" 15'-0" 8" S S 5

l S I

F f .

76.9 12'-8" 25'-0" 8" F S l 6 3

l 5

8" S S j 7 C-86.1 16 ' + C 18'-2" o

4 S

12" S S 8 32.3 20'-0" 10'-3" S

s l S 32.5 20'-0" 10'-3" 12" S

_9

!. 5 i, -

I F

32.4 12'-0" 9'-4" 12" 3 y

} 10 a

• S = SIMPLE SUPPORT, F = FREE EDGE

- " ' "* ~*

-,,em

Shoot 2 of 3 LIST OF SAFETY RELATED WALLS ANALYSED WITH WALL CONRGURATIONS G ROUP yjg. L NO. HEIGHT WIDTH THlCKNESS BOUCARY

• W O. CONDITIOtJS S

F F 11 418.10 7'-0" 26'-11" 12" S

S 12 532.1 14'-8" 24'-6" 12" g g S

F 13 56.1 8'-0" 6'-6" 12" F S S

S 14 15.1 8'-0" 10'-0" 16" S S S

8 8 15 16.3 23'-6" 11'-6" 18" 5

S 16 32.1 17'-6" 13'-6" 18" S S S

F l S F 17 16.1 7'-4" 6'-8" 24" S

S l

18 78.3 9'-0" 8'-6" 24" S

g bF j

S l

- S l S

! 19 32.10 17'-4" 18'-3" 24" g i

S S S

, 20a 71.1 9'-4" 8'-4" 30" --

S

• S = SIMPLE SUPPORr, F = FREE EDGE

i '

ShsGt 3 of 3 i

LIST OF SAFETY RELATED WALLS ANALYSED WITH WALL CONFIGURATIONS

$$$4' wA'_t. NO. HEIGHT WtDTH THICKNESS BOUNDARY

• CowoiTtoss S

8 8 20b 68.5 9'-4" 4'-9" 30" l S

S 21 40.27 8'-1" 8'-0" 30" S F S

^

S 8 8 22 406.2 24'-0" 27'-8" 36" S

S S F 23 406.6 10'-0" 8'-0" 36" 3

~

F F S 24 406.9 6'-0" 12'-0" 36" S

S 8 8 25 412.1 7'-4" 12'-0" 39" S

S 26 410.1 12'-0" 8'-0" 49" S

= - - - - -

I

• S = SIMPLE SUPPORT F = FREE EDGE

O i

0 l

- APPENDIX -

t C

[

C C

" ' ^ ' ' ' '

- _w w - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ = _ _ .ax_.__- --- u - -- -

. 1

9 APPENDIX I Part 1 CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS l

I i

i l

l l

i l

I t

I

IIIB7-C-6011 APPENDZX I Part I l

I

(

CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS IN RESPONSE TO NRC I&E BULLETIN 80-11 FOR THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY t

t BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION San Francisco, CA.

A ISh5[fo Revised as Indicated W b d (0/24 [50 Issued for Use 'D U

t. ;

P-199/4

ll187-C-BC21 1

l k

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Scope 2.0 GOVERNING CODE 3.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 4.0 MATERIALS 5.0 DESIGN ALLOWABLES 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 7.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 7.1 Structural Response of Masonry Walls

's 7.2 Structural Strength of Masonry Walls F

P-199/4 Rev. 0

11187-C-8011  !

\ CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose This criteria is provided for use in re-evaluat-ing the structural adequacy of concrete masonry walls as required by NRC I&E Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, dated May 8, 1980.

1.2 Scope The re-evaluation shall determine whether the concrete masonry walls and/or the safety related equipment and systems associated with the walls will perform their intended function under the loads and load combinations prescribed herein. Verification of wall adequacy shall include a review of local transfer of load from block into wall, global response of wall, and transfer of wall reactions into supports. Anchor bolts and embedments are not considered to be within the scope of the evaluation.

2.0 Governino Code The design allowables are based on ACI 531-79 (Table 1, P.11) However, the stresses will also be checked against UB C-19 67 (Table 2, P.14). Supplemental allowables, as specified herein, shall be used for cases not directly covered in the governing code.

3.0 Loads and Load Combinations The following load combinations shall be used for the analysis of the masonry walls:

1. D+E

2. D+E' P-199/4 -1 Rev. 1

11187-C-8011

3. D+W'

4. D+E+T

5. D+E'+9 o

6. D+F

7. 1.05D+1.25P B. 1.05D+1.0P'

9. 1.05D+1.0T, Where:

D: Dead load of structure and equipment plus any other permanent loads and normal operating live load at 50 psf if applicable.

E: OBE loads E': SSE loads W': Tornado loads To: Operating temperature loads T,: Accident temperature loadr F: Flood loads P: jet impingement load P': Pressurization load due to high energy line break Load combinations 1 through 6 are obtained directly from the project FSAR. Load combinations 7, 8 and 9 have been arrived at by following the project design criteria, the PBAPS FSAR supplement No. 2, and, the recommendations of s

the Mechanical / Nuclear group and the Civil Staff.

4.0 MATERIALS The mat.erials used in the masonry wall construction are as follows:

l Reinforced Masonry:

Hollow concrete units of ASTM C90-66 Grade U-1 (equivalent of Grade A of UBC-67 and Grade N of UBC-79) and grouted solid are used with ultimate compressive stress f', as indicated in Tables 1 and 2.

Reinforcing Steel Rebar is ASTM A 615 Grade 40 or 60.

Mortar:

Mortar is ASTM C270, Type N with average compressive strength mo of 750 psi at 28 days.

r k

Rev. 1 P-199

11187-C-8011 Shielding Block Wall The shielding wall is heavyweight concrete block and has all cells and cavities between blocks filled with concrete. Heavyweight concrete block dry density is 145 pef.

Core Concrete or Cell Grout Core concrete has an average compressive strength f'c as indicated in Tables 1 and 2 (see Note 1 at the end of the Tables).

5.0 Design A11ovables 5.1 Design allowables for load combination D+E shall be as follows:

5.1.1 Masonry The allowable tension, compression, shear, bond and bearing stresses shall be as given in Tables 1 and 2.

5.1.2 Collar Joint The allowable shear or tension stresses shall be based on testing and shall be the lesser.

of:

a) 1/2 the lower bound ultimate stress as generally determined by the mean minus 1.28 X standard deviation b) 1/3 the mean ultimate stress.

I In lieu of testing, a collar joint strength l of zero shall be assumed.

j/f( 5.1.3 Core Conc, rete or Cell Grout The allowable tension stresses for computing uncracked moment capacity shall be 2.5 x

/T[T or 0.33 times the modulus of rupture as determined by tests.

5.1.4 Reinforcing Steel The allowable tension and compression stresses shall be as given in Tables 1 and 2.

t Rev. 1

-3 P-199/4 I - - - -

c+ u,-

. 11187-C-8012

( 5.1.5 Secondary Effects (Thermal and Displacerent Lirited Loass)

Design allowable stresses for load cor.tination D+E+T shall be as given in Tables 1 and 2.

o The same allowable stresses may be used wt.en considering displacement limited loads.

In-plane effects due to interstory drift may be determined by analysis or in-plane strains (o /H) shall be limited to 0.00012, where o is the relative displacement between the top and bottom of the wall and H is the j/hg height of the wall. A wall confined on all four sides may be limited to a strain of 0.0008 provided the structural shear re-sisting elements bounding each vertical side of the wall have a shear resisting capability larger than the wall and the wall width to height ratio is at least 0.5.

5.1.6 Seismic and Wind Loading The 33% increase in allowable stresses for masonry and reinforcing steel due to OBE or wind loadings is not permitted.

5.2 Design allowables for load combinations (D+'E'),

(D+W'), (D+E'+To), (D+F), (1.05D+1.25P), (1.05D+1.0P')

and (1.05L+1 0T,) shall be as follows:

5.2.1 Masonry l The alloweble masonry stresses shall be as l "

given in Tables 1 and 2. Tne allowable collar joint shear and tension shall be 1.67 times the values specified in Section 5.1.2. The allowable core concrete tension stress shall be 1.67 times the values specified in Section 5.1.3.

5.2.2 Reinforcing Steel The allowable steel stresses shall be as given in Tables 1 and 2.

5.2.3 Impact and Suddenly Applied (Step Pulse) Loads The stresses due to load combination (1.05D' 1.25P) may exceed the allowables of Tables I and 2 provided there will be no loss of function of any safety related system.

g' Rev. 1 P-199/4

11187-C-8011 5.2.4 Secondary Effects In lieu of a more rigorous analysis in-plane strains due to the interstory drift may be ji\g limited to 1.67 tir.es the values in paragrapt 5.1.5.

5.3 Dampino 5.3.1 The damping values to be used shall be as follows:

a) For uncracked sections use 2% for both OBE and SSE.

b) For cracked sections use 4% for OBE and 7% for maximum credible earthquake (SSE).

l Higher values may be used if justified on

[

a case-by-case basis.

5.4 Modulus of Rupture 5.4.1 The uncracked moment capacity, Mer, to be used in determining the equivalent moment of inertia, I shall be base $,on(see Sectiqn 7.1.1, the following step 2) extreme tensile fiber stress:

For core concrete or cell grout use AI a.

6/Trjor0.8timesthemodulusof rupture as determined by tests.

b. For masonry use 2.4 times the code allow-able flexural tensile stress (see Tables 1 and 2).

5.5 Non-Catecory I Masonry Walls 5.5.1 Concrete masonry walls not supporting safety systems but whose collapse could result in the loss of required function of safety related equipment or systems shall be evaluated the same as walls that support safety systems. Alternatively, the walls may be analytically checked to verify that they will not collapse when subjected to accident, tornado or safe shutdown (design basis) earthquake loads.

\

Rev. 1 P-199/4

Ill87-C-Ecll 5.6 Inspection g

5.6.1 Adequate inspection was performed during masonry construction. Accordingly, the allowable stresses of Tables 1 and 2 are the inspected values as specified in the respective codes.

6.0 ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 6.1 Where the bending due to out-of-plane loading causes flexural stresses in the wall to exceed the design allowables given in Tables 1 and 2, the wall can be evaluated as follows:

6.1.1 Energy Balance Technicue The deflection of the f ully cracked reinforced

' wall subjected to SSE loading may be deter-mined by the " energy balance technique". If the predicted displacement exceeds three times the yield displacement, the resulting displace-ment shall be multiplied by a factor of 2 and a determination made as to whether such factored displacement would adversely impact the function of safety related systems attached and/or t adjacent to the wall.

In any event, the midspan displacement shall be limited to five times the yield displacement, and the masonry compression stresses shall be limited to 0.85f'm based on a rectangular stress distribution.

6.1.2 Arching Action The resistance of the wall to out-of-plane forces may be determined by assuming that a three hinged arch is formed after flexural cracking. Due consideration shall be given to the rigidity of the supporting elements and their ability to restrict rotation of l the wall about the supports. The effects of I

a gap at the supports shall be considered.

The maximum allowable uniform load shall be the lesser of:

/ \( a) One third of the predicted load based on a naximum masonry compression of 0.85f'm.

b) Two thirds of the predicted load based-

,- on a maximum tension stress of 6/IT m

( .

Rev. 1 P-199/4

. 11187-C-8011 along the 4 5' diagonal f ailure plane and one inch bearing width at 0.8 5f 'm i in the vicinity of the hinge.

The deflection at the interior hinge of the ,

arch after full contact with the support shall not exceed 0.3 times the thickness of j the wall.

A determination shall be made as to whether a displacement of 2 times the calculated displacement would adversely impact the required function of safety related systems attached and/or adjacent to the wall.

7.0 Analysis and Desion 7.1 Structural Response of Masonry Walls 7.1.1 Equivalent Moment of Inertia (I,)

To determine the out-of-plane frequencies of masonry walls, the uncracked behavior and capacities of the walls (Step 1) and, if applicable, the cracked behavior and capacities of the walls (Step 2) shall be considered.

Step 1 - Uncracked Condition The equivalent moment of inertia of an uncracked a transformed wallsection (Ie) shall be obtained consisting from of the block, mortar, cell grout and core concrete.

Alternatively the cell grout and core con-crete, neglecting block and mortar on the tension side, may be used.

l Step 2 - Cracked Condition If the applied moment (M due to all loads in t

' a load combination excee$s) the uncracked moment capacity (Mer), the In wall shall be this event, considered to be cracked.

the equivalent moment of inertia (I,) shall be computed as follows:

I, = [Mc h xI g + 1- [Ner\ xI er pe) -- --

M er *

- fr* --

Y Rev. 1 P-199/4

11187-C-8011 i

where, M er = Uncracked moment capacity M, = Applied maximum moment on the wall I

t

= Moment of inertia of transformed section I

er = M ment of inertia of the cracked section f = Modulus of rupture (as defined in r

paragraph 5.4,1) y = Distance of neutral plane from tension face If the use of I results in an applied moment M, which is les,s than Mer, then the wall shall be verified for Mer*

7.1.2 Modes of Vibration The effect of modes of vibration higher than the fundamental mode shall be considered.

For this purpose, a modal analysis may be performed. Alternatively, the inertia load on the wall due to its own weight for the fundamental mode may be considered as an

( uniform load in lieu of determining an effective mass. The corresponding bending moment and reaction will account for the higher mode effects.

7.1.3 Frequency Variations Uncertainties in structural frequencies of the masonry wall due to variations in structural properties and mass shall be taken into account. Significant variables include mass, boundary conditions, modulus of elasticity, extent of cracking, vertical load, in-plane and out-of-plane loads, two-way action, and composite action of multi-wythe a#

.g. heV. 1 P-199/4 l

11187-C-8011 walls. To account for the effect of frequency 1

variations, it is considered conservative to use the lower bound fresuency if it is on the higher frequency side of the peak response spectrum. If the lower bound frequency is on the lower frequency side of the peak.,

the peak acceleration shall be used unless a more detailed analysis is performed. These requirements may be relaxed if justified on a case-by-case basis.

7.1.4 Accelerations For a wall spanning between two floors, the effective accelerations shall be the average of the accelerations as given by the floor response spectra corresponding to the wall's natural frequency.

7.2 Structural Strenoth of Masonry Walls 7.2.1 Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions shall be determined considering one-way or two-way spans with hinged, fixed or free edges as appropriate.

Conservative assumptions may be used to simplify the analysis as long as due consi-deration is given to frequency variations.

7.2.2 Distribution of Concentrated Out-of-Plane Loads o Two-Way Action Where two-way bending is present in the wall the localized moments per unit width under a concentrated load can be determined using appropriate analytical procedures for plates. Standard solutions and tabular values based on elastic theory contained in textbooks or other published documents can be used if applicable for the case under investigation (considering load location and boundary conditions).

k Rev. 1 P-199/4

~

Spe,cification: 11187-C-80ll [

f.

e o one-Way Action For dominantly one-way bending, local moments can be determined using bea-theory and an effective width of six times the wall thickness. However, such moments shall not be taken as less than that for two-way ple.te action.

7.2.3 Interstory Drift Effects Interstory drift effects shall be derived from the original dynamic analysis.

7.2.4 In-plane and Out-of-plane Effects The combined effects of in-plane (e.g.,

seismic) and out-of-plane (e.g., piping) loads shall be considered.

7.2.5 Stress Calculations All stress calculations shall be performed by conventional methods prescribed by the Working Stress Design method or other accepted principles of engineering mechanics.

Tne collar joint shear stress shall be deter-mined by the relationship VQ/Ib for uncracked sections and in the compression zone of cracked sections. The relationship V/bjd shall be used for collar joints in cracked sections between the neutral axis and the tension steel.

7.2.6 Analvtical Techniques In general, classical design techniques shall be used in the evaluation. Simplified conservative analytical assumptions may be used. However, more refined methods utilizing computer analyses or dynamic analyses may be used on a case-by-case basis.

e Rev. 1 P-199/4 .

, . _ , . . . . -, .,-._-v.. . _ _ . , _ . , . - . - . _ _ _ - _ _ . , - - - - - - -- _. -- - - - - --

y.

a

. o lilB7-C-8011 O

TABLE 1 4

( >

A l I I I

] Load 1 Materials t, 1 Allowable Stress: ACI 531-79 l (psi) l Combination 1 Stress I l I l Description i 1 1 1 1 1

1 I (

lD+E I Masonry: f',= 1175 (see Note 2) {

i I l

I i l I

l l Flex. Compression 1 0.33f', = 388 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.225 f', [1-(h/40t)3) for walls. 1 I I Axial l Where: 1 1 1 Compression I f',= Ultimate compressive I I l i strength of masonry = 1175 I I I I I I I I I I l l t = wall thickness in inches 1 I i I I i I l h = clear height in inches I I I I I

l I (1) Normal to bed joints: I

! l 1 l a) 0.5/g = 14 for hollow units I

( l Tension (No Tensioni b) 1.0/mo = 27 for solid or i l 1 Reinforcement) I grouted units. I I l 12) Parallel to bed joints in running I

!  ! I I bond: l l l l 1 m) 1.0/ ,m = 27 for hollow units. 1 l 1 1 I b) 1.5/mo = 41 for solid or  !

l 1 I grouted units. l l

I l I I I

1 1 I l

l I Shear with no 11.1 % = 38 for transverse shear in !

flexural members. I I I Reinforcement I .

for shear walls. See l l I (stirrups) 10.9/ G = 31 Table 10.1 of ACI l I I lor l l l 2. 0G e 4 0, 531-79 P.16. 1 I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I . Shear with 13.0 { = 103, for flexural members. See I I Reinforcement ll.5fr ,= 51 for shear walls. I I I (stirrups) lor Table 10.1 of ACI I I I Stirrups taking 12.0/ G d 45 531-79 P.16. I I

I I entire shear i

= 294 on full area. I l 1 I l Bearing 10.25 10.375f'Y f , = 441 on one-third area or II 1 less.

l 1 I

l- 1 I NA 1 l Bond i I

1 I I Rev. 1

( P-199/2

11187-C-8011 TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

(

e  ! i l l Load l Materials & Stress l Allowable Stress: ACI 531-79 I i Combination l Description 1 (psi) l I I I I I I l l D+E l Reinforcing ]

l l Steel: 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I Tension i 20,000 for 40 grade steel (43 thru 1j l i I #7) I1 l l I 24,000 for 60 grade steel (larger 1' I l I than 87) l I I I I; I l l 40% of ASTM specified yield - 1 I I Compression 1 16,000 for 40 grade steel I i l 1 24,000 for 60 grade steel  !

I I I i 1 l l l 1D+E+T o I Stresses for i Increase the allowables for i l l All Materials I load combination D + E by a l I l 1 factor of 1.3 I I I I I

I I I I l Masonrv: The allowable masonry stresses for load combi- I f I nation D + E shall be increased as follows: 1 l

I l l

I D& E' l l l l l Increase Factor  !

l D + W' I Compression I i l I axial: 1 2.0 1 I D+E' +Tlo flexural: 1 2.5 I I l I I l D+F l Bearing: 1 2.5 I I I I I i 1.05D+1.25P 1 Shear and Bond: 1 1.67 l I I 1 I l

i 1.05D+1.0P' I Tension I I

i I I l

i 1.05D+1.0T, 1 No tension rebar i I

l I tension normal l I l to bed joints: 1 1.67 l I

I I I tension parallell l I I l

I I to the bed i I

I l joints; in run- 1 I I ning bond: 1 1.67 I I

l ,

I I Rev. 1 P-199/3

11187-C-8011

. TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

( l l l l Load 1 Materials & Stress l Allowable Stress: ACI 531-79 g l

Description (psi) l Combination i I B l

I I i 0

l 1

- B 1 I l D& E' l Reinforcing Q Steel: 0 l l l

l D+W' l i 0 1 I l D+E '+Toll Tension & I 0.9 Fy, provided lap slice lengths 0 Compression I and embedment (anchorage) develop D l

this stress level. Allowable bond (

lD+F l I stresses may be increased by a {

l l I factor of 1.67 in determining (

l 1.05D+1.25P 1 I l 1 1 splice and anchorage lengths. (

(

l 1.05D+1.0P' I I

{

l I i G

l 1.05D+1.0T, 1 I 2

l l I Notes:

The core concrete (or cell grout) has average compressive strength

(. f'c of 3800 psi.

2. From Table 4.3 of ACI 531-79, f' is interpolated as 1175 psi. This corresponds to compressive test strength of 3270 psi for the masonry units, based on the net cross-sectional area.

13 Rev. 1 P-199/3

.~~".-....-................,..=-:,,.---_- . . - _ - . . . - - -

11187-C-8011 TABLE 2

' I

- 1 l Load l Materials & I Allowable Stress: UBC-67 l l Combination l Stress I (psi) l l l Description I l 1 I l l l 1 Il l I il 1 D+E I Masonry: f', = 1500 (see note 2) [l l 1 1' I 1 i l i l i, l I Flex. Compression l .33f',= 500 l l 1 I i l I I I I I i 0.2f', [1-(h/30t)3] for walls i I . I I I I I Axial I Where:

• 1 I I Compression  ! l l l l f',= ultimate compressive l I I I strength of masonry l I l l = 1500 psi i l l l l 1 1 1 t = wall thickness in inches l I I I i 1 I l h = clear height in inches  !

I I I l 1 1

(

I I I i l l Tension i 10 (Table 24-B, UBC-67) l I i 1 I I I I I I l Shear with no I 50 (Table 24-H, UBC-67) l I i reinforcement I (see note 3) i I l (stirrups) l l I I I I I l Shear with rein- l 120 for flexural members l I i forecement (stirrups)1 75 for shear walls (Table 24-H, 1 I l Stirrups taking i UBC-67) l entire shear l l l l l 1900 l I I I .25f',= 375 psi on full area I I Bearing I .3f', = 450 psi on 1/3 or less of I I I I area 11200 l I

1 1 I l l Bond (Deformed) I 140 l l

l I I o.

(:

P-199/3 Rev. 1

11187-C-8011 TABLE 2 (CONT'D)

(

'- l 1

1 1

Load - 1 Materials & I Allowable Stress: UBC-67 l l (psi) l Stress 1 l Combination l Description l l

t I l 1 1

l l  !

i l i l Reinforcing l

l D+E I I i l Steel: 1 I i I I I I

1 Tension & 1 20,000 for grade 40 steel (63 thru 1 l

l

1. 7) l l

i l I compression i 24,000 for grade 60 steel (larger i l than #7) l l l j l i

l l I I I

1 i 1

ID+E+T Stress  ! Increase the allowables for o l I for all i load combination D + E by a l, l

I I materials l factor of 1.3 l I

I I

l l I i

I D + E' l Masonry: The allowable masonry stresses for load I

( l combination D + E shall be increased as follows:ll 1 D + W' l I

i 1 I I l

l Increase Factor 1 I l D + E' +T o I Compression l l

l axial: 1 2.0 I 2.5 1 flexural: l l D+F l I I

I l I

Bearing: 1 2.5 i 1.05D+1.25P l I

I 1 l 1

Shear and Bond: 1 1.67 i 1.05D+1.0P' i I

I 1 I 1

Tension i 1.67 i 1.05D+1.0T, I I

I I I l I

I I

(

Rev. 1 P-199/3

11187-C-8011 TABLE 2 (Cont'd) l

(

l I

l i Allowable Stress: UBC-67 l l Load 1 Materials & Stress l (psi) l Description I l Combination l I

I I I l

I I i I i i Reinforcing 1D& E' 1 Steel:

l i l I I D + W' l i

l 0.9 Fy, provided lap slice lengths  !

I I l D+E ' +T 1 Tension & I and embedment (anchorage) develop 1 l ol Compression I 1 this stress level. Allowable bond 1 1D+F l I stresses may be increased by a l I I l

f actor of 1.67 in determining l i 1.05D+1.25F l l splice and anchorage lengths. I l l l

l i 1.05D+1.0P' l I

I 1 I l

I l 1.05D+1.0T a I 1

I 1

l Notes:

I. . . The core concrete (or cell grout) has average compressive strength f'c of 3800 psi.

l f', = 1500 psi

2. UBC allowable stresses for mesonry are based on (Ref. sec. 2404 UBC-1967)

3. Web reinforcement shall be provided to carry the entire shear in t

l excess of 20 psi whenever there is required negative reinforcement and for a distance of one-sixteenth the clear span beyond the point of inflection, i

l

, l'.

l \.

, Rev. 1

-16 P-199/3

, f APPENDIX I Part 2 COMMENTARY ON THE CRITERIA FOR RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS

11187-C-6011 APPENDIX I l

. Part 2 COMMENTARY t

~

ON CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION I OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS IN RESPONSE TO NRC I&E BULLETIN 80-11 FOR THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY i

i BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION San Francisco, CA.

O l

,./n le # *" 9 "E (A

-193/3

>SSSEO POR oSE

11187-C-8011 CONTENTS 1.O GENERAL 2.O GOVERNING CODE 3.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 4.0 MATERIALS 5.O DESIGN ALLOWABLES 6.O ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 7.O ANALYSIS & DESIGN REFERENCES i

4 P-233/4 Rev. O

lll87-C-8011 CCMMENIARY ON CRITERIA FCR THE RE-EVAL 3 TION CF ODtERE'IE MASOtRY WALIS 1.0 GENERAL l

1.1 Purpose i

On May 8,1980, the NRC issued I&E Bulletin 80-11 entitlei,

" Masonry Wall Design", to certain Owners of operatirg reactor facilities. One of the tasks required by the bulletin was to establish appropriate re-evaluation criteria. A detailed justi-fication of the criteria alorg with quantified safety margins are also to be provided by the Omer. 'Ihis ccmmentary serves as justification of the criteria used and provides a discussion of the margin's of safety.

1.2 Scope

'Ihe concrete masonry walls are evaluated for all applicable loads and load ccmbinations. Calculated wall stresses are first canpared against an allowable stress criteria. In general, wall stresses are maintained within the elastic ranga of the loa 3 carrying conpanents. If allowable stresses are exceeded, then wall stability is checked using ultimate strength or inelastic design approaches and safety systems or, or near the wall are evaluated to determine if the displace-ments might adversely affect the intended function of safety i related piping ard equipnent.

I Iw . 0 P-233/4 1 _ _ _ _ . . . . _ -

11187-C-8011 Anchor bolts, enbeds and bearing plates provided for supprt of systems attached to the walls are the stbject of another NRC bulletin and are not considered to be within the scope of this evaluation.

2.0 CDVERNDG CODE Projects have the option of using the code referenced in the Safety Analysic Reprt (SAR) applicable to masonry or ACI 531-79. Rese codes do not address the abnormal loads typically applied to nuclear power plant design. Werefore, supplemental allowables ard alterna-tive design techniqJes are specified in the criteria for cases not directly covered by the code.

3.0 IfMS AND IIRD COMBINATIONS

%e loads identified and defined in the SAR for safety related struc-tures fom the basis for licensing of the plant ard are used in the evaluation of the mamnry walls. %e load conbinations listed in the SAR f^r safety related concrete structures are used except if licensing conmitments related to load cambinations are not identified in the SAR or other project documents, then applicable loads with a load factor of unity are canbined ard form the basis for the evalua-tion.

I 1

4.0 MATERIAIS Material strengths are largely determined by review of project speci-l fications, drawings and field documentation. It may also be necessary, in mme cases, to perform in-situ tests or to test samples taken fran l

Rev. O

---

- - P-233/4 _ _ _ ._ _

11187-C-80ll the as-built structure to supplement data obtained from project docia-ments.

5.0 DESIGN AIEHABLES 5.1 Allowables in this section apply to loads and ombinations of loads which are normally encountered daring plant operation or shutdown, and include dead loads, live loads, normal operating thermal effects, and pipe reactions. In addition, this section covers allowables for loads infrequently enmuntered, such as operating basis earthquake and wind loads. De loads in the various load canbinations have no increase factors and stresses are maintained well within the elastic range.

In general, the governing code allowables are applied. However, for cases not covered by the code, such as collar joint shear and tension, and grout tension, allowables are based on a factor of safety of 3 against failure.

The strength of mortared or grouted collar icints, 3 indes or less in thickness, is highly dependent on the degree of mnsoli-dation of the mortar or grout, the moisture content of the mix an3 the block, and the construction workmanship. Herefore, tension ard shear strength, if required, are to be established by tests. We statistical determination of ultimate strength will be consistent with methods used to verify f'c in ACI-318 and will reflect a prooability of less than 1 in 10 that a random individual strength test will be below the ultimate strength.

Se 30% stress increase for load embinations containing normal operating thermal effects or displacement limited loads has been typically accepted in the industry for reinforced concrete and Rev. 0 P-233/4

11187-C-8011 is considered reamnable for masonry. The factor of safety against failure of the masonry reduces fran 3.0 to 2.3, still well within the elastic range.

In-plane strain allowables for interstory drift effects for non-shear walls were established well below the level of strain required to initiate significant cracking. %e allowable strain for a confined wall was based on the equivalent compres-sion strut model discussed in Reference 1 and nodified by a factor of safety of 3.0 against crushing. Test data (mferences 1 through 7) was reviewed to determine cracking strains for confined masonry walls subjected to in-plane displacements an3 confirms the predicted strain as given by the equivalent strut nodel.

5.2 mis section deals with factored loa 3s and other abnocnal loads which are credible but highly improbable such as the safe shut-j down earthquake, torna3o loads and loads generated by a postu-1 lated high-energy pipe break accident.

l Code allowable stresses for mamnry in tension, shear and bond are increased by a factor of 1.67. In general, this provides l

a factor of safety against failure of 1.8 (3 + 1.67). Masonry ccrnpression stresses are increased by factors ranging fran 2.0 to 2.5 with a minimun safety factor of 1.2 (3 i- 2.5).

Beinforcing steel is allowed to approach 0.9 times the yield strength which is typical for reinforcing steel which is re-quired to resist factored and abnormal loads.

Stresses due to the local effects of abnormal dynamic loads, such as missile impact, jet impingement or pipe Wiip, may exceed the allowables. Ibwever, safety systars attached or Rev. 0 P-233/4

11187-C-8011 i

adjacent to the wall are evaluated to determine if servere cracking, local spalling, or excessive deflections will result in loss of required function of the system or equipment.

Where gross failure of a masonry wall must be precluded, the provisions of ACI 349-76, Appendix C, or applicable theoretical techniques or experimental evidence is used to evaluate wall acceptability.

5.3 Ihmping for unreinforced uncracked walls was conservatively set at 2% for OBE and SSE corresponding to stress levels ranging frca approximately 0.3 to 0.6 of ultimate.

Damping for reinforced walls which are expected to crack due to out-of-plane seismic inertia are conservatively set at 4%

for OBE and 7% for SSE. 'Ihese values are typically recognized as being realistic for reinforced concrete, yet conservative for reinforcirs masonry.

5.4 'Ihe modulus of rupture of concrete, great and nortar was assumed to vary by 20%, therefore, a lower bourd nodulus of rupture is determined by applying a reduction factor of 0 8 to the theoretical concrete modulus of rupture of 7.5/f'c or to the modulus of rupture determined by testing samples taken frem the as-built structure. For masonry, the nodulus of rupttire is approximated by increasing the code allowable flexural tensile stress by the factor of safety of 3 and then applying the 20% reduction to arrive at a lower bound value.

(0.8 X 3 Ft = 2.4 Ft, where Ft is the code allowable tensile stress). Nhen necessary, the upper bound nodulus of rupture may be considered as 9/f'c.

m.0 P-233/4

- . . . . . . - . .. . . . . = _ _ _ ..

lll87-C-80ll 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Masony walls (a) that are not relied upon to provide strength of the structure as a whole, and (b) that are subjected to out-of-plane seismic inertia loading causing flexural stresses in excess of design allowables may be evaluated by means of the " energy balance technique" for reinforced walls. Reinforced masonry walls evaluated by the " energy balance technique" (References 8 and 9) must have sufficient capability to preclude brittle failure and allcw rela-tively large ductile flexural deformations. 'htsts (Reference 13) indicate that when flexure is the aminant action, ductilities are in excess of 25. Other tests (Reference 14) show that even when empression failures occur, ductilities in excess of 5 can be achieved. When reinforced masonry has adequate shear and cmpres-sion capability, its behavior is expected to parallel that of reinforced concrete where allowable ductilities for predominantly non-structural elements are conservatively set at 10. It is reason-able that for out-of-plane seismic loading on non-shear walls con-structed of masonry where brittle failures are precluded that a permissible ductility of 5 is acceptable as long as the safety systens are not jeopardized.

Masonry walls. confined within a rigid frame or structure can develcp j

substantial resistance to out-of-plane loadings after flexural crack-ing and may be evaluated by use of the theory of arching (References 10 through 12). Particular attention is given to the rigidity of the wall boundary and to the effect of a gap between the wall and its support.

Operability of safety related equipnent and systems as affected by excessive deflections of the masonry walls is of primary inportance in this alternative criteria. '1herefore, due to the uncertainties involved in calculating the displacements, a factor of 2 is applied to the calculated deflections and system operability is evaluated accordingly.

P-233/4 Rev. 0

11187-C-8011 7.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

(

7.1 2 e structural response of the masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic inertia loads is based en a constant value of gross or trans-formed sections (considering block and grout on the empression side and neglecting block and mortar joints on tension side) moment of o inertia along the span of the wall for the elastic (uncracked) con-dition. If the wall is cracked, a better estimate of the manent of inertia is obtained by use of the ACI-318 formula for effective moment of inertia used in calculating imediate deflections.

(Reference 15) n e effects of higher modes of vibration and variations in fre-quencies are considered on a case-by-case basis. Se use of the average aceleration of the floors supporting the wall is considered sufficiently accurate for the purpose of this evalu-ation.

7.2 he determination of the out-of-plane structural strength of masonry walls is highly sensitive to the boundary conditions assumed for the analysis. Fixed end conditions are justified for walls (a) built into thicker walls or continuous acrms walls and slabs, (b) that have the strength to resist the fixed end mment, and (c) that have sufficient support rigidity to prevent rotation. Otherwise, the wall edge is simply sup-l ported or free depending on the shear carrying capability of the wall and suppport.

I Distribution of concentrated loads are affected by the bear-ing area under the load, horizontal and vetical wall stiff-ness, boundary conditions and proximity of load to wall sup-ports. Analytical procedures applied to plates based on elastic theory are used to determine the a W riate distribo-tion of concentrated loads. A conservative estimate of the localized moment per unit length for plates supported on all Rev. 0 P-233/4

11187-C-8011 edges can be taken as:

Mn = 0.4P where: Mn = Iocalized noment per unit length (in-lbs/in)

P = Concentrated load perpendicular to wall (1bs)

For loads close to an unsupported edge, the upper limit mcment per unit length can be taken as:

Mn = 1.2P For predcrainantly on^-way action, an effective beam width of 6 times the wall thickness for distribution of concentrated loads is conservative for the following conditions:

a) Concentrated load at midspan; sinple supports: L>9.6T b) Concentrated load at midspan; fixed supports: L>19.2r c) Co'ncentrated load on a cantilever: h>2.4T d) Couple at midspan; simple supports: a>4.8T e) Couple near a support; single supports: a>2.4T Where: L is the beam length h is the distance frczn the fixed end to the point of load application a is the distance between~ the concentrated loads producing a couple T is the thickness of the wall P-233/4 Rev. 0

11187-C-8011 Interstory drfit values are derived frcan the original dynanic analysis. Strain allowables deperding on the degree of con-finement are applied for in-plane drift effects on non-shear walls and are set at sufficiently conservative levels for in-plane effects alone that a reasonable margin remains for out-of-plane loads. Out-of-plane drift effects are considered if some degree of fixity exists at the top and/or bottczn of the wall.

P-233/4 Rev. 0

lil87-C-80ll REFERENCES

1. Klingner, R. E. and Bertero, V. V., "Infilled Franes in Earthquake Besistant Cbnstruction," Report tb. EERC 76-32, Earthquake Engineer-ing Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, December, 1976.

2. Meli, R and Salgado, G., "Caportamiento de muros de manpsteria su-jetos a cargas laterales," (Behavior of Masonry Wall Under Lateral Ioads. Secord Report.) Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, Informe ?b.

237, September, 1959.

3. Meli, R. , Zeevart, W. and Esteva, L, *Cmportamiento de muros de manposteria hueca ante cargas alternades," (Behavior of Reinforced Mamnry thder Alternating Ioads), Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, Informe tb.156, July,1968.

4. Chen, S. J. , Hidalgo, P. A. , Mayes, R. L. , Clough, R. W. , 5tNiven, H. D. ,

' " Cyclic Ioading 'Ibsts of Masonry Single Piers, Wltane 2 - Height to Width Ratio of 1, " Report tb. EERC 78-28, Earthquake Engineering Re-search Center, thiversity of California, Berkeley, CA, Novenber,1978.

5. Mainstone, R. J., "On 'Ihe Stiffnesses and Strengths of Infilled Franes,"

Proc. I.C. E. , 1971.

l l

6. Hidalgo, P. A. , Mayes, R. L. , McNiven, H.D. , Clough, R. W. , " Cyclic Ioa3ing Tests of Marnry Sirgle Piers, Wltrne 1 - Height to Width Ratio of 2," Report Ib. EERC 78/27, Earthquake Ehgineerirg Research Center, thiversity of California, Berkeley, CA,1978.

7. Hidalgo, P.A., Mayes, R. L. , McNiven, H. D. , Clough, R. W., " Cyclic Ioading 'Iusts of Masonry Single Piers, W1uma 3 - Height to Width Ratio of 0.5," Report No. EERC 79/12, Earthquake Ehgineering Research Center, thiversity of California, Berkeley, CA,1979.

{

mv. O F233/4 t

11187-C-8011

8. ,Bltrne, J. A. , N. M. Newnark, and L. H. Corning, " Design of Multistory Reinforced (bncrete Buildings for Earthquake !btions," Portland Cement Association, IL.1961.

l

9. Newnark, N. M., " Current Trends in the haismic Analysis and Design of g High-Rise Structures," Chapter 16, Earthquake Engineering, B3ited by R. L. Wiegel, McGraw-Hill,1970.

10. Gabrielson, B. L. and K. Kaplan, " Arching in Masonry Walls Subjected to Out-of-Plane Forces," Earthquake Resistance of Masanry Construc-tion, National Hbrkshop, NBS 106, 1976. pp. 283-313.

11. McD3well, E. L. , K. E. McKee, and E. Savin, " Arching Action 'Iheory of msonry Walls, " Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE W1. 82, No. ST2, March,1956, Papar tb. 915.

12. McKee, K. E. and E. Savin, "Insign of Masonry Walls for Blast Ioad-ing, " Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE Transactions, Proceed-ing Paper 1511, January 1958.

13. Scrivener, J. C. , " Reinforced Masonry-Seismic Behaviour and Design,"

l Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthqua'm Engineering, W1. 5, N3. 4, December 1972.

14. Scrivener, J.C. , " Face Ioad 'Insts on Reinforced Ibliow-brick tbn-loadbearing Walls," New Zealand Engineering, July 15, 1969.

15. Branson, D. E., " Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Inflections on Simple and Cbntinuous minforced (bncrete Beams," HPR Rep 3rt !b. 7, l Part 1, Alabama Highway Department, B.treau of Public Ibads, August 1965, pp. 1-78.

kv. 0 l P-233/4

-_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _