ML20050A390
| ML20050A390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1982 |
| From: | Deacon W BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 82-90, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8204010246 | |
| Download: ML20050A390 (279) | |
Text
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY moo Bovooran Svesse B OSTO N. MAssACMUSETTS D2199 March 22,1982 BECo. Ltr. #82-90
- Q 9
Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief 0 Operating Reactors Branch #2 # '#
Division of Licensing 2 , 9 03? ? 42 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
- i n. c#
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m .:'z # ^
Washington, D. C. 20555
,,v;
" # ,W,
/
4 Docket Numbqr250,-293,TW License No. D9h3 W Ref. (a): T. A. Ippolito to A. V. Morisi 1/7/82 Additional Information on Block Walls
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find our response to questions concerning block walls requested by your letter of January 7,1982 (Reference (a)).
NRC Bulletin 80-11 requires the licensee to submit a written report upon completion of the re-evaluation program. This report must include the following:
- 1. description of the masonry walls,
- 2. description of the construction practices employed in the construction of the walls,
- 3. re-evaluation criteria and a detailed justification.
Items 2 and 3 are addressed in response to Questions 6 and 4, respectively, of Reference (a). A description of the masonry walls and associated system as well as the results of the re-evaluation (required in the 60 day response) program will be provided under separate cover.
We trust that this response sufficiently answers your concerns. If you need further information or clarification do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yo.urs, ool
^
f LW
. ii. DeacEn / I Acting Manager Nuclear Operations Support 8204010246 820322 PDR ADOCK 05000293 O PDR
, - - - - - , . - - , .- - _ , , - - - ,_.-----.-----u A ACHMEl\T l
References:
i R1. " Recommended Guidelines for the Reassessment of Safety Related Concrete Masonry Walls", Prepared by Owners and
' Engineering Firms Informal Group on Concrete Masonry Walls, October 6, 1980.
R2. Final Safety Analysis Repo'rt, Unit 1, Pilgrim Station No.
600.
I
! R3. Schneider, R.R., " Shear in Concrete Masonry Piers",
California State Polytechnic College, Pomona, California,
, 1959.
I R4. Englekirk, R. E. , and G. C. Hart, " Seismic Design of Concrete Masonry . ear Walls", ASCE National Convention, Hollywood, Florida, tober 1980.
1 RS. ACI StandaJd, " Building Code Requirements for Concrete '
Masonry Structures", (ACI 531-79).
R6. ACI Committee 531, " Concrete Masonry Structural - Design and Construction," Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings Vol. 67, No. 5, May 1970, pages 380-403.
le '5 R7. " Specification for Furnishing, Delivery and Installation for
(_j' of Concrete Unit Masonry for Unit No. 1, Pilgrim Station No.
600, Boston Edison Company", Rev. 1, Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, California, 1972.
R8. " Work Instruction for Testing of Masonry Walls", Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Boston Edison Company, WI-6, Rev. 2, November 25, 1981.
R9. Construction Drawings, Unit No. 1, Pilgrim Station No. 600, California, Edison Company, Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco R10. Omote, Y., Mayes, R. L., Chen, S. W. J., R. W. Clough, "A Literature Survey-Transverse Strength of Masonry Walls",
EERC-77/07, March 1977.
R11. "Cygna Generic Calculation Set No. G18000".
R12. Boston Edison Letter to Mr. Boyce H. Grier, NRC (BECo. Ltr.
- 81-58) March 18, 1981 k_)
O
- 1. With respect to the equivalent static analysis, the Licensee should provide justification for the use of the amplification
' factor of 1.3 to account for multi-mode effects.
This question refers to the level 1 analysis described in Section 4.2.1 of the revised design criteria. It was felt that the factor of 1.3 is conservative for the geometric char'acteristics of concrete block walls. A factor of 1.05 was recommendedThe by the Informal Owners Group on Concrete Masonry Walls (RI).
pertinent section of that report is appended to this answer.
' Table 1 provides a summary of multi-mode effects for Pilgrim walls evaluated by level 2 analysis as described in Section 4.2.2 of the revised criteria. The table compares the moments from the fundamental mode with those from the 12 mode SRSS combination.
The walls considered re? resent a variety of geometries and boundary conditions. T:1e range of the critical parameters are:
Aspect ratio: 0.56 ( H/L < 1.65 O Thickness:
Openings 8" < t ( 42" 0 ( No. Openings ( 5 .
Fund. Frequency 7.2 ( ft( 28.6 Hz The maximum change in moment due to higher modes occurs for the x-direction moment in wall 195.6. The amplification factor is 1.05.
l l
G
([)
l -
, l ! ,
- l
- 9 1 9 6 0 0 0 0 0
)Y 0 0 -
0 0 0 0 3 0 0 - 7 7 0 7 7 1 9 9 1 1 1 1
(% 1 1 - 9 9 o )3 (4
X 6
9 9
0 0
1 8
9 9
8 9
9 0
0 1
9 9
9 0
0 1
9 5
9 0
5 9
0 0
1 0
0 1
1 8 7 1 7 f 7 2 6 y 5 8 1 4 0 2 5 y2 2 9 7 1 5 2 6 7 5 9 0 9 2 4 1 7 M1 2 1 1 1 6 5 7 d
e n
'l 1 - 1 9 7 n 7 2 6 i
' ye 5 8 - 3 6 1 7 P yd 2 - 7 0 5 1 4 7 5 9 0 9 7 2 4 1 7 M 'o 2 1 - 1 6 5 =
M P
f 9 3 8 1 0 8 ,
1 0 0 1 x 8 3 5 5 6
5 3 2 5 2 3 2 6 2 e x2 3 6 4 6 1 2 7 1 3 4 e M1 2 1 2 3 5 r F
=
1 8 9 - 2 2 9 F 0 0 4 1 xe 7 3 -
5 6
4 3 2 5, 2 0 1 6 2 xd 3 6 1 3 4 Mo 2 1 - 3 5 6 1 2 7 .
M l l
a 7 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 7 7 6 W
" . . . . 0 i 1 9 9 8 f 0 6 1 f 9 5 1
5 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 o 1
4 ErE E E E E E E E E E E E S
E B
m o
t t
o BoS B B S B S S B S B S S O S S O S O S S O B O S O O d
n a
B t
)d - h 2nR g
( u- P P P P P P i oT P P F P R B- F P P P P F P F F P P P P L F P F P ,
P P P F P p o
s h T t
n 0 1 2 0 1 g ,
e 0 0 - n t .
p e f 0 O L e 0
/ L 1 t
k h n x c
2 2 8 2 8 g o i 0 1 8 i )
4 h 3 4 4 e n f T H o 2 i 1
- t M
/
t co 5 i o'don 1 0 0 1 9 5 e
_ ) ei 3 2 6 9 6 9 t C 1 pt 3 2 a d
( sa . .
0 1 0 R y o 1 a AR 1 1 1 r a M o
t c d (
n
_ e 6 p u =
A 6 1 s o l 3 7 A 0 4 A B %
l 7 5 a 2 4 8 5 ) )
9 9 )
W 6 6 4 6
9 1
5 6 1 1 1 2 3
(
( (
l
. i i
8 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 5 3 0 0 1 1 9 9 9 (t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4
9 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 0
)X 0 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 7 9 1 (t 9 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 '9 3 5 9 f 3 6 9 0 1 -
y 7 5 0 2 8 1 7 0 4 3 3 2 7 6 3 -
y2 0 6 6 3 1 1 1 3 5 3 5 M1 3 1 2 1 '2 .
d -
e _
l .
1 0 4 5 a .
5 i ye 8 1 7 3 6 9 0 7 5 0 2 3 2 7 6 2 P yd 0 6 6 3 0 4 3 2 3 5 3 5 1 1 1 Mo 3 1 2 1 =
M P .
3 1 5 3 8 5 f 3 9 1 2 3 ,
x 0 7 0 5 0
9 0
2 7 1 7 4 3 3 e _
x2 2 0 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 e _
M1 8 1 1 1 r F
=
1 2 1 5 3 4 0 2 3 9 5 2 4 F xe 0 7 0 5 9 3 5 3 0 0 7 1 7 3 3 xd 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 Mo 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 .
M l l
a 7 1 1 6 6 1 1 6 6 W
. 9 8 7 i 8 f f 7 9 9 8 8 9 9 8 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7 9 1
m o
L t B E E E E B E E E t A ErE E E E E S B o BoS B B S B S B S B S B T_ S O S O S O S O S O _
B O S O O _
d n
- a B t
- )d - h ZnR g
( u- P P P P P i oT P P P P R B- F P F P F P P P P P L P P P P ,
P P P P P p o
h T s t n 3 1 1 2 5 g ,
e 0 3 n t .
p e f 0 O L e 0
/ L 1 t
k h n x c 4 4 8 2 g o i 8 2 1 1 i )
h 1 8 8 2 e n f T : H o 2 i 1
- t M d /
t o n 1 co 2 2 2 0 7 i o e
) ei 9 2 2 2 2 6 1 t C 1 pt 5 2 . a d
( sa . . .
1 0 e
1 R y o AR 0 1 1 1 r n.
- t a I L
_ ) c d (
) ) )
I e n 0 I I I 5 p u =
l 5
1 I
- 1. I . 2 3 A
s B
o l 1 5c 1. c. 1. c. 5c .
9 a 9 8e 5e 5e 8e 1
) )
8S 1S 9 0 )
W 1 1S
(
8S 1( 1( ( 1 2 1 2
( (
3
(
L i
l j' o :
)Y 6 8 -8 0 1 4 8
3 9 9 9 0 9 (4 9 9 9 1 9 9 5 6 2 0 0 0
)X 0 9 0 0 3 8 8 (t 9 9 1 9 1 1 ,
f 5 8 y 1 3 5 9 -
y2 8 4 8 2 4 6 7 4 5 M1 2 4 4 d
- e n
1 n i
ye 4 2 4 9 1 9 P ya 8 4 8 2 4 5 7 4 5 =
Mo 2 4 4 M P f 3 5 ,
x 6 5 6 4 8 e x2 3 1 3 2 6 0 e M1 1 2 8 1 1 2 r F
=
1 _
3 4 F xe 4 2 5 4 8 .
xd 3 1 3 2 6 0 1 1 2 Mo 1 2 8 l
M l a
W 2 2 5 5
. 2 2 f i
f 9 9 4 4 . o 1 1 1 1 7 7 m
o T
t B t ErE E E , E E E E o A S B S B S B T BoS B S O S O S O S O d
n a
B t
)d - h 2nR g
( u- P P i
R oT P P B- P F L P P F ,
P F P p o
h T s t g
n 0 0 n t e 0 p e f 0 O L e 0
/ L 1 t
k h n x c g o i 8 8 8 i )
h 1 1 1 e n f T H o 2 i 1
- t M d /
t o n 1 co i o
) ei 6 6 6 t C e 1 pt 5 5 5 . a y d
o
( sa R AR 0 0 0 r a t a M c d (
e n 3 3 3 p u =
5 5 5 s o l .
A B %
l 1 1 1 a 9 9 9 ) ) )
W 1 1 1 1 2 3
( ( (
i TABLE 1 (cen't) i The example below is provided to clarify the column headings.
1 j
/ #
d I
$ ; "o Height = h
/ o s ,
- f ,
I
- j
< /<<<<< <<<<,,,see,,,,,$ f
, 300" #
Length = 1 Th4ckness = 18" l
Heading -
Example Aspect Ratio = H/L AR = 200/300 = 0.667 Opens = f of openings Opens = 2 O Boundary = Boundary Condition on each Bound = PFPP edge clockwise starting at left P = Pinned, F = Free fi = Fundamental Frequency
%X, %Y = Ratio of Mode 1 Moment To 12f Moment (as a percent)
= M(mode 1)/M(12 mode) x 100 ,
e O
s O
4
ATTACHMENT 1 (To Questien #1) 3elow is an excerpt from Reference R1 regarding the use of a 1.05 Os factor to represent the multi-mode effects. .
" Modal Participation It is recommended that the seismic acceleration for both reinforced cnd non-reinforced concrete masonry walls with rigid supports be incr' eased by a factor equal to 1.05 to account for the participation of higher modes for out-of-plane flexural calculations. When the lowest fundamental frequency determined in Item B is greater than 33 Hertz, this factor is not required. A modal analysis may be used to justify a lower value between 1.0 and 1.05."
The same reference also supplies the following supporting commentary.
" Modal Participation The committee conducted a parametric study to determine the effect of the participation of higher modes. For,each of the three boundary conditions referenced in Exhibit 3.1, and for a cantilevered wall with an aspect ratio equal to 1.0, the modal displacements for the first eight the with modes full were compared E 1m (D) and a to the SRSS reduced Em1dis(placement for wall panels D) within the third segment of the panels. The results are tabulated in Exhibit 3.3 and indicateIn that the 99% of the displacement is contributed by the first mode.
addition to considering displacement, the committee reviewed the
/'T effect of modal participation on moments for the wall panels indicated U in Exhibit 3.4. It was again demonstrated that the first mode moment contributed more than 99% of the SRSS moment for an eight mode analy-sis. For both the displacement and the moment study, an acceleration of 1.0g applied over tie entire frequency range was used as the input spectra.
The finite element program used did not provide shear values within the elements nor at the supports. It is the Committee's opinion, however, that the first mode would, likewise, contribute at least 99%
of the shear in the wall and at the supports."
Exhibit 3.4 from Reference R1 has been included on the following pages.
e 8
9 O
Exhibit 3.4 Page 1 of 2 ,
i Contribution from Support Case h/L Hodes First Mode }ioment for SRSS of All Mode Homents
. 1.0 1 thru 8 . 99.30%
///M/- ,-
e
. i
.67 ~
.=
'h<%'/. -
.54 1 thru 8 99.86% r i
I 1.0 1 thru 5 99.82% -
', O.67 1 thru 5 99.78% .
/
. a'/ . . s's//
0.50 1 thru 5 99.70%
o R1
- 1.0 1 thru 8 99.75%
//<hh.w pg COMPARISON OF FIRST MODE MOMENT TO SRSS MOMENT :
l 3-22
m
- 2. ith regard to the availability of the amplified response soectra, the Licensee stated that "if no ARS is available, earthouake loads may be evaluated based on_a rigid range acceleration valus_As determined by the original building seismic analysis. In this case the wall must be shown to have a fundamental frecuency greater than the rigid range cutoff freauency value." The Licensee should indicate how the rigid range acceleration and_
cutott trequency could De determined _.
Amplified response spectra are available for all mason 7y walls evaluated at Pilgrim. The revised criteria does not cantain the statement quoted in question 2.
O v
- 3. For the permissible strain of non-shear walls, the Licensee should prcvide the tecnnical basis for using 0.1% and 0.01% for confined and uncon_ fined walls, respectively.
This question refers to Section 4.2.4 of the revised _ design cri-teria. The P11Jrim FSAR (R2) requires that one horizontal seismic excitatnon be evaluated in conjunction with vertical excitation (2-D earthquake criteria). For non-shear walls, the critical horizontal direction is out-of-plane. Thus, the in- l plane criteria was developed to limit structure imposed distor-tions to prevent excessive cracking and degradation which might adversely impact the ability to carry the non-concurrent out-of-plane inertia loading.
a series of shear tests on concrete masonry For piersconfined walls,d under the direction of Professor Robert were performe Schneider at California State Polytechnic College at Pomona, [
California for Masonry Research of Los Angeles (R3). These tests were performed on masonry piers constructed using typical methods The and materials: 8 inch ASTM type C-90 block, type S mortar.
the effect on piers were built of varying size and detail so that ultimate panel strength of parameters such as steel reinforcement, significant axial stress, type of panel restraint, and grouted vs. non-grouted block could se evaluated.
It should be kept in mind that the intent of these tests was to measure the ultimate capacity of these panels under in-plane shear and not elastic or early inelastic behavior. However, O since the ultimate capacity of the piers was measured against the load carrying capability at first visible cracking, ample data at i first cracking is available to form a basis for the criteria utilized.
The test program results were tabulated calculating the average shear stress, the shear distortion, and the wall height to width ratio.
The average shear stress, V/A, is determinedInfrom the first crack some cases, the as tabulated in Table 5 of the test report. .
first crack may be a " moment crack" rather than a " shear crack".
Generally the shear stress in the wall increases after the first moment crack.a The test results of A/h vs. h/d were plotted in Figure 1 for four types of walls:
- 1) li- restrained, grouted i
- 2) O - restrained, grouted, horizontal ties ;
- 3) d-- restrained, partially grouted f
- 4) oo - restrained, grouted, axially loaded.
drs *The first crack in test case 29 is a " moment crack".
l l
. _ _ . . m. .
. A '
h.
N -
O '*
0.0030- -
~
9,s 0.0025- -
O'*
62 .
. 0.0020- - O
~
22R 0.0015-m'
- O $i 2 g
c:Y" as .
0.0010 , -6 . . . . . . . .
O' O.0005- -
O*" -
O" h
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 D l
~
f l
IN-PLANE DISTORTION I h)
( h )l .
vs.
O '
WALL HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO I fhi Djl Figure 1 (
Although first cracking occurs at values less than 6/h = 0.001
() in some instances, the majority of the cases do fall,above this value.
The criteria recommended by the Informal Owners Group on Concrete Masonry Walls (RI) for in-plane distortion of confined walls is:
I A/h ( .001 where: a= relative displacement between top and bottom of wall h = height of wall.
The preliminary study used for their criteria is appended to this answer.
The next step in developing the criteria was to consider the effect of an in-plane force. The graph in Fi shear stress (V/A) vs. shear distortion (a/h)gure 2 .
shows average A minimum bound on this data is sought so as to maximize the calculated displace-ment due to the in-plane force. This displacement, af, will be added to the imposed displacement due to story drift, ad, and the combined value compared to the allowable.
The shear stresses, V/A, plotted are those at first cracking, be it a ' moment' or ' shear' type crack. The deformations, a/h, are O those at first shear crack with test case 29 representing the only moment crack. Test case 29 results in conservatism since shear stress capacity still increases after the first moment crack and even after the first shear crack.
A plot of the data reveals that the height to width (h/D) ratio of the wall greatly influences its shear stress capacity versus deflection. Consequently, two relationships are developed one for h/D ratios ( 1.0 (long walls) and one for 1.0 ( h/D < 3.0 (short walls). The mode of deformation of short walls is dif-ferent than the long walls under the same average shear strer.s conditions.
The previous data presented was from laboratory tests. There is also data presented in Reference R 4 from an actual concrete masonry structure subjected to a major earthquake ground motion.
l O
s
1(PSI)
A h .
~
co sa /V A 200f -
/ 7, = 80.000 7
/ LOWER BOUND FOR g/ AD-< 1.0 7
160- - / 13
^
/
/
/
7R ee'*/ .
120- 6 4 7 A2 h j A' R sk'*
/
80- / g2s 0,,
/ =
/ g33 g15 / e s'
/
/ -
} = 20.000{
an ..
, ' , LOWER BOUND FOR
/ g-
/ ge 2 _
h 1.0 < g S. 3.0
/ '/' A 4 . . . . .
.'h 0 8 R E 8
$ $ $ $ $ 8 ;
l f
AVERAGE S_H E AR ST R ESS i V i( A )i .
v s.
~ fh) -
IN-PLANE DISTORTION It h 'I j
O- .
, Figure 2
! The darkened symbols are for h/D> 1.0.
l l
The structure is North Hall located on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
O there is a 33 ft. high and 13 ft, wide concrete block shear wall.
On the wall, strong motion earthquake accelerometers were positioned In the structure, to measure the lateral acceleration parallel to the wail. One '
was located at the base and the other at an elevation'24 ft above the base.
The maximum relative displacement obtained from an analysis of these records was 1.12 cm over the 24 ft. distance. The walls showed no distress and performed well within the failure limits.
The relative movement corresponds to an in-plane strain, /h, of 0.15 per. cent, which exceeds the design criteria used to evaluate the masonfy walls at Pilgrim.
Based on the foregoing data, the following criteria combining in-plane forces and in-plane displacements was used for the qualifi-cation of confined walls.
af , ad ( .001* h h H D ( 3.0 and
{(v m for g(1.0, of =
80,0 0 A O h of = F for 1.0 ( 3 ( 3.0, h 20,000 A where:
ad = imposed story displacement Af = displacement due to imposed forces H = story height h = wall height A = effective area of wall under in-plane loading Va = allowable in-plane shear stress V = applied in-plane shear force. ,
For unconfined walls, the study by the Owners Group was utilized.
The preliminary study report, as mentioned previously .is appended to this answer.
O
_ --- - c
^
. :: . = - . . . . . . .a .
Own9rn Group Study of In-Plono Effectn l
The objective here is to begin to define in-plane strain or displacement O criteria for non-structural concrete block masonry walls. FortNiupurpose a non-structural vall is defined as follows:
- 1. It (oes not carry a significant part of the story shear or moment.
- c. 2. It does not significantly modify the behavior of adjacent structural elements. ,
In other words, the behavior of the structure must be substantially the same >
whether such walls are present or not.
. i Preliminary review of the available literature indicates conservatively that unconfined concrete' block masonry can withstand in-plane strains of 0.0001,
- () based primarily on the work of Decica and Finhburn. For story heights of i 15 to 20 feet, the corresponding allowabic story drift is about 0.0; inches. -
For confined masonry, the equivalent strut apprunch appears promising. Klingner ,
has obtained excellent correspondence between experimental and analytical !
0 results fcr masonry infilled franes loaded eJelicly to failure. His analysi.s 1
assumes that first degradation of the infill corrnsponds to failure of the j I
equivalent strut in compression. A survey of the published work on the equivalent strut approach indicates that this " compression" failure is generally coincident with the formation of principal diagonal cracking. This approach to the problem >
I indicates an acceptable story drift an order creater that that for unconfined walls. ;
The remainder of the list of references provide background on the equivalent o
... .. .. . .~ .. _. _ . - - - . _
2.
method, the effects of openings, and dynamic characteristics. Care must I
l strut O be taken in reviewing the literature since nor.e of the investigators has had the requireme its of IE 80-11 in mind. Benjamin, for example, presents a great deal of load displacement data for clay brick infilled frames in which the first Icrack is ciently identified. However, a closer examination of the text reveals that the crack identified is a boundary crack betweers infill and frame - a relatively benign effect. In addition, one suspect.s that the cracking displace-ment corresponds to the paint in the experiment that the investigator could clearly see a boundary crack thgt had formed at an earlier stage.
- s O
9 6
e O
. -__ -__:.-_._....___.=_ .. .. .. . , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l REFERENCES ,
Becica, I.J. and H.G. Harris, "Evakuation of Techniques in the Direct Modeling O of Concrete Masonry Structures," Drexel University Structural Models Laboratory Report No. H77-1, June 1977. ,
Fishburn, C.C. "Effect of Mortar Properties on Strength of Masonry," Untional Bureau of Standards Monograph 36 U.S. Covernment Printing Office, Eov.1961.
- - Klingner, R.E. and V.V. Bertero, " Earthquake Resistance of Infilled Frames,"
e Journal of 'the Structural Division, ASCE, June 1978.
e Benjcmin, J.R. and H.t.. Villiams, "The Behavier of One-Story Rein nreed Concrete Shear Valls," Journal of the Structural Division, ACCE, Proceedingr., Paper 1254, Vol. 83, No. ST3, Mey,1957, pp.1254.1-1754.39.
Benjanin, J.R. 'and H.A. Willians; "The Behavior of One-Story Brick Shear Valls,"
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Frocondings, Paper 1773, Vol. 84, ST4, July,1958, pp.1723.1 - 1723.30. .
Benjamin, J.R. a*nd H.A. Villiams, " Behavior of One-Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Valls Containing Openings," Journ'al of the Atcrican Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol. 30, No. 5, November,1958, pp. 605-618.
Holees, M., " Steel Frames with Brickwork and concreto Infilling," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol.19, August,1961, pp. 473-478.
Holmes, M., " Combined Leading on Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institu-tion of Civil, Engineers, Vol. 25, May,1963, pp. 31-38.
Liauw, T.C., " Elastic 3ehavior of Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institu-tion of Civil Engineers, Vol. 46, July, 1970, pp. 343-349. .
Hallick, D.V. and R.T. Svern, "The Behavior of Infilled Framen Under Static Leading," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil ens ineers, Vol. 39, February, 1968, pp. 261-287.
Erith, B.S., " Lateral Stiffness of Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, No. ST6, December,1962, pp.183-199.
Srith, B.S., " Behavior of Square :Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. ST1, February,1966, pp. 381-403.
Smith, B.S., "Model Test Results of Vertien1 and Horizontal Loading in Infi31ed Frames," Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Froceedings, Vol. 65, No. 8,
' August, 1968, pp. 618-623. .
Smith, B.S. and C. Carter, "A Method of Annlysis for Infilled Fraron," Proceedings .
l of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 44, September,1969, pp. 31-48:
O
, , - - . , - , - - - + - - - , - , - , , ,
r 4
- 4. Reference R12 provided the design criteria for reinforced
, masonry walls for Pilgrim Unit 1. The Licensee should also provide the design criteria for unreinforced masonry walls.
Revision 1 of the Pilgrim Unit 1 design criteria is enclosed.
This document includes and supercedes the contents of the two
- previously submitted criteria documents (Generic and Plant Specific). Attachment A of the revised criteria provides this information.
O 1b O
1
DC - 1 Rov. 1 September 4, 1981 l
l PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l
~\
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RE-EVALUATION OF MASONRY WALLS BOSTON EDISON COMPANY l BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS l
t.
Prepared n 7 /
Eroup Leader ~Date Approved u [~ 9[A[p nd6 pendent ReviWer ' D' ate Approved -
9/9 /P/
ProjectEngpeer ' Date Earthquake Engineering Systems, Inc.
600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02210 9 ' ** ' ** - m.... ...me~e..- e,
'O .
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 General 1 2.0 References 1 3.0 Assumptions 3 4.0 Analysis and Design 3 5.0 Material Specifications and Properties 11 (O e.. toaaa ana toaa Co sinations 12 7.0 Acceptance Criteria 13 Attachments A and B i
l DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 EES i
( PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 0
,' BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page i of i m
_,,--.e-a e ,,v.-m -
_, . - _ _ , , - - - _ - r
1.0 GENERAL q This Dasign Criterie provides the technical basis for the re-evaluation of reinforced masonry walls and the design of modifications at Unit 1, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. To If'N develop this information, EES technical personnel have per-
'd . formed an extensive survey of the several codes and stan-dards applicable to the subject and the appropriate g literature concerned with research and experience in masonry construction. Further, because the design bases'which have developed over the years for nuclear plant structures are very specialized in their application it has been necessary to reformulate existing criteria for buildings to match the ,
unique nature of the design loading conditions.
The criteria also differs from ordinary building code cri-teria in that the scope of the Bulletin 80-11 project is to assess the probability and consequences of failure under hypothetical load conditions rather than provide a basis for construction of common residential or industrial buildings. l Using the literature as a data base, the degrees of conser- I vatism inherent in the building code requirements have been identified and adjustments made to reflect the qualities of materials and construction in nuclear plant structures and the intent of the various plant design bases.
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
( Inspection and Enforcement, IGE Bulletin No.
80-11, dated May 8, 1980.
2.2 Final Safety Analysis Report, Unit 1, Pilgrim Station No. 600.
2.3 Specification for the Design, Fabrication, 6 Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, New York, dated November 1, 1978.
2.4 Reinforced Masonry Design, Robert R. Schneider and Walter L. Dickey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1980.
Ii i 2.5 " Specification for Furnishing, Delivery and Installation of Concrete Unit Masonry" for Unit No. 1, Pilgrim Station No. 600, Boston Edison -
Company, Spec. No. 6498-A- , Revision 1, dated i' February 1, 1972.
f DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 i ((3(_/
EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev 1 Page 1 of 13 O
2.6 Theory of Platos and Shells, S. Timoshenko cnd S. Woinowsky-Krieger, second edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959, Chapter 11.
2.7 American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. Specifications:
[I) -
C90- 70 Hollow Load Bearing Concrete Masonry Units .
C145-71 Solid Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry Units C476-71 Mortar and Grout for Reinforced Masonry l l
Cold-Drawn Steel Wire A82-70 for Concrete Reinforcement l
A615-68 Deformed Billet Steel for (formerly Concrete Masonry A15)
A36-67 Structural Steel 2.8 " Civil and Structural Design Criteria for Unit No. 1, Pilgrim Station No. 600, Boston Edison Company",
Bechtel Corporation, Job No. 6498, Rev. 3, January 30, 1970. -
2.9 Boston Edison Company--Pilgrim Station No. 600 (0 Reactor Building Seismic Analysis, Bechtel Engineering Corp., August 1969.
2.10 Boston Edison Company--Pilgrim Station No. 600 Turbine Building Seismic Analysis, Bechtel Engineering Corp., September 1969.
- 2.11 Boston Edison Company--Pilgrim Station No. 600 Radwaste Building Seismic Analysis, Bechtel Engineering Corp., September 1969.
- 2.12 " Analysis of the Consequences of High Energy Piping Failures Outside the Primary Containment,"
Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment No. 34, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 h
" "" ""S PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev 1 Page 2 of 13
- *
- eem - -
- mwe e e- e Aw'=
2.13 "Demping Values for Scismic Dasign of Nuclear Power Plants", Regulatory Guide 1.61, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, October 1973. 1 2.14 Introduction to Structural Dynamics, John M. Biggs, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.
(]) 2.15 Response of Arching Walls and Debris from Interior Walls caused by Blast Loading, URS Research. Company, Feb. 1975.
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS ma 3.1 All components other than piping supported on or near masonry walls are rigid for the purposes of this evaluation, and therefore do not impose amplified loads or impact loads on the wall due to seismic displacements.
3.2 Masonry walls that are not part of the structural load resisting system do not carry significant seismic shears or vertical seismic loads due to building inertia forces. However, the effect of imposed displacements due to story drift will be j evaluated.
3.3 Surface mounted attachments which project no further from the wall surface than the wall thickness contri-bute only in-plane loads to the wall.
~ Un 3.4 Linear elastic stress-strain behavior in the compression zone is assumed for masonry.
3.5 Assumptions used in Reference 2.2, as supplemented by references 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11, to model the dynamic response of buildings containing masonry walls are incorporated into this Design Criteria.
3.6 Damping values for reinforced concrete from reference 2.13 may be used for reinforced masonry. Higher values may be'used if verified by in-situ tests.
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN i
4.1 General 4.1.1 Stresses in reinforced walls shall be calculated -
using the working stress method of analysis as -
described in Chapter 6 of Ref. 2.4.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1
- 80034 Rev 1
"" "" S PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 3 of 13 (n
U PJSTON EDISON COMPANY __
~~~~~,E._..
4.1.2 Support conditicns for reinforced walls shall be considered pinned if the reinforcing bars pass through the support interface and are anchored in the adjacent structure or if other shaar transfer mechanisms exist. Interlocking edges of intersecting block walls shall also be con-sidered pinned. Edges of block walls that abut (O ,
adjacent structures shall be considered as free edges. Control joints shall also be, considered as free edges.
4.1.3 Reinforcedwallsshallbeakyzedconsidering one-way or two-way behavior, whichever is appropriate for the boundary conditions, wall dimensions, and reinforcement configuration.
Finite element methods may be employed in the analysis.
4.1.4 Reinforced multi-wythe walls shall be analyzed as multiple single-wythe walls connected by cross-ties. No credit is taken for collar joint mortar shear capacity unless allowable values are verified by in-situ tests.
4.2 Seismic Loads l1 Seismic loadings on reinforced walls may be analyzed at three levels as described below. The results at each level shall be compared to the acceptance criteria before proceeding to the next level.
I. 4.2.1 Level 1 Analysis O The natural frequency of the masonry wall shall ' ,
be determined assuming fully cracked section pro-perties throughout the wall. Orthotropic proper-ties resulting from differing steel reinforcement details in the horizontal and vertical direction shall be taken into account in the analysis as follows:
Ec Ixt Cxx = .
(1-v2) I, ,
c ,
I ty CYY =
(1-v2) Io l
DESIGN CRITERIA l 80034 DC - 1
[
j~ PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev 1 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 4 of 13 (O -
.,w, == me e + , mee
l .
VEc (Ix*Ity)b t
Cxy = ,
(1-vZ) Io Ec (I tx
- Ity)b
- (Q -
G xy -
2(1+v)
Io Where:
of an o , Ox , and Gx Cx,C[thot[opic,re[nforcedmasonrywallforare the elastic propertie use in computer programs that compute stiffnesses based on a solid section.
Io = Uncracked moment of inertia of solid sgetion per unit length of wall (t3/12 where t = wall thickness.)
Ix t
= Cracked, transformed moment of inertia per unit length of wall in the x direction.
I ty - Cracked, transformed moment of inertia per unit length of wall in the y direction.
y = Poisson's ratio = 0.2 (nU Ee = Lower bound value of Modulus of Elasticity of masonry = 600 f'm (810,000 psi)
An acceleration corresponding to the fundamental frequency shall be selected from the appropriate response spectrum. The fundamental frequency of l the wall per level 1 analysis is based on lower i bound values of moments of inertia and Modulus I of Elasticity, and as such is underestimated.
Therefore, the peak spectral acceleration shall be used if the frequency of the wall is less than the frequency of the peak.
- DESIGN CRITERIA t
80034 DC - 1 il
-=
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev 1 1
( BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 13 G
~__' _ ._
The responso spectrum et the building elevation corresponding to the top of the wall shall be used. Conservatively low dampings of 21 (Design Earthquake) and 5% (Maximum Earthquake) of I7s critical damping shall be used in the analysis.
The acceleration value selected shall be increased by 1.3 to account for multimode effects.
The spectral acceleration shall then be applied to the mass of the wall and attached components and a static analysis performed.
4.2.2 Level 2 Analysis If the level 1 analysis fails to meet the accep-tance criteria, level 2 analysis may be per-formed. An iterative procedure employing finite element methods shall be used in the analysis.
Level 2 analysis takes into account the actual cracking pattern in the wall based on the variation of applied moments. Also, a more respresentative value of the Modulus of 1 Elasticity of masonry of 1000 f's (1,350,000 psi) is used to obtain transformed moments of inertia and orthotropic section properties.
The wall shall first be analyzed using uncracked section properties for the masonry in the x and
((]) y directions. A response spectrum analysis shall be performed using curves for 4% (Design y Earthquake) and 7% (Maximum Earthquake) of cri-tical damping. '
If the moments in the wall exceed the uncracked
-moment capacity, the moments in each element shall be used to calculate the effective moment i of inertia in each element in the x and y direc- l tion as follows:
i
. . 1 4
IMer\4 1- fMc)
Ie = Ig +
It (Ma /
(Ma ) _
DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 .t (nU S PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev 1 Page 6 of 13 8At md e
- - - - - = - - - .
l' Mer = Ft -
y Where:
- Her = Uncracked moment capacity. -
= Moment at each element.
Ma 1
8 = Moment of inertia of uncracked section.
ma It
= Moment of inertia of the cracked, transformed section.
= Modulus of Rupture of masonry (twice the Ft allowable tensile stress for factored loading conditions, M')
y = Distance of neutral plane from ten-sion face.
The wall shall then be reanalyzed using the effective moments of inertia in the x and y directions. A response spectrum analysis again shall be performed. The resulting moments shall beWhen usedsignificant to determine the next set of moments (moments which 1 Ie's.greater than 20% of the maximum moment in are the same direction) from two successive itera-( tions are within 10%, and the wall frequency within 5%, the solution is considered to have con' verged. The procedure may be terminated prior to convergence if a conservative bound on ',
the results has been established.
Finally, a response spectrum analysis for 12 1 modes is performed to account for the contribution from higher modes. i 4.2.3 Level 3 Analysis Level 3 analysis may be performed to resolve local overstresses. For this analysis, the wall shall be synthesized as an equivalentA non. - 1 single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. '
linear resistance function shall be calculated by applying successive static loads to the wall.
I DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 .
1 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev Page 7 of 13 i
. Mhc displaceo shapo under each lo=d is caucu-lated using the procedure of Section 4.2.2.
However, convergence is achieved when the maxi-num displacement does not vary by more than one percent. The equivalent stiffness corresponding to each static load is calculated by the method of Reference 2.15.
f( -
If the bending moment in any element exceeds -
the allowable moment, the element effective moment of inertia from Section 4.2.2 is modified in one of two ways depending on whether the i allowable moment is controlled by compression in l
- the masonry or tension in the reinforcing steel. '
t If the masonry compression controls the allowable moment, a crushing failure is postu- )
lated with a resultant degradation of stiffness. ;
Therefore, the element effective moment of iner-tia is reduced such that the moment in the ele-ment is less than 10% of the allowable moment.
If reinforcing steel tension controls, the <
reinforcement is assumed to yield and the moment l remains constant during subsequent distortion. '
In this case, the element effective moment of inertia is reduced until the element moment is ;
within 10% of the allowable moment.
After the resistance function of the equivalent ,
SDOF system has been computed, a non-linear !
dynamic analysis is performed using as input
((]) the seismic time point of maximum history at the elevation of the displacement in the wall. This time history may be obtained by linearly inter- !
polating between time histories calculated at '
elevations above and below the wall.
After the maximum displacement of the wall has l been computed, the distribution of stresses may ,
be obtained from the corresponding static load case. An overstress is' considered acceptable if l 1ess than 20% of the surface area of the wall experiences inelastic behavior resulting from the conservative assumptions above.
DESIGN CRITERIA F 80034 DC - 1 j""""E PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev i Page 8 of 13 l
( BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
)
i
_ _ ~ .
equipment mounted on the wall must be evaluated for the offects of out-of-planc displacements on system operability.
In lieu of the above procedure walls may be 1 qualified using a response spec,trum specified (0: ,
at the mid-height of the wall. This response spectrum is obtained by linearly interpolating between response spectra at elevations above and below the wall. In this case, all moments must be within the allowables using the proce-dure of Section 4.2.2.
4.2.4 Other Effects The effect of in-plane loading on reinforced partition walls shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria specified in Note 12 of Attachment A. The effect of inertial reactions from adjoining walls shall be considered in the evaluation. Building shear walls shall satisfy the allowable stresses given in Attachment A.
The effects of boundary structure flexibility, wall group interaction, and wall openings shall be evaluated.
Out of plane wall displacements due to trans-verse loadings shall be evaluated for their effect on operability of attached equipment.
() <
Masonry block pullout due to concentrated inertial loadings imposed by attached components shall be evaluated.
4.3 Transient Pressure Loads Transient pressure loadings on walls may be analyzed at three levels as described below. The results at each level shall be compared to the acceptance criteria before proceeding to the next level.
y 4.3.1 Level 1 Analysis The natural frequency of the wall shall be determined using the procedure of Section 4.2.1.
DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 i
EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev 1 Page 9 of 13
. , ~
- The shspa of the pressure transient shall be conservatively approximated by a simple !
geometric shepo such as a rectangle, triangle, or I sinusoid. A dynamic load factor (DLF) shall be obtained using charts for elastic systems such (n U -
as in Reference 2.14. Where a higher natural frequency might result in a higher DLF, the ,
higher DLF shall be used.
A static analysis shall be performed'using the peak ?ressure multiplied by the DLF. In lieu of jl the a rto procedure, a DLF of 2.0 may be used. l 4.3.2 Level 2 Analysis If the level 1 analysis fails to qualify the ;
wall, a level 2 analysis may be performed using l an iterative procedure to determine the DLF. l A response spectrum analysis is performed using the procedure of Section 4.2.2 to calculate the fundamental mode. The response spectrum is ob- 1 '
tained by multiplying the peak pressure by the DLF versus frequency curve from Section 4.3.1. i 4.3.3 Level 3 Analysis 1 Level 3 analysis may be performed to resolve local overstresses. The analysis shall follow the procedure of Section 4.2.3 using the
( pressure time history as input.
The wall stiffness under increasing static load ;
may include the additional resistance due to arching action as computed by the method of Ref.
2.15 provided the following restrictions are ,
met: the pressure transient consists of a single :
pulse acting in one direction; the wall is l grouted solid; there is no gap at the top of the i wall; the top of the wall is anchored against - ;
lateral movement; there are no openings greater than 24 inches; there are no concentrated loads greater than 100 pounds; the stiffness of the surrounding structure resisting the axial thrust load is at least 10 times the wall axial stiff-ness computed using the modulus of elasticity in line loading.
When arching effects are included, the displace- -
ment of the wall must not exceed 0.15 times the l
DESIGN CRITERI1 80034 DC - 1 h
( EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev 1 Page 10 of 13
wall thickness. The resultent line load must 1 not exceed one-half the limit calculated by Reference 2.15.
4.4 Modification Design
() - When a masonry wall is not qualified using the proce-dure of Sections 4.2 and 4.3, modifications shall be designed which enable the wall to satisfy the accep-tance criteria. Design calculations shall use the methods of Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.2.
j Modifications shall be designed in accordance with 1 :
Reference 2.3 subject to the limitations stated in Section 6.0,.herein. When structural steel is anchored to solid grouted masonry using drilled in anchors, allowable shears shall be based on 2000 psi concrete.
Drilled in anchors shall not be used for tension con-nections to masonry unless allowable pull-out loads are verified by in-situ testing.
5.0 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS 6 PROPERTIES 5.1 Concrete Block (Ref. 2.5)
Hollow Block ASTM C90 (Ref. 2.7)
Grade U-1 Heavyweight Solid Block ASTM C145 (Ref. 2.7)
Grade U-1
(()
Heavyweight Masonry Reinforcement (Ref. 2.5) 5.2 Bars ASTM A615 (Ref. 2.7)
Grade 40 "DUR-0-WAL" ASTM A82 (Ref. 2.7)
Heavyweight, truss type 5.3 Mortar (Ref. 2.5) ASTM C476 (Ref. 2.7)
Type PL i
Compressive Strength 8 28 days = 2000 psi 5.4 Grout (Ref. 2.5) ASTM C476 (Ref. 2.7)
Coarse .
Compressive Strength 8 28 days = 2000 psi ,
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 '
Rev 1 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 11 of 13
==E==SBOSTON EDISON COMPANY l
(() . .. !
--- g---,--, --_-- -- , , - , - ~ . ,,-------w#"'
!' 5.5 Cencroto Reactor Building:
l ,f'c = 4000 psi l All other poured in ploco
! concrete (unless shown otherwise on the drawings):
f'c = 3000 psi l k( ])
(Ref. 2.8) 6.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS ,
l The loads and load combinations in this section are based on I the structural loading criteria given in Appendix C of the Pilgrim FSAR (Ref. 2.2) i 6.1 Loads to be considered in evaluating the masonry walls are described below.
D Dead load of the structure and related equipment plus any other permanent loads contributing stress, such as soil or hydrostatic loads; live loads expected to be present when the station is operating; and the loads due to thermal expansion under normal operating conditions.
R Loads resulting from jet forces and pressure and temperature transients associated with rupture of a single
( pipe within the primary containment.
() '
R' Loads resulting from jet forces and pressure and temperature transients associated with rupture of single pipe outside the primary containment.
E (Ey, E) h Loads due to the design earthquake.
(Ey and Eh are vertical and hori-zontal components of the design earthquake loads, respectively.)
E' (E'y, E'h) Loads due to the maximum earthquake.
(E'y and E'h are vertical and hori-zontal components of the maximum earthquake loads, respectively.)
T(1) Loads due to the effects of a tornado.
DESIGN CRITERIA i 80034 DC - 1 l( "" ""
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev 1 Page 12 of 13
{} BOSTON EDI3ON COMPANY e me 6-e.* - -
6.2 Mssonry walls shc11 be cycluated for the following lond combinations:
EQ(1) D + Ey + Eh (2) < S(3), M(4)
( EQ(2) D + R + Ey + Eh (2) < S
< 1.5 S(5),
EQ(3) D + T M M' (4)
EQ(4) D + R + E'y + E'h(2) ( 1.5 S(5),, M' EQ(5) D + R' ( 1.5 S(5), g Notes: !
(1) The effects of tornado winds to be considered for class 1 structures are given in Section 12.2.3.3 and Appendix H of the Pilgrim FSAR (Ref. 2.2).
(2) The effects of one horizontal component and the vertical component of earthquake loading shall be combined in all loading combinations which include earthquake loads.
1 i (3) S is the normal allowable stress in structural steel :
sections, bolts, and welds permitted by Ref. 2.3 (excluding the provisions of Section 1.5.6 therein). 1 (4) M and M' are the allowable stresses for evaluating ) as l existing masonry walls (including reinforcing steel !
given in Attachment A.
(S) 1.5 S not to exceed the material yield stress.
7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 7.1 Reinforced Walls Allowable stresses and in-plane distortions for rein-forced masonry are tabulated in Attachment A.
1 The basis for the allowable stresses is discussed in Attachment B.
7.2 Modifications Stresses in structural steel sections, Dolts, and welds shall conform to the requirements of Part 1 of the A.I.S.C. Code (Ref. 2.3), excluding the provisions of Section 1.5.6 therein. Allowable stresses may be 1 increased by 1.5 as indicated by the loading com-binations in Section 6.0 of this design criteria. -
DESIGN CRITERIA i
80034 DC - 1 j (r~s PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev 1
(,) BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 13 of 13
I Q .
l l
ATTACHMENT A l l
ALLOWABLE 3 TRESSES FOR EVALUATION OF REINFORCED MASONRY WALLS AT l PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1
'O se DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 I 80034 Rev. 1 I (O [FE PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION nosrow noison coae^"r Attachment A e se 1 or 9
-l 6
se., . e---
. / l
- A11okable Stresses (Masonry) (psi) (11)
(f'm and s o are the masonry strength and mortar strength, res ectively,
(([Lj
' in pounds per square inc .)
Description M (1) M' (1) f'm/m o f'm=1350 f'm/m o f'm=1350 no =2000 mo =2000 COMPRESSION ;
Axial (2) (3) Fa 0.22 f's 297 0.44 f'm 594 flexural (4) Fm 0.33 f's 446 0.66 f's 891 BEARING (5) Fa 0.25 f'm 338 0.50 f'm 675 l SHEAR
( No special shear reinforcement
- a. Beans (6) vm 1.1 /T9E 40 1.65/f9E 61 ;
- b. Walls Out of plane (6) vm 1.5 [fTm 55 2.25/Fiii 83 lane (12) (7)
In Mp/Vdy b 1 va 0.9 /T a 33 1.35/ETiiI 50 M/Vdy = 0 (8) vm 2.0 6 73 3.0(N 110 Reinforcement taking shear
- a. Beams (6) vm 3.0 /T9E 110 4.5 /TTm 165
- b. Walls Out of plane (6) vm 1.5 / TEE 55 2.25/T9E' 83 -
lane (12) (7)
In Mp/Vdy ) 1 vm G 55 2.25/FliI 83 M/Vdy = 0 (8) vm 1.5 2.0 /[Fiii 73 3 . 0 / F iiI 110 DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 1 i
( EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Attachment A Page 2 of 9
\ .
l, Allowable Stresses (Masonry) (psi) (11) l
- (f'a and m o are the masonry strength l and mortar strength, resaectively, in pounds per square inci.)
( Description M (1) M' (1) f'm/m o f'm=1350 f'm/m o f'm=1350 mo =2000 mo =2000 TENSION (13)
Normal to bed joints (14)
- a. Hollow Ft 0.5 /m-o 22 0.75 /h- 34
- b. Solid / Grouted Ft 1.0 Fmo 45 1.50 (m o 67 Parallel to bed joints in -
running bond
- a. Hollow Ft 1.0 /m 45 1.50 ( 2m 67
- b. Solid / Grouted Ft 1.5 mo 67 2.25 (m o 101
( Allowable Stresses (Reinforcement) (psi)
M M' BOND Deformed bars u 140 140 TENSION 6 COMPRESSION Reinforcing steel Fs Grade 40 bars 20,000 0.9 fy (9)
Joint wire reinforcement 0.5 fy (10) 0.9 f y DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 1 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Attachment A Page 3 of 9 (O = - - -
l r
Notes: .
1 ccara =ce (O (1) - x a a' with Section 6.2.
h 11 6 == a rar 1= ti== tr == i= '
l (2) The effective area to be used for evaluating axial l compressive stress is shown below:
L 1l Y .
l I
r, * ,c-- -
'A l
i t \
/ Effective length L depends on type of l t
h
/. /"' bond and loading (see
.I . ., ' .' ' ', next page).
(O C/ v- . l i
///// Effective area for axial compressive stress calculations on net section of masonry units plus j grouted cores. . l l
l l
DESIGN CRITERIA !A' - 1 80034 Rev. 1 Attachment A i( EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 4 of 9 l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
('-
(2) (cont'd) '
wao-t.ao -
wao j 8P (Se...ae w eaves
,v g) . ? , 's g
'Eh . . ' . . ' ' '
- M*j MiH ' ~ d, i- 1 -
4 N - -
'^
. G'+ & R .'; :,:*.'n*...'r- -- '
r?
i
. ,, .u. , , . ; .
- .. . =.p ., A
.. u . . . .
'g feeecient / tresce.wat / _ *
- 8Fitteet / 2-
!. ., e, . . e , . .. ,. ., . f_ ,
_ 7 .$j<i greactivt / {/ Erf ECTsVE / { SEA #iMG W8Dfel + 4 %
- 6. .. t...
, , / etava.
l;\ ~ . I %lar- l ': l 1
-) -l Ap$1Q<v y-^
iRF <. w 4 NE j- : F. 9.T Tr. -
~
, . . ]~
. + .:
Q', -l
. . S !" "7.
. . .t
'Wg m..
r.~
_ .L.E.
t-}g.
..l- .R -
l- - (""\ WMRT r
P.y )
E888CTeVE .4 itstCtivt d
^
O
&aap
,s y .: T - 8 s -
ErraCTewt / SASED 984
% ecAM SMEast GESsSTAadCE.
( VERTacAi. Least) ,
a Effective lengths for axial compressive stress evaluation.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 1
80034 Rev. 1 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment A
. BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 9 5
!(O i
3 (3) Multiply theso valuas by (1-(h/40t)3) if the wall has significant vertical load at the top edge.
I
'O (4) . The effective area to de used for eva1uatin, f1exura1 compressive stress is shown below.
. 3t so, ,
si ., m s aei, Wed I
W o unhicheve, is less fet twming tiond W'f'S' #E & k m m W $4i LW'N//Y/###W4,
+~,n p.
a.. :
~
, ~ - . .
t Area assumed offective in f4 sural compress.on, force normal to face (5) Allowable bearing stress may be increased to 0.375 f'm for M and 0.75 f's for M' if load is applied on one-third of the compression area or less.
(6) The effective area for evaluating shear stress for walls in flexure is shown below.
m?m*&
(Q N- W( UQ g'MU.4c ,5 ,e
(_. I b .L .. _._
h
- y :- >wy y- h w
ww . s
=
Reinforcement l Area assumed effective in shear, force normet to face The effective area for evaluating shear stress in rec-tangular' masonry beams is b d, where:
d-distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement.
b-width of compression face of member. -
The area of ungrouted cells, and webs between ungrouted cells should be neglected in shear area computations.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 l 80034 Rev. 1
==
Attachment A
( PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 6 of 9 l
1 -
/
(7) Tha offective cron for ovaluating shcor stress for shear walls is shown below. '
l' i=.*N ymm w w s w rygg u. g m e' Y ! i
?
HSM4w . N ,,,,,,, u ,,,) casa 2n/M,; ,g
- s
- Reinforcement A,.. wn.e.even; ia r.
force parettet to face (8) M is the maximum bending moment ocurring simultaneously with the shear load V at the section under consideration.
dy is the length of the wall in the direction of shear.
Interpolate by straight line for M/Vdy values between 0 and 1.
(9) fy is the specified yield strength of the reinforcement.
(f y = 40 KSI for grade 40 reinforcement)
( (10) 0.5 fy not to exceed 30,000 psi.
(11) Values for the Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's ra'tio to be used in the analysis are as follows:
Modulus of Elasticity Ec = 600 f'm (for level 1 analysis)
= 1000 f'm (for level 2/3 analysis)
Poisson's Ratio y = 0.2 (12) For non-shear walls which are confined in the structure and subjected to shear distortion due to relative floor displa-cements, the allowable relative displacement (21) is 0.1% 1 of the height of the wall (h).
For non-shear walls shich are subjected to shear distor- -
tions due to relative floor displacement but cannot be classified as confined walls, t'1e allowable relative displacement is 0.01% of the height of the wall.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 1 .
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment A
' i( ) ==ES BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 7 of 9
c.
(12) (cont'd) ' -
Confined walls are bounded by adjacent steel or concrete
(-
primary structures. As a minimum, confined walls are bounded top and bottom er bounded on three sides. Examples of confined walls are shown schematically below.
s s 5 : ;
s ? y
,,,,,,,i . , , , , , ,
s,,,,,,
$ , , , , , f,.
Confined walls: ey =
[i/h ( 0.001 Confined walls that are subjected to in-plane forces as well as displacements, but are not building shear walls, shall satisfy the following:
Of bd
+ 4 0.001 h H and V/A 4 vm for h/D 4 1.0, difhf = V/80,000A II = V/20,000A for 1.0 (_h_4 3.0, li /'h f
Where:
2h d " imposed story displacement 21 f = displacement due to imposed forces H = story height h = wall height D = wall length l A = area of wall under in-plane loading i
vm = allowable shear stress under in-plane loading
- V = applied in-plane load DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 1 -
PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION Attachment A I() .
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 8 of 9 9
l e
- s. (12) (cen t) o Unconfin2d walls cro not ,boundad by cdjacent stoel or I cencroto pricary structuros sufficiently to create o con-fining effect. An example of an unconfined wall is shown schematically below.
Io l O '
Unconfined Wall: ey = 2i/h ( 0.0001 (13) The modulus of rupture used to define the masonry cracking moment (Mer) for level 2 and 3 analysis shall be twice the
- allowable stress for factored loading conditions (M').
l (14) For reinforced sections, the allowable moment is computed l
based on tension in the steel reinforcement only.
()
I DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 80034 Rev. 1
(
EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Attachment A Page 9 of 9 I
. -ae4..e,.g*w-e.,- ,====.
. .. 1
/
[Gr -
l ATTACHMENT B BASIS FOR THE ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR REINFORCED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION
'O DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 '.
(
EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. 1 Attachment B Page 1 of 17
[
_m_ , _ , , . . __ , , , , , _ , _
INTiCLUCTION '
l
,( The acceptance criteria have been expressed in terms appli-i cable to nuclear plant design, and similar to those used for concrete evaluation. It is therefore important to differen-tinte between normal load conditions and factored load con-ditions.
Normal, or unfactored, loads are loads encountered during normal operation of nuclear plants. Included in this cate-gory are those severe environmental loads which may be anti-cipated during the life of the facility, such as the operational basis earthquake. The loads in this category l considered in the evaluation of the masonry walls at Pilgrim i 1 include the Design Earthquake (analogous to the OBE), dead load on the structure and other permanent loads, and live loads expected to be present during normal operation of the unit. For concrete structures, these loads are evaluated by ultimate strength methods using appropriate load factors.
Factored loads, on the other hand, are those hypothetical loads which have a very low probability of occurrence over the life of the facilit safety considerations. y but Thesewhich areinclude loads evaluated extreme because of environ-mental and abnormal loads, such as the safe shutdewn earth-quake. The loads in this category considered in the evaluation of the masonry walls at Pilgrim I include the Maximum Earthquake (analogous to the SSE), building depressurization loads due to a tornado, and the 1 cads due
((])
to a high energy pipe rupture outside containment. The ultimate acceptance criteria for these load conditions is tha'; operability of critical plant systems not be impaired.
For concrete structures, these loads are generally evaluated by ultimate strength methods using load factors of unity.
It is difficult to use building code values to develop cri-teria for factored load evaluation because masonry design is based on working stress methods rather than ultimate strength techniques. At present, the state of the art has not progressed sufficiently to embrace the more sophisti-cated precepts of ultimate strength design, principally because of the lack of knowledge of many of the fundamental material properties (e.g., ultimate strain of the masonry assemblage), the performance characteristics of reinforced f masonry systems, and the wide scatter of variable values reflected in much of the test data. .-
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 1
(( ) EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment B BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY Page 2 of 17
_ n.. . --
' ~
Therefore, EES has reviewed the literature (referencos cre listed at the end of this commentary) relative to the various stress valuss, determined reasonable lower bounds on ultimate loads, reduced them by appropriate amounts, and
, applied them to working stress design methods. For eva-
~
luation of factored loads, allowable stresses have generally been taken as one half the lower bound ultimate while a factor of four is generally used for normal load allowables. Thus there are three levels of conservatism inherent in the evaluation criteria: use of lower bound !
! ultimate values, capacity reduction factors of two and four, l and use of working stress design methods.
In cases where not enough test data is available to deter-mine a lower bound ultimate, the building codes have been used for guidance in selecting values for normal loads.
Stress limits for factored loads have been determined by applying increases consistent with those for similar con-ditions.
COMPRESSION Allowable stresses which relate to the masonry compressive strength are expressed in terms of f's, the ultimate compressive strength of the masonry assemblage. This strength may be determined by test or may be conservatively .
estimated using the table below.
'O Compressive strength Compressive test strength of masonry of masonry units, psi,on the f *. psi met cross-sectional area Type M and Type N S mortar mortar 6000 or more 2400 1350 4000 2000 1250 2500 1550 1100 2000 1350 1000 1500 1150 a75 1000 900 700 Values of f'm for Masonry l
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1
~
80034 Rev. 1
(, PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION Attachment B 5
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 3 of 17
~
~~__. - _ . . - - . .
Tha building cods valuas for oxici compressien fall oround 0.22f'o. This is consistent with a factor of four under ultiosto (ossuming o lower bound of about 0.9f'm) for normal Iceds. For factored loads, o value of 0.44f'm gives a fac-tor of two under the lower bound ultimate.
(]) For compression due to bending, the peak stress is computed ,
on an elastic basis by working stress methods and assumes a -
triangular stress distribution. In reality, the stress distribution is more uniform, especially at high stress levels. The building codes recognize this by allowing a 50%
increase in the allowable for peak compression under bending. Since there is no test data contradicting this g well established practice, a value of 0.33f's is used for normal loads. Applying an increase consistent with that for uniform compression gives a value of 0.66f's for factored loads.
For walls which support significant vertical loads, the effects of slenderness should be considered. There is a good deal of test data on this subject, and the capacity reduction factor given in note 3 of Attachment A is well supported. This should apply to all the allowable compressive values including those for factored loads. In evaluating vertical loading, consideration of bending due to load eccentricity is required.
BEARING The value for allowable bearing stress is taken from the k
O building codes for normal loads and is the same as for concrete under ACI 318-63. It gives a factor of four on ultimate. Increasing this value the same as for other compressive stresses gives 0.50f's for factored loads.
Actually, this value is rather conserative, as concentrated loads will either bear on a block or on mortar, so that use of the composite strength is not really appropriate. It would be more correct to use the block or mortar strength for bearing calculations and use'the composite strength when evaluating compressive stress over the effective tributary length. !
When the bearing surface is less than the total surface, confinement effects will permit higher bearing loads. The ;
codes allow a 50% increase if the bearing area is less than :
one-third the total area. This increase is permitted only l DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 1 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Attachment B Page 4 of 17 0 *
-.w ++ --
,_w - _ n- ,-_
7..
_a
wh n tha least distance between the edges of the loaded and unloaded creas is o ninimum of one-fourth of the parallel sida dinonsion of tha loaded croc. The allowable bearin stress on a reasonably concentric area greater than one g third, but less than the full area, may be interpolated bet-ween the values given.
I(:) -
FLEXURAL SHEAR (Beams and Walls) l The allowable flexural shear values developed for this cri- I teria vary for beams and walls and depend on whether the !
stress is carried by shear reinforcement. l
\
For beams, the values for allowable flexural shear stress I (1.1 VITii for no special shear reinforcement; 3.0 /Frii for reinforcement taking shear) are taken from ACI 531-79 and are the same as the working stress concrete values given in ACI 318-63. Most of the testing done to develop flexural shear stress allowables has been performed on masonry beams, and the data show that a factored load increase of 50%
leaves at least a factor of safety of two against lower bound ultimate. l l
For walls, the allowable flexural shear stress is analogous 1 to the peripheral shear value used in the evaluation of concrete slabs. Since no code value for peripheral shear exists for masonry, it is reasonable to base one on that for i plain concrete; i.e., 2 v1F9s from ACI 318-63. The ACI !
, 318-63 allowable flexural compressive stress is 0.45/IT c '
versus a normal load allowable of 0.33 f's for masonry.
(O Using the same ratio for peripheral shear gives a masonry allowable of 1.5 VT9i. -
i As for beams, an increase factor of 1.5 is used for factored loadings to provide at least as large a margin of safety against ultimate. For reinforced walls, the shear is based on the depth to reinforcement. For unreinforced walls, the full cross-section is used since the masonry is uncracked.
Higher allowables for shear reinforcement do not apply to walls since there is not sufficient depth in general to ,
l develop steel reinforcement.
IN-PLANE SHEAR (Walls)
The allowable in-plane shear stress / distortion criteria depends on whether the wall is a load bearing shear wall -
or a non-load bearing partition wall, and whether the wall has special shear reinforcenent.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 1 J
C==ES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment B
((} BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 17 e
em
If the purpose of a nasonry wall is to resist structural shocr forcos, then allowable stresses based on the shear j force divided by the effective shear area must be ;
satisfied. '
l InV The in-plane shear stress values for shear walls for normal
- loads are taken from the building codes. The values for factored loads provide a factor of at least two against lower bound ultimate when compared to test data for rein-forced walls.
The allowable values for walls with special shear reinfor-cement for normal loads are again taken from the building codes, with the same increase for factored loads as for the case of no special reinforcement. From the test data, it appears that for horizont11y reinforced walls with low height to length ratios, allowables can be higher than 3.0 v4F9E and still provide a factor of two on ultimate. However, this would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Walls which are not part of the main structural system (partition walls) need not satisfy the allowable stress cri-teria for in-plane shear. However, they must be checked to make sure that drift imposed distortions do not cause signi-ficant cracking which will impair ability to carry out-of-plane loads. Test data from Reference 64 gives values of shear displacement at first cracking for confined walls of various height to length ratios. The allowable displacement criteria are based on a lower bound from the data which applies to both normal and factored loads.
TENSION For unreinforced walls analyzed on an elastic basis, the resistive capacity is evaluated on the basis of an allowable computed tensile stress. For vertical tensile stresses, the critical section is through the mortar bed joints. However, for horizontal stress in running bond, the actual load path is not tension through the mortar but rather shear transfer up and down along adjacent courses.
For vertical tension normal to the bed joints, test results indicate a factor of safety of four for the value of 0.5/m-vice$8 ads.wheremisisaboutone-thirdtheallowablevalueforis Th the mortar comp plain concrete under ACI 318-63 and one-twentieth the value '
based on the formula for modulus of rupture in concrete. How -
ever, some dynamic tests on unreinforced, vertically spanning :
i l
l l
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1
[7 80034 Rev. 1 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment B
(( ) ""
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 6 of 17
- "^
walls showed initiction of cracking at stresses close to 0.5/mo , although only after several load cycles. The ulti-mate capacity of the walls were quite a bit greater, though not quantified, than the cracking strength. Hence, the f(]) allowable value for factored loads is not increased more !
than 50% over that for normal loads. Moreover, the use of i tensile capacity normal to the bed joints is limited to !
> cases where horizontal spanning, as in two-way action, or arch!.ng capacity can provide an assurance that local failure in the bed joint will not cause collapse of the wall.
For horizontal ten'sion, on the other hand, the resistive capacity is not a function of the mortar tensile strength i but of the interlocking effect of the running bond pattern.
Test results show a capacity for horizontally spanning walls ,
of twice that and more compared to vertically spanning !
walls. For this reason, the service load allowable of l 1.0/mo, is quite conservative. However, the increase for i factored loads is kept at 50% to be consistent with the l' shear allowables, insofar as the interlocking effect is achieved by shear transfer in the bed joints. The testing reported in the literature clearly shows that a higher allowable could be derived using a safety factor of two cri-terion. However, there is not much dynamic data, and it is prudent to be more conservative in this area.
l 4
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
( The value of 600 f'm specified for level 1 analysis is a !
lower bound value of the modulus of elasticity. As such, it l is appropriate for the modulus, and is the same as the value i specified in the building codes. Variations in this value !
are offset by the peak spread of the response spectra and by l other conservatisms built into the analysis and the :'
allowable stresses.
The value af 1000 f's specified for level 2 and 3 analyses !
represents the most expected value of the modulus, and is the same as the value specified in the building codes. i Variations in this value are offset by the peak spread of i the response spectra and by other conservatisms built into i the analysis and the allowable stresses. l i
l l
l DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1
[ 80034 Rev. 1 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment B BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 7 of 17 l '
l
. =ae-
, 7 -. . , . - _.--.-...._m. , .____ _- - = - -
\ .
REFERENCES f
- 1. Arya, S.K., "A Method for Incorporating Interface Discontinuities in Finite Element Analyses with l( Application to Concrete Masonry Rheology,"
l : . Wei(linger Associates Report No. R-75 22, pre-pared for the University of California, San Diego, 1975.
- 2. Becica, I.J. and H.G. Harris, " Evaluation of Techniques in the Direct Modeling of Concrete Masonry Structures," Drexel University Structural Models Laboratory Report No. M77-1, June 1977.
- 3. Benjamin, J.R. and H.A. Williams, "The Behavior of One-Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,
" Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Proceedings, Paper 1254 Vol. 83, No. ST3, May, 1957, pp. 1254.1-1254.39.
- 4. Benjamin, J.R. and H.A. Williams, "The Behavior of One-Story Brick Shear Walls," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Proceedings, Paper 1723, Vol. 84, ST4, July, 1958,iqp.
1723.1-1723.30.
- 5. Benjamin, J.R. and H.A. Williams, " Behavior of One- Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls i
Containing Openings," Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol. 30, No.5,
(( ) ,
November 1958, pp. 605-618.
- 6. Bertero,'V.V. and Ve11anas, J., " Confined Concrete Research and Development Needs,"
Proceedings, Workshop on Earthquake-Resistant Reinforced Concrete Building Construction, University of California, Berkeley, July 11-15, 1977.
- 7. Blume, J.A., N.M. Newnark, and L.H. Corning, Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Association, Ill. 1961.
- 8. Blume, J.A. and Plummer, Harry C., Reinforced Brick Masonry and Lateral Force Design, j Structural Clay Products Institute, 1953. .
- 9. Blume, J.A., and Proulx, J., " Shear in Grouted Brick Masonry Wall Elements," Western Clay Products Association, San Francisco, Aug. 1968, 139 op.
(
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 '
l \( )
EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. 1 Attachment B Page 8 of 17 ,
l
. - _ _ _ _ - - _ . . . _ , . . , _ , , _ . _ , . , _ , , - -- _ . ~ .
- 10. Borchalt, J.G.', " Analysis of Brick Walls Subjected to Axial Compression and in Plcne Shear," Proceedings of Second International
(, s Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, April, 1970.
k_)
- 11. Converse, Frederick J., " Tests on Reinforced Concrete Masonry," Building Standards Monthly, Feb. 1946, 13 pp.
- 12. Copeland, R. E., and Saxer, Edwin E., " Tests of Structural Bond of Masonry Mortars to Concrete Block," ACI Journal, Proceedings V, 61, No. 11, Nov. 1964, pp. 1411-1452.
- 13. Cox, F.W., and Ennenga, J.L.: " Transverse Strength of Concrete Block Walls." ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 54, No. 11 p. 951, May 1958.
- 14. Dickey, W.L. and R.W. Harrington, " The Shear Truth about Brick Walls," Report for Western States Clay Products Association, Inc., San Francisco, California, 1970.
- 15. Dickey, W.L. and A. Mackintosh, "Results of Variation of "b" or Effective width in Flexural Concrete Block Panels", Masonry Institute of America, Los Angeles, 1971.
- 16. Esteva, Luis, " Behavior Under Alternating Loads (O of Masonry Diaphra Concrete Members, "gms Framed byInternational Proceedings, Reinforced Symposium on the Effects of Repeated Loading of Materials and Structures (RILEM), Mexico City, 1966, Vol. V.
- 17. Fattal, S.G., " The Capacity of Unreinforced Masonry Shear Walls Under Membrane Loads".
Earthquake Resistant Construction Proc. National Workshop at Boulder, Colorado, 1976, NBS Building Science Series 106, pg. 177.
- 18. Fattal, S.G., and Cattoneo, L.E., " Structural Performance of Masonry Walls Under Compression and Flexure", Building Science Series 73, National Bureau of Standards, 1976.
- 19. Fishburn, C.: "Effect of Mortar Properties on Strength of Masonry." National Bureau of Standards, Monograph 36, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., November 20, 1961.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034
/~' EI-"F- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 1 Attachment B BOSTON EDTSON COMPANY Pace 9 of 17
_ ,,,u
-n.m M* - # -- " ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~
- 20. Gabricissn, B.L., "Rospanso of Wall Panels Subjected to Blast Loading," ASCE Naticnni ,
Structural Engineering Meeting, Baltimore, l Maryland, April 1971.
() -
- 21. Glogua, 0.A., " Masonry Performance in Earthquakes" Bulletin of the New Zealand -
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
7, No. 4, December, 1974.
- 22. Hamid, Drysdale, and Heidebrecht, " Shear Strength of Concrete Masonry Joints," Journal of the Structural Division - July 1979.
- 23. Hatzinkolas, M., Longworth, J., and Wararuk, J.,
" Evaluation of Tensile Bond and Shear Bond of Masonry by Means of Centrifugal Force, " Alberta Masonry Institute, Edmonton, Alberta.
- 24. Hedstrom, R.O.: " Load Tests of Patterned Concrete Masonry Walls." ACI Journal, Proceedings, V. 57, p.1265; PCA Development Department Bulletin D41, April, 1961.
- 25. Hegemier, G.A., " Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete Masonry: A Literature Survey," Report No.
AMES-NSF TR-75-5-S, University of California, San Diego, 1975.
- 26. Hegemier, G.A., M.E. Miller, and R.O. Nunn, "On
((]) the Influence of Flaws, Vibration Compaction, and Admixtures on the Strength and Elastic Moduli of Concrete Masonry," Report No. AMES-NSF TR-77-4, University of California, San Diego, 1977.
- 27. Hegemier, G.A., R.O. Nunn, M.E. Miller, S.K.
Arya, and G. Krishnamoorthy, "On the Behavior of Concrete Masonry under Static and Dyaamic Biaxial Stress-States," Report No. AMES-NSF TR-77-3, University of California, San Diego, 1977
- 28. Hegemier, G.A., et al, " Earthquake Response and Damage Prediction of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Multistory Buildings: A Major Study of Concrete Masonry Under Seismic - Type Loadings", UCSD Report, January 1978.
- 29. Hidalo, et al, " Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volume 3, Height to Width Ratio of 0.5", University of California, Berkeley, EERC Report No. 79/12.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 i I(kT/
f' ES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. 1 Attachment B Pap _e 10 of,17, l
l 4
- ee*- * *
=e= e
- wee-ema= ** e e . . es= e' e
li 30. Hola, Tho23s A., "Engincorod Masonry with High Strength Lightweight Concreto Masonry Units,"
l Concroto Facts (Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Institute), V.17, No. 2, 1972, pp. 9-16.
i J 31. Holmes, M., " Steel Frames with Brickwork and Concrete Infilling," Proceedings of the '
l Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 19, August, 1961, pp. 473-478.
- 32. Holmes, M., " Combined Loading on Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 25, May, 1963, pp. 31-38. ;
- 33. Kariotis, Kesler and Allys, " Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in Existing Unreinforced Masonry Wall Buildings, March 1978.
- 34. Klasen, J., and Hale, E., "A Study of Masonry Compression Failure," MSc Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, June 1974.
- 35. Klinger, R.E. and Bertero, V.V., " Infill Frames in Earthquake Resistant Construction," Report No.
EERC 76-32, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1976.
- 36. Klinger, R.E. and V.V. Bertero, " Earthquake Resistance of Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, June 1978.
(]) 37. Lamar, Simon and Fortoul Celso, " Brick Masonry Effect in Vibrations of Frames," Proceedings, 4th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
II, pp. A-3, 91-98.
- 38. Linuw, T.C., " Elastic Behavior of Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 46, July, 1970, pp. 343-349.
- 39. Livingston, A.R.; Mangotich, E.; and Dikkers, R.,
" Flexural Strength of Hollow Unit Concrete Masonry Walls in the Horizontal Span," Technical ,
Report No. 62, National Concrete Masonry l Association, McLean, Va., 1958, 18 pp. '
- 40. Mackintosh, Albyn, " Tests of Reinforced Concrete
~
Masonry Beams," 1956. -
- 41. Mainestone, R.J., " Discussion on the Composite Behavior of Infilled Frames," Tall Buildings, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, 493-494.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 i
( ,_J EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. 1 Attachment B Page 11 of_17,,
l 1
- 42. Mainastena, R.J., "On the Stiffness cnd Strengths of Infilled Frnacs," Proceedings of tha Institution of Civil Engincors, Supplcmant (iv),
Paper 73605, 1971.
( '
- 43. Maanestone, R.J., " Supplementary Note on the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames " BRS Current Paper CP 13/74, 1974.
- 44. Mayes, R.L., " Seismic Behavior of Masonry Piers and Seismic Single Story Houses", Advances in
~
Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, Ca., June 1980.
- 45. Mayes, R.L., and R.W. Clough, "A Literature Survey - Compressive, Tensile, Bond and Shear Strength of Masonry," Report No. EERC 75-15, l University of California, Berkeley, 1975. l
- 46. Mayes, R.L. and Clough, R.W., " State-of-the-Art i in Seismic Shear Strength of Masonry - An Evaluation and Review", Report No. EERC 75-21.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
- 47. Mayes, R.L., Mostaghel, N.M., Clough, R.W. und Dickey, W.L., " Cyclic Tests on Masonry Piers,"
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, September 1974.
- 48. Mayes, R.L.; Clough, R.W.; et al, " Cyclic Loading
(( ) Tests of Masonry Piers" 3 volumns; EERC 76/8, 78/28, 79/12 Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley, California.
- 49. Mayes, Omate, Chen, Clough, " Expected Performance of Uniform Building Code Designed Masonry Structures", 1976.
- 50. Mallick, D.V., and Severn, R.T., "Dynami~c Characteristics of Infilled Frames," ICE, Jan./ April 1968, Vol. 39, pp. 261-287.
- 51. Mallick, D.V. and R.T. Severn, "The Behavior of Infilled Frames Under static Loading,"
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 39, February 1968, pp. 261-287. -
- 52. Mayrose, Herman E., " Tests of Reinforced Concrete Block Masonry Lintels," National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va., 1954.
80034 Rev. 1 '
l(( ) PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Attachment B Page 12 of 12, i
- 53. Mali, R., "Bahavior of Masonry Walls Undar Lotoral Leods, " Proceedings Fifth Floor Conforonco en Entthquako Engineering, Reno, 1972.
- 54. Moss, P.J. and Scrivener, J.C., " Masonry Wall
( .
Panel Tests," New Zealand Concrete Construction, ,
April, 1968.
- 55. Nemark, N.M., " Current Trends in the Seismic Analysis and Design of High-Rise Structures",
Chapter 16 Earthquake Engineering, Edited by R.L. Wiegel, McGraw-Hill, 1970.
I
- 56. Omate, et al, "A Literature Survey, Transverse Strenght of Masonry Walls", University of California, Berkeley, EERC Report No. 77-07.
- 57. Polyakov, S.V., " Masonry in Framed Buildings (An Investigation Into the Strength and Stiffness of Masonry Infilling), Moscow, 1956. (English translation by Cairns, G.L., 1963).
- 58. Polyakov, S.V., "On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing frame when loaded in the plane of the wall." Translations in Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, San Francisco, 1960.
- 59. Richart, Frank E.; Moorman, Robert B.; and Woodworth, Paul M., " Strength and Stability of
( Concrete Masonry Walls," Bulletin No. 251, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, 1932, 38 pp. ,
- 60. Ruthroff, Englekirk, and Hart, "Earthouake Design of Concrete Masonry Shear Walls", Con (Tete Masonry Association of California and Nevada, October 1979.
- 61. Saemann, J.C., " Investigation of the Structural Properties of Reinforced Concrete Masonry, Report No. 53 National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va., 1955, 167 pp.
- 62. Sahlin, Sven; Structural Masonry, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
- 63. Saxer, E. X., and Dikkers, Robert, " Flexural -
Stength of Plain and Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va. 1957, 18 pp.
i DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 l 80034 Rev. 1
(( )
~
) PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment B l
BOSTON EDTSON COMPANY Pace 13 gi,17
I f* 64. Schnoid:r, R.R., "Lctoral Locd Tost on Rainforcod i Grouted Massnry Sh0ar Wallo," Univorsity of l Southern California Engineering Contor, Report No.70-101, 1959.
- 65. Schneider, R.R., " Tests on Reinforced Grouted y(]) .
Brick Masonry Shear Panels," California State Division of Architecture, Los Angeles, 1956.
- 66. Schneider, R.R., " Summary Report of L'ateral Load Tests on Reinforced Grouted Masonry Shear Walls,"
Southwest Building Contractor, Nov. 27, 1959
- 67. Schneider, R.R., " Shear in Concrete Masonry i Piers," California State Polytecnic College, Pomona, California, 1959.
- 68. Schneider, R.R., and Dickey, W.L., Reinforced Masonry Design, Prentice - Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980.
- 69. Scrivener, J.C., " Static Racking Tests on Concrete Masonry Walls," Designing, Engineering and Constructing with Masonry Products, Edited by F.B. Johnson, May, 1969.
- 70. Scrivener, J.C., " Concrete Masonry Wall Panel Tests," New Zealand Concrete Construction (Wellington), V. 10 No. 7, July 1966, pp. 119-124
- 71. Shank, J.R., and Foster, H.D., " Strength of
( Concrete Block Pilasters Under Varied Eccentric Loading," Bulletin No. 60. Engineering Studies, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1931.
- 72. Stang, A.H., Parsons, D.L. and Foster, H.D.,
" Compressive and Transverse Strength of Hollow-Tile Walls," Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards, No. 311, Vol. 20, February 1926. l
- l
- 73. Smith, B.S., " Lateral Stiffness of Infilled ,
Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, !
ASCE, Vol. 88, No. ST6, December, 1962, pp.
183-199.
- 74. Smith, B.S., " Behavior of Square Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, .
ASCE, Vol. 91, No. ST1, February, 1966, pp.
381-403.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. 1 -
({T s/
.EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Attachment B Page 14 of 17 9
.w. r . w -s ,e
[
/
- 75. Smith, B.S., " Modal Test Results of Vortical and Horizontal Locding in Infilled Frames," Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings,
( Vol. 65, No. 8. August, 1968, pp. 618-623.
~
- 76. Smith, B.S. and C. Carter, "A Method of Analysis for Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol.'44, September, 1969, pp. 31-48
- 77. Va11enas, Jose M., Berero, V.V., and Popov, E.P.,
" Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops Subjected to Axial Loads " Report No. EERC 77-13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1977.
- 78. Va11enas, Jose W., "Hysteretic Behavior of R/C Structural of Walls",keley California, Ber 1979.PhD Dissertation, University
- 79. Whittemore, Stang, and Parsons " Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions,"
Building Materials and Structures Report No. 5.,
NBS - 1938.
- 80. Whittemore, Stang, and Parsons " Structural Properties of Two Buch-Concrete Block Constructions and a Concrete Block Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association," Building Materials and (O Structures Report.
- 81. Whittemore, Stang, and Parsons, " Structural Properties of Concrete Block Cavity Wall Construction" Building Materials and Structures Report 21, NBS 1939.
- 82. Williams, D.W., " Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls," PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. -
- 83. Yokel, Felix and Fattal, S. George, "A Failure Hypothesis for Masonry Shear Walls," NBSIR 75-703, Center for Rullding Technology, National Bureau of Star 5ards, May 1975.
- 84. Yokel, F.Y. and Dikkers, R.D., " Strength of Load .
Bearing Masonry Walls," Journal of the Structural -
Di"ision, Proceedings of ASSCE, No. STS, May 1971.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 '
(( ) EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. 1 Attachment B Page 15 of 17
,% % % w. .w e =.=m%. 'e-'- --- *
- 85. Yokol, Felix Y.; Mathey, Robert G.; and Dikkers, Robart D., "Compressivo Strength of Slendor Concrete Masonry Walls," Building Science Series No. 33, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1970, 28
, PP-
- 86. Yokel, Mathey, and Dikkers, "Strenght of Masonr Walls under Compressive and Transverse Loads", y Building Science Series 34, National Bureau of Standards.
- 87. Yokel, P.Y., Robert, G.M. and Robert, D.D.,
" Compressive Strength of Slender Concrete Masonry Walls," Building Science Series 33, National Bureau of Standards, December 1970
- 88. 1974 Masonry Codes and Specifications, Published by Masonry Industry Advancement committee, California, 1974.
- 89. Tests Prove Concrete Masonry Beams Effective",
Concrete Masonry Age, Dec. 1956.
- 90. " Earthquake Response and Damage Prediction of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Multistory Buildings:
A Literature Survey", University of California, San Diego, September 1975.
- 91. Uniform Building Code, International Conference
( of Building Officials, 1979.
- 92. " Evaluation of Structural Properties of Masonry in Existing Buildings," National Bureau of Standards.
- 93. Proceedings of the North American Masonry Conference, August 14, 15, 16, 1978; University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
- 94. ACI Standard, " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures," (ACI 531-79).
- 95. Commentary on " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures," (ACI 531-79).
- 96. " Specification for the Design and Construction of !
Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry", NCMA, 1979. ~
1
- 97. Research Data and Discussion Relating to
" Specification for the Design and Construction of
, Load Bearing Concrete Masonry", NCMA, 1979.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 b
, (( N 80034 Rev. 1 i
PILGa.IM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Attachment B BOSiON EDISON COMPANY Pa ge 16 o f_1,7_
. l t
I,
. 98. ACI Standard " Building Cedo Requircaents for Roinforced Concroto", (ACI 318-63).
- 99. "A State of the Art Review - Masonry Design Criteria", Computech, 1980. j
() , 100. " Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings", Applied Technology Council Chapter 12 A - ATC 3-06-1978.
101. "The Masonry Society Standard Building Code Requirements for Masonry Construction, First Draft. g 102. " Recommended Guidelines for the Reassessment of Safety Related Concrete Masonry Walls", Prepared by Owners and Engineering Firms Informal Group on Concrete Masonry Walls, October 6, 1980.
103. NUREG - 75/087, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, May 1980, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulartory Commission. Section 3.8.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures".
(
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1
-n _
V k 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 1 Attachment B
( ) BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 17 of 1,7 4
Additicnal to Pilgria 8'0-11 Dasign Critorio .
Pcge 3: Add the following references
() 2.16 Deflection of Two Wa Systems:
Reinforced Concrete Floor State-of-t e-Art Report (ACI 435.6R-74).
2.17 Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Flexural'Hembers (ACI 435.2R-66)
I Page 4: Change line 7 of Section 4.2.1 to read
" follow (Ref. 2.6):"
Page 6: Change line 5, paragraph 4, Section 4.2.2 to read
" tion as follows (Ref. 2.16, 2.17):
change le formula to read "Je = .... ( I" g Pcge 7: Insert these paragraphs at the end of Section 4.2.2:
"A special case exists for walls that are primarily reinforced in one direction. At the conclusion of the
'I] level 2 analysis, the stresses in the strong direction may meet the acceptance criteria while those in the weak direction exceed the acceptance criteria. These walls are acceptable if all stresses are within allowable after setting It (weak) = 0 for all elements -
overstressed in the weak direction and repeating the level 2 analysis.
"In repeating the level 2 analysis with reduced stiffness in some elements, the wall frequency will shift to a lower value. If both the original and new frequency are below the resonant range of the ARS, or the original is above
~
and the new below, the reduced stiffness analysis may be unconservative. To assure conservatism, the highest spectral acceleration in the range between the original le. vel 2 analysis frequency and the reduced stiffness frequency shall be applied to the reduced stiffness model."
e t
S
.en+=*ee e me * -,e .pg ..= e.4- **
- - + - -
. =-
-- := -
O- .. .
- 5. With respect to the non-linear behavior analysis of masonry structures, it wo51'd~be advisable not to resort to this amoroach, if possible. However, if the Licensee chooses to adopt t'11 s approach, conclusive evidence must bc submitted _.
This question refers to the level 3 time history analysis of Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 of the revised criteria. This technique was intended for the resolution of local overstress and is quite conservative in its representation of post-allowable behavior. However no masonry walls have been qualified using theicvel3timehIstoryanalysis.
9 O
O .
10 ; -
s L\
t
- 6. With rospect to the special insnection catenorv of stress values, the Licensee should indicate if the construct u on pract:.ce for the masonry structures at Pilgrim Unit I was in conformance with the provisions specified for the special inspection category in ACI O 531-79. l The inspection requirements of ACI 531-79 (RS) are given below: -
4.5 - Inspection 1
4.5.1 When specified, masonry construction shall be inspected during the various stages by the Engineer / Architect, or by a person acceptable.
4.5.2 Insaection shall include checking for compliance -
witt project drawings and specifications and keeping of records which cover the following:
4.5.2.1 Quality and testing of masonry units and materials for mortar, grout, and making of prisms when required. .
4.5.2.2 Proportioning, mixing, and consistency of mortar and grout.
4.5.2.3 Laying, mortaring, and grouting of masonry units and elements.
4.5.2.4 Condition, grade, size, spacing, and placement of reinforcement.
4.5.2.5 Any significant or unusual construction loads on masonry structural elements.
4.5.2.6 General progress of work.
~
4.5.2.7 When ambient temperature falls below 40 F or rises above 100 F, a complete record of weather conditions and of precenditioning and protection given to masonry materials, and protection and curing of completed work, shall be maintained.
4.5.3 Inspection records shall be available to Building Official, Owner, and Architect / Engineer during progress of work and for two (2) years thereafter.
O O
.....z.
. .z . : - s. .
O-At theThe exist. time of construction previous document,of Pilgrim ACI 531-701,(ACI R6),531-79 didrequire does not not retention of inspection records. Bechtel Power Corp' oration was' '
both Architect / Engineer and Constructor for Pilgrim and provided continuous surveillance during construction. The construction specification (R7) is appended to this answer.
~
Construction of Pilgrim was completed in 1972. Records still
',, existing in files cover the following:
Core samples: 10 walls Field Inspection Reports: Off Gas Retention Building Turbine Building Test Reports Compression Strength Absorption Weight Dimensions . I Material Certificates i Prior to starting the Bulletin 80-11 reevaluation, a plant walk- L l down was performed by consultants experienced in u.asonry design l and construction. They concluded, to the extent possible from external visual examination that the concrete block walls at O Pilgrim appeared to have been erected using proper construction techniques. Additionally, a test program (R8) was carried out to c
verify that internal construction details were in accordance with the construction drawing (R9 ). Details to be verified were reinforcement, grouted cells, and anchorage. The method of veri-fication was removal of blocks and visual inspection. Where details varied from the construction drawing, the as-built con-ditions were used for analysis.
e i
Job No. 80034 WI-6, Rev. 2 November 25, 1981 O
94
- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION i I WORK INSTRUCTION FOR TESTING OF MASONRY WALLS BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS r O
Approve c (( , // E Pr ject Engineer ' Dete~
m kuality Assurance
&W c6lT.
U LThet Date Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
i 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02210 l
l
l O ,
i h
,- TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pm 1.0 Purpose 1 2.0 Scope
- 1 ,
3.0 References 1 4.0 Test Methods 1 5.0 Wall Sampling 2 6.0 Procedure 2 7.0 Acceptance Criteria 4 8.0 Documentation 5 Attachments ,
Exhibit O b_"An W M W0ax INSTaUCT10N 80034 WI - 6 3'(d l f,] PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION
- pmmmmn!mm BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. 2 Page i of i
=
1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this testing program is to verify that the masonry block walls at Pilgrim I Nuclear Power Station were
{>\
s- built in accordance with original design drawings and speci-fications. As-built wall details will be used as a basis for the structural evaluation of masonry walls for response to l
NRC IE Bulletin 80-11. -
2.0 _
SCOPE i
~
The scope of work shall include testing to verify the existence of vertical reinforcement, dur-o-wall horizontal i
reinforcement, grouted cells in the masonry, positive i anchorage to adjacent structures, and lack of voids i in the collar joint for multi-wythe/ composite walls where called for on the design drawings and specifications. A
- random sample of masonry walls shall be selected to statistically ensure a 95% confidence level. The specific
- scope of work shall be specified in a separate document.
3.0 References 3.1 " Method of Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete", ASTM C42, CSA A23.2.16 i 3.2 American Soc ~iety for Nondestructive Testing (1975) -
Recommended Practice ASNT-TC-1A 3.3 Kapur, K.C. and Lamberson, L.R., Reliability in Engineering Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977 3.4
" Specification for Furnishing, Delivery, and Installation of Concrete Unit Masonry for Unit No. 1, Pilgrim Station No. 600" - Bechtel Corp. Specification i No. 6498.A-1, Rev. 1 4.0 TEST METHODS 4.1 Core Drilling - A core sample shall be removed from the masonry wall. Cores shall be 2" in diameter and 15" in length. This test may be done to verify the existence of grout or mortar in the collar joint of multi-wythe/
composite walls. All coring shall be done in accordance
'witi ASTM C42, CSA A23.2.16.
4.2 Cutting and Chipping - The face of a masonry block shall be removed by chipping and/or saw cutting. A '
maximum of one half the block thickness shall be removed. This test may be done to verify the existence of grout in cells, vertical reinforcement, dur-o-wall
! horizontal reinforcement, and anchorage to adjacent structures. .
.. WORK INSTRUCTION E W M. 80034 WI - 6 3'y l f j PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 2 l 11111111111111111111ll111h B0SM EDISM COMN Page 1 of 7 WN W
i
. i 4.3 Ultrasonic Exaninatien - Ultrasonic pulsos shall ba transmitted through the masonry wall and recorded on the far side. This test may be done to verify the existence of vertical and/or horizontal reinforcement.
O Ultrasonic examination shall be done in accordance with ASNT-TC-1A.
1 4.4 Borsscope Examination - A pilot hole (approximately l 3/4" in diameter) shall be drilled to a depth of 15 inches. An optical instrument, such as a borascope (or fiberscope) shall be inserted into the hole to visually examine the interior of the masonry wall.
r This test may be done to verify the existence of grout in single or multi-wythe/ composite walls.
4.5 Radiographic Examination - Radiographic inspection of walls may be done to verify the existence of horizon-tal and/or vertical reinforcement in single wythe walls. This method should only be used when both faces of the wall are accessible. Personnel, proce-dures, and equipment shall be qualified by the requirements of ASNT-TC-1A.
5.0 WALL SAMPLING -
The scope of walls to be tested shall be as set forth by the BECo 80-11 Project Manager. For the minimum wall sampling requirements, see Section 7.0.
6.0 PROCEDURE Any wall examined may be so tested to verify the following:
6.1 Dur-o-wall Horizontal Reinforcement - For walls which call for dur-o-wall horizontal reinforcement on the design drawings (i.e., all 8" single wythe walls), bed joints on each wall tested shall be randomly examined at three different elevations. This shall be done preferably by cutting and chipping out the masonry block block and mortar around the bed joint to verify the existence of the dur-o-wall. After examination, all block and mortar areas removed shall be regrouted as outlined in Section 6.7. Should this test method prove impractical for any wall, ultrasonic or radiographic examination may be used, but only if both sides of the wall are readily accessib12. Also, radiographic examination should be limited to single wythe walls only. Document the results of the examina-tion as described in Section 8.0.
i O bm Ac d w0Rx 1NSTRUCT10N 80034 WI - 6 N M M PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 2 l
111111!!!1111111111111!!!!1111 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 7 l wem I
6 '. 2 Vortical Reinforcenent - Ecch selected nasonry wall shall be randomly examined at a minimum of three dif-ferent horizontal locations. The preferable method of inspection shall be by cutting and chipping away the C< face of one block at each location, to a depth of one half the thickness. Vertical reinforcement shall be examined and documented as required in Section 8.0.
Cut away sections of block shall then be-regrouted as outlined in Section 6.7.
Alternatively,. ultrasonic or radiographic examination may be used. If either method is selected, the follow-ing procedure should be used: Randomly select masonry block units at three different horizontal locations on the wall. The exact location should preferably be at
. the mid height of the block to avoid distortion of results due to the horizontal reinforcement at the bed joints. Also, blocks should be selected that are generally distant from any metal attachments, such as piping or conduit. Further limitations include walls that are accessible on both sides, and for radiographic examination, wall samples should be limited to single wythe. Document the results* of all tests, according to Section 8.0.
6.3 Anchorage to Adjacent Structures - This shall be examined by cutting and chipping away the face of certain blocks along top and side supported edges.
Three consecutive blocks shall be cut away along the top edge and four consecutive blocks shall be cut away O along the side edges where applicable. The cut into the block shall be to a minimum depth of one half the block thickness (if anchorage is found), and to a l
maximum depth of the entire depth of grout in the block cells, with care being taken not to break through the far face of the block.
Inspect all blocks for the existence of dowels.
~
Document the size, number and location of all dowels observed. Also document any unusual findings, such as poor quality of grout in the block or poor quality of welds between dowels and adjacent steel. ,
- All results shall be documented as outlined in Section 8.0. Replace all cutaway block sections with grout, as outlined in Section 6.7
, 6.4 Grouted Cells - This shall be examined by cutting and l chipping away the face of masonry blocks. Three blocks shall be chosen at random, and the block face shall be chipped away to a depth of 2" to 3". For walls
~
l s WORK INSTRUCTION h=iwd_ . . . _ 80034 WI - 6
[(Ml Q PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Illlill!!!!!!!!pmmiliatil BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. 2 Page 3 of 7
designated es " Partition Walls" inspect the exposed blocks for grout fill at least every 16 inches horizon-tally. For walls designated as " Shield Walls" inspect O
the exposed blocks for grout fill in all of the cells.
, Document results as described in Section 8.0. Replace .
removed block sections with grout, as outlined in ~ l Section 6.7. !
~
6.5 Multi-wythe/ Composite Construction - Testing of these walls shall be done preferably by core drilling. Three core samples from each tested wall shall be randomly selected. The core samples shall be generally taken after the block facing has been chipped away to locate
-- the vertical rebar. The sample shall be taken at a l location 4" to the right or left of the vertical rebar, so as not to damage any reinforcement in the wall. The -
samples should be 2" in diameter and 15" long. The cores shall be inspected for voids between adjacent ,
wythes or between the outer wythe and grouted center. '
Document results according to Section 8.0. Fill all cored holes with grout as outlined in Section 6.7.
Alternatively, borascope testing may be used. Pilot holes at least 3/4" in diameter and 15" long shall be drilled in blocks at 3 locations, similar to those required for core drilling described above. An opti-cal instrument, such as a borascope, shall be inserted into the hole to ins?ect for voids between adjacent wythes or between the outer wythe and grouted center.
Document results.
{ 6.6 Combination of Testing - Where practical, any of the above tests may be combined. For example, any block that has its face cut and chipped away may be inspected for vertical reinforcement, horizontal rein- ; forcement, grouted cells, and if a?plicable, anchorage to adjacent structures. Efforts should be made to i minimize the extent of wall that must be disturbed for i testing. i 6.7 Regrouting - All por.tions of block walls disturbed or damaged by testing procedures shall be restored with i grout. This shall apply to all block sections that ' i have been cut and chipped away, and to all holes that have been core drilled. The grouting procedure shall i be as set forth in Attachment 1. j 6.8 Additional testing may be initiated if in the opinion of the inspecting engineer it is necessary to accurately report the as-built condition of the wall. However, in , no instance will the will be chipped further than the l depth of the block cell. . i m =_ WORK INSTRUCTION mweraum 80034 WI - 6 Rev. 2 e[ @Il Q m!!!!!!!!!!!!-!mm PILGRIM NUCLEAR BOSTON EDISON COMPANY POWER STATION Page 4 of 7
===
-; . g; . _ _ , _ . - - - - - - . - - - -
e 7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The following criteria are established to statistically
' () ensure within a 95% confidence level that the masonry walls were built in accordance with the design drawings and speci- ,
fications. The criteria are based upon the acceptance and t rejection levels and sampling sizes set forth in Reference 3.3. These criteria shall be the bases for determining
- l. whether or not the details shown on as-built drawings should j _be assumed correct.
~ , Any of the following items shall be acceptable for all walls if the first thirty walls tested for that item are all acceptable. Conversely, any item shall be unacceptable for all walls if the first six walls tested for that item prove unacceptable., For test results falling between these bounds, additional testing may be required. (See Section 7.6) 7.1 Horizontal Reinforcement - Detail as shown is accept-able for that wall ff horizontal reinforcement is observed in all of the bed joints examined.
- 7.2 Vertical Reinforcement - Detail as shown is acceptable for that wall if vertical reinforcement is observed in
, all of the blocks examined.
7.3 Anchorage to Adjacent Structures - Detail as shown is acceptable for that wall if dowels are observed in each block examined along the top and in at least one O' half of the blocks examined along the sides. l 7.4 Grouted Cells - Detail as shown is acceptable for that wall if grout is observed in all the cells examined for shield walls, and in at least one of the cells examined for partition walls. 7.5 Multi-wythe/ Composite Construction - Detail as shown is ' l . acceptable for that wall if no voids greater than 1/4" are observed in any of the samples taken. 7.6 Unacceptable Results - In the event that one or more I of the design details being verified proves to be unacceptable or is unable to be verified, based upon the criteria above, the detail shall be deemed
" UNVERIFIED" and therefore unacceptable. The Project Engineer shall review the results to determine if additional testing would be advantageous. Additional testing and acceptance criteria shall be based upon the acceptance and rejection levels shown in Attachment 2. The Project Engineer shall notify BECo No additional in writing of his recommendation.
testing shall be done prior to BECo's approval. WORK INSTRUCTION WW.
--.2-80034 WI - 6
( k a PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION ~ Rev. 2 ummmummmHINul BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 7
===
8.0 DOCUMENTATION All pertinent information shall be documented on the
-O
" Pilgrim I Masonry Wall Testing - Results Log" (Exhibit A).
This information shall include the following:
~
8.1 Wall Number - the maaonry wall identification number. 8.2 Test Method - the type of testing being used, such as
- cutting and chipping, core drilling, etc.
~
8.3 Test Number - for each test method on a particular wall, each test shall have a sequential number (i.e. If four core drilled samples are to be taken on a wall, they shall be numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4.). 8.4 Results Document as follows any item being investigated:
. If observed, indicate "Yes" in the approprite -
column. If not observed, indica'te "No" in the appropriate . Column. For all remaining items that are not being investi-gated by that particular test, indicate "NA" (not applicable) in the appropriate column. O The following items shall be documented: 8.4.1 Vertical Reinforcement 8.4.2 Dur-o-wall horizontal reinforcement in the bed joints 8.4.3 Anchorage to adjacent structures 8.4.4 Grouting within cells of masonry units 8.4.5 Multi-wythe or Composite Construction - Indicate whether the internal sections of the wall are masonry units or grout fill. If masonry units are found, document as "MW" (multi-wythe). If grout is detected, document as "CC" (composite construction). Also, from the wall sample taken, document the largest void area detected. 8.5 Any unusual observations shall be so noted under the
" remarks" column. -
l l c- __ m-- WORK INSTRUCTION niiW M G- 80034 l WI - 6 l eg'{q lf 3 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 2 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 6 of 7 . N1111111111111111111111l14lll a - -
s . l 8.6 Additionally, provide a stretch of the wall showing where testing has been done along with all obser-vations. An example of this sketch is shown in
,({]) Exhibit A - Results Log Sheet 2 of 2.
8.7 Sign-offs , The log shall be filled in by the engineer inspecting each test. The inspecting engineer shall then initial and date under the " Inspected By" column on the log. A second engineer shall then check the test results.
- If he concurs, he shall initial and date under the
" Checked By" column.
A Quality Control Engineer shall also verify all test results. He shall initial and date the log under the "QC Verified" column. 8.8 Originals of the "Results Log" shall be maintained by the Project Secretary in Boston. Copies of the log shall be forwarded to Boston Edison. ( . i l _ WORK INSTRUCTION E MMBE 80034 WI - 6 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 2 l . [q'(tjlf,] BOSTON EDISON COMPANY n!!!n!pmmminmugg Page 7 of 7
... . .: x .
Page 1 of 2 O Attachment 1 Requirements for Grouting Masonry Wall Sections Removed for Testing
~
A11 masonry block wall sections that have been cut or chipped away, and all holes that have been core drilled shall be restored with grout, as described below.
- 1. Material Requirements
- a. Five Star Grout (standard nonshrink cement-based grout; 5,000 psi compressive strength).
- b. Certificates of Compliance required from U.S. Grout Corporation
- c. Compressive strength requirements set forth by ASTM-C109.
- 2. Surface Preparation i
i
- s. All concrete surfaces in contact with grout shall be free of all oil, grease, etc. Concrete surfaces should be
() roughened to assure a good bond of grout to existing concrete.
- b. All metal surfaces including anchor bolts and rebar must be cleaned of all oil, grease, and foreign substances.
- 3. Storage
- a. Grout shall be stored in a dry, weatherproof area, away from the ground, and within the temperature range of 40 F to 90 F.
- b. Any grout which becomes damp is defective and is to be disposed of.
- c. The total shelf life of nonshrink grout shall be limited to ten (10) months.
- 4. Preparation
! a. Prepare grout in accordance with the manufacturer's speci-l fications. 9
Page 2 of 2 P (( 5. Placing of Grout
- a. The grout shall be hand packed into all areas tha't are cut or chipped away. -
b., Core drilled holes shall be completely filled with grout and finished. 6, ' curing
- e. The grout shall remain undisturbed for 48 hours.
- 7. Inspection of Repairs
- a. Perform and document grout repair inspection per applicable BECo QC procedure to verify satisfactory completion of items 1 through 6 above.
h 9 9
- i # 3 et e l 4 g I '
1 Jcb Ne ~ 034 Att ~4w 2 Pcga 1 WI o 6 Pilgrim I Masonry Wall Analysis Rev 2 - Sequential Testing Procedure
- 12. -
I a . - 0 10-M Reject
- r<
a - Is. y
~
8. l z 6-
- Continue
.e< ~
a m e4 0 4. , u I . - 2- - Accept v y 5 3 8 3 3 3 I 3 0 20 40 60 80 ,, 100 Number of Testa Based on Reference 3.3
- e
- i . .i
' l .' ,
O si.D1 "y l Pilgria I Masonry Wall Testing Program
- Results Log -
Results i Single or Multi-wythe Multi-wythe/ e composite Inspected Checked QC ! 'cIl Tosting Test Remarks by by Verifle. ,., Na Method No s 93 ST g (date) (date) ( d:i ' 9 0 e S w
-a, 4
s * * . *
, e
. Job No.'86034
- RESULTS LOG Sh.'2 of.'2 . .
WALL NtMBER g$* . (Example) r~ Ren. No. _I- SI- .. zm me T2e/,ctdr' Et_. sit o" . . . LOCATION - 3 LOE OU- - '
.att mE A_ n --
S @s s L 2 v.lY G PC. g= m
,- .fB > . .
ser - y i .
. - s> . .
<rn .dV .- -
. u ur.ril un A. 4> .C
. i
#rrceer .
Ist coerca (Cat. . ' -
./%.,u eJ ;
l C ]- , , epg $ J - - ._ _ ___ _ _. . . . ._. .. .2 . J. , Gmd4 Cad . . st, . . 3 ! 4 62 ,- ? - .
\
s 7 WALL ELEVATION - e
. Exhibit A .
. - WI - 6 >
. Rev. 2 -
.' 1
Specification No. 6498-A-1 Rev. A .
~
O SPECIFICATION . FOR -
.I FURNISHING, DELIVERY AND INSTAL!ATION .
.. - 0F CONCRETE t/ WIT MASONRY
. FOR UNIT NO. 1 PILGRIM STATION NO. 600 BOSTON EDISCN COMPANY CONTENTS:
SUBCONTRACT FORM SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL CONDITIONS
+
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION TO RIDDERS SPECITIC CONDITIONS
SUMMARY
OF PROPOSAL l J (Ravision1
, Prepared by W A/ , Eht r o<
Dato 7- T& 6T _ Il7L Appt wed by g d y ./M//M. h%b 181' cate M S 49' Bechtel Corporation San Francisco, California l* 4
- -,cv ---e.- -- -w , ,- , , - , -
.___y-: .....-.;-
. [. n _ k . h hb NN!bSf - -
[NN$fiIhYhN M
. Specificaticn No. 6498-A-1 e.
SPECIFIC Cots'DITIONS
?
Table of Contents ;. . o. 1.0 GENERAL 2.0 WORK INCLUDED l 3.0 t.'ORK NOT INCLUDED 4.0 DESIGN DRAWINGS 5.0 TIME REQUIREMENTS 4 6.0 CO-OPERATION WITH OTHERS AT THE SITE 4 7.0 APPLICABLE PUBLICATIONS 8.0 SAMPLES AND CERTIFICATES 9.0 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS , 10.0 MATERIALS 11.0 HANDLING AND STORAGE 12.0 PROPORTIONING AND MIXING 13.0 MASONRY CONSTRUCTION 14.0 WEATHER PRECAUTIONS 15.0 TEST SPECIMENS I 16.0 INSPECTION i I 17.0 SAFETY Y 18.0 CLEAN-UP l l - 19.0 EXCEPTION TO SPECIFICATIONS e e r
} q p yiF ' q :i > j ~ M i 2 9 O w s =1 M R a % w a
*
- Specification No. 6498-A-1 SPECIFICATION I FOR a FURNISHING, DELIVERY AND INSTALIATION OF '[ .
~
CONCRETE UNIT MASOhtY
~
- 7. FOR UNIT NO. 1 PIII, RIM STATION NO. 600 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
.- 1.0 GENERAL , The Work is subject to the '* Instructions and Information to Bidders" preceding these Spccific Conditions, the " General Terms and conditions" and the Supple:nentary General Condit- - lons of the Subcontract of which this Specification is a . part. The Subcontractor shall be resronsible for meet,ing and be governed by all of the requirements therein.
) 2.0 WORK INCLUDED The Work includes the furnishing of all labor, supervision, materials, tools and equipment and the performance of all operations necessary for the furnishing, delivery, unloading and erection of masonry work, as specified herein and as shown on the referenced drawings. The Work includes, but is not limited to, the following:
2.1 Furnishing and installing of concrete unit masonry. 2.2 Furnishing and installing of all reinforcing required in concrete unit walls. 2.3 Furnishing of test specimen as may be required. 3.0 WO*AK NOT INCLUDED The following items of work are not included: 3.1 Brick masonry. . 3.2 Furnish!' and installing of door frames' anchors, sleeves, inserts, etc. ,
Specification No. 6498-A-1 l l 4.0 DESIGN DRAWINGS _ 2 The nature and extent of the work is shown on the drawings listed in the Requisition. *f
._$ 5.0 TIME REQUIREMENTS
_f The work shall be performed in accordance with the require-ments stated in the Requisition. 6.0 CO-OPERATIO'8 WITH OTi!ERS AT THE SITE I Tfie Contractor and other Subcontractors will be performing l vork at the site concurrently with this subcontractor's , operations. The Suboontractor shall so conduct hia work as l not to interfere unduly with the work of others. 7.0 APPLICABLE PUBLICATIONS , The latest editions of the__ publications listed below, but l ref erred to hereaf ter by basic designation only, form part of this specification to the extent indicated by the - references thereto: . 7.1 United States of America Standards Institute l _
- ASTM A82: Specification for Cold-Drawn Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement
- ASm A15: Specification for Deformed Billet Steel for concrete Reinforcement
- ASTM C90: Specification for Hollow Ecad-Bearing concrete Masonry Units AS m C140: Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units
.) ASm C144: Specification for Aggregate for Masonry
.L q, Mortar l
ASM C150: Specification for Portland Cement OQV - ( ASm C143: Slump of Portland Cement Concrete l
\n - ASm C145: Solid Icad Bearing Concrete Masonry Units
/ Asm C305: Minimum Requirements for the Deformations of Deformed Steel Bars for Concrete !
Reinforcement i AS m C33: Specification for Normal Weight Aggregates
' for concrete Masonry Units i
; ASTM C331: Specification for Lightweight Aggregates
.for Concrete Masonry Units AS m C207: ' Specification for Hydrated Lime for ,
' Masonry Purposes p@ pas m C404: Specification for Aggregates for Masonry Grout
-ASm C476: Specification for Mortar and Grout for Reinforced Masonry 2-
'NbMEtY NN N @Ni.MMK3 P b ; I Specification No. 6498-A-1 4
8.0 SAMPLES AND CERTIFICATES Samples 8.1 .
?-
Before delivery of any concrete units'..to the site the Subcontractor shall sutait to the Contractor for
.~ H approval at the site two units of each size he pro- ,
l poses to use. No work shall be started until such approval in writing has been received by the subcon- i tractor. l i 8.2 Certificate i The Subcontractor shall furnish certificates in tripli-cate accompanying each shipment verifying the following: 8.2.1 Na'me of Contrcctor 8.2.2 Project location
' 8.2.3 Quantity of each type, dimencion, and average dry unit weight 8.2.4 Kethod of shipment f
8.2.5 Date or dates of shipment or delivery to which certificate applies 7 8.2.6 Linear shrinkage 8.2.7 Noisture content [ 8.2.8 Curing method, duration, te=perature, date started and completed 8.2.9 Type of aggregate l
! 8.2.10 Concrete mix, material and ratio 9.0 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS 9.1 Hollow Neavyweight Concrete Maronry Units g shall be crede U-f units cbnf6r6"ing t6((Im C93 i.inear ~
; y
' shrinkage phall be limited to 0.05 por Mont. 07 concrete weight for units shall be not less tha ,
pounds per cubic foot. Sises and location as shown on . drawings. , f I l l' l
- ~ - . . - - -
_ _ _ - _ _ , , _ , , _ , _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ - - - - , , - - , , , , - , , - , , , - - , - - - m - - - , , - - - - - - , - - - - , - -,,,.,-_,,,.,,,.,,ya,-m.-,_y,, m.- --- , , , , , -m,., _.-,,w,.m,., ,y-r we
~
N -_ specification No. 6498-A-1 l
?
I Solid Heavyweight Concrete Masonry Units M 9.2 Linear Shall be Crade U-2 units conforming to ASTM c145 , shrinkage shall be. limited to 0.05 per . e dry
' concrete weight for units shall be not less than 120 pounds per cubic foot. Sizes and location as shown on ,
drawings. 9.3 Hollow Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units l Shall be Crade U:1 u~ nits conforming to Asm C90) Linear ' shrinkage shall be limited to 0.05 per 'ent. Oven dry concrete voight for units shall be not less than 105 pounds per cubic foot. sizes and location as shown on drawings. 10.0 MATERIALS 10.1 Portland cernent sh'all conform to ASM C150, Type I , i or II. 10.2 Hydrated lime shall conform to AS m C207, Type S. . 10.3 Aggregate for Heavyweight. concrete units shall conform f to AS M C33. 10.4 Angregate for Lightweight concrete units shall confore. tc. ASTM C331. 30.5 t agregate for mortar shall conform to ASM C144, either : stural or manufactured. 10.6 Asgregate for grou_t_shall consist of natural or manu- [ t factured sand used in combination with natural coarse aggregate in accordance with AS M C404. l j I 10.7 Crout admixture shall be a type which reduces early ; water loss to the sasonry units, reduces initial shrink-age and promotes bonding of the grout to all interior surfaces of the mesonry units. Admixture shall have i the written approval of the Contractor. , j i 10.8 Water shall be frse of injurious amounts of oil, acid, alkali, organic matter or other deleterious substances ( and shall be potable. l 10.9 Reinforcernent , 10.9.1 Bars _shall conform m A15, Grade h I
' I l
_ . _ _ _ _~,___
a .~ 5
~
Specificaticn No. 6498-A-1 . j 10.9.2 fiorizontal Joint Reinforcement shall be l
'Dur )-Ceavyweight truss type or .
ved equal and shall conform toCAstne , ! As2 as.phown on the Design Drawings. . i 10.10 Control jioints shall be "Dur-O-Wal" wide flange rapid . control point.
-e ,
11.0 HANDLING AND STORAGE s- 11.1 Concrete blocks shall be stacked under a cover or other-wise protected from exposure to the weather and from contact with the soil istnediately upon delivery to the site. Care shall be exercised in handling these items to avoid chipping and breakage, and to protect then from damage by construction operations. 11.2 Cementitious materials, ir:nediately upon delivery to the site, shall be stored in weatherproof sheds, or upon platforms raised free from the ground and effec-tively protected from weather or moisture until used. 12.0 PROPORTIONING AND MIXING OF MORTAR AND CROUT l Mortar and grout for solid unit masonry and reinforced hollow unit masonry construction shall conform to ASTM C476 and as I specified in this paragraph as follows: 12.1 Mortar Proportioning Horja be type PL proportioned within the limits off ASTM C4 , Table I as follows: one cubic foot of Portland Cernent; one-half cubic foot of Hydrated Lines
- and not less than 3-1/2 and not more than 4-1/2 cubic feet of fine aggregate.
Mortar shall attain a minimum compressive strength of ' 2000 pounds per square inch at 28 days. Mortar shall be mixed and maintained on the boards to a slump of approximately 2-3/4 inches using a truncated i cone 4 inches to 2 inches, 6 inches high. i I 12.2 Crout Proportioning Grout type shall ha enarse Grout proportioned within the limits o TM C47 D Table 11 as follows: one
- part Portia ewent to which may be added not more ,
than one-tenth part Hydrated Liner three parts fine aggregates two paru coarse aggregate. All measure-ments shall be by volume. , 1 !.U !. -s-
't
2 I M i
. Specification No. 6498-A-1
- l Grout dry weight in place shall be not less than 150 pounds per cubic foot. ,.
.9 Grout shall have a slump of approximately 4-1/2 inches
,' using a truncated cone 4 inches to 2, inches, 6 inches
~
h',gh. r
#* Grout shall attain a ministum compressive strength of 2000 pounds per square inch at 28 days.
12.3 Mortar Mixing Mortar shall be prepared in betches of the volume that will be used before the initial set takes place and l shall be placed within two hours after mixing. Mortar which has stif fened shall be retempered to restore its . workability and water shall be added as needed during l the maximum time interval specified above. As much ' mixing water as is practicable without impairing the workability of the sortar shall be used. 12.4 Grout Mixing suf ficient water shall be added to make a workable six that will flow into all joints of the sasonry without separation or segregation. Grout shall be used within 45 minutes after mixing. Grout shall not be used af ter the cement has begun its final set. 13.0 MASONRY CONSTRUCTION 13.1 Masonry Units 13.1.1 Masonry units shall be sound, dry, clean and i free of cracks or broken corners when placed in the structure. , 13.1.2 The proper masonry unit shape shall be used ; in bond beans, lintels, pilasters and so forth I with a minimum of cutting. Cuts in sasonry units shall be neat and true. 13.2 Laying Masonry Units 13.2.1 All block work shall be plumb, level and true to line and all corners and angles shall be i square unless otherwise indicated on the - drawings. . 13.2.2 Line blocks shall be used wherever possible. When it is absolutely necessary to use a line 6-
' ~ ' * ~~"~~ '~ - - - -
~]' _ _ _
r -. N'*3BfWdl%%E.n. F#39~BeWM54WW2MWwsmagems
'. ., . spoeificotibn no. f4,s-A-1 f- pin, the hole in the joint shall be filled with mortar innediately af ter the pin.is withdrawn.
~ <
13.2.3 All masonry units shall be laid with full head and bed joints. Blocks sht.11 Save full mortar coverage on horizontal and vertical faces. ! ~ ~ S *. 13.2.4 Mortar joints shall be three-eighths inch (3/8*) ' in thickness unless otherwise indicated on the drawings. l 13.2.5 Mortar for all bed joints shall be spread or
- buttered on to the face shell and cross webs of the unit below. In walls to be grouted
! solid, all cross webs shall be spread or but- ! tered. Ends of bed joi.nt sortar that protrude into the vertically aligned cell s, hall be
~
.: avoided. If they occur, however, and do not exceed the 3/8 inch thickness of the bed joint, -
shall'be Icft in place. If they exceed they the 3 /8 inch thickness, they shall be knocked off and recoved through the cleanouts. 13.2.6 If it is necessary to move a unit, either for alignment or any other reason af ter it has once set in place, the unit shall be re:noved from the wall, c1 caned and reset in fresh mortar. 13.2.7 All unfinished work exposed to the weather shall
- be protected from rain by covering the top of i the wall to prevent the entrance of water into the open wall. Exposed joints in exterior wall
- surfaces shall be tooled and joints in interior
- vall surfaces shall be finished in accordance I 5 with the details shown.
I j 13.2.8 When it is necessary to stop off a longitudinal
- run of masonry, it shall be stopped off only by i racking back one-half unit length in each course.
Toothing will not be permitted except as shown ! y or as authorised. 13.3 Bonding i 13.3.1 For bonding the masonry to the foundation the top surface of the concrete foundation shall a be thoroughly roughened and cleaned with laitance removed before starting the masonry construction.
}
- b r NNI N N I M 'D N M I8EM F 5j
' ~'
Spscification Ma. 6498-A-1
/. .
'~
I O 13.3.> rhe startin. 3. int on foundations shall be laid with full p.ortar, coverage on the bed joint ex-cept that the area where grout occurs shall be . kept free froe'uortar so that the' grout will . contact the, foundation. ,,.}-.
,{
~*
, 13.3.3 Where no bond pattern is shown the' wall shall *
"* be 1mid up in straight uniform courses with regular running bond. No toothing shall be allowed. .
/
Intersecting casonry walls and partitions shall ,'- { [*13.3.4 be bonded by the use of steel ties at 24 inches o.c. cinimum unless noted otherwise. Corners shall have a standard masonry bond by overlapping units and shall be grouted solid. 13.3. ,nchors, wall plugs, accessories and other en- , bcdded items shall be fully and solidly grouted in place. 13.4 Reinforcing 13.4.1 when a foundation dowel does not line up with a vertical core it shall not be slopedy
' than one horizontal in six _ vertical. [ Dowels
=a 11 6e era t 4 i=== ==r ia ver=1= 2 li O ment even though it is in an adjacent cell to e vertical wall reinforcing.
13.4.2 Reinforcement shall be placed as shown on'the drawings. Reinforcing bars shall be accurately placed and adequately anchored in place until the grout has hardened sufficiently to support the bars. 13.5 crouting 13.5.1 All cells of hollow unit masonry walls for radiation shielding shall be grouted solid. 13.5.2 Grout may be placed in the hollow unit masonry wall af ter the unita have been set for twenty-four hours. 13.5.3 Grout may be placed by grout' pump, concrete
- hopper, or bucket. '
13.5.4 Grout spaces shall not be wetted down prior
- to pouring grout. ,
.g.
' ' ' " -e m e ,
_~
. Specificcticn No. 6496-A-1
..A* .... -
- j 13.5.5 Crout 'shall be poured in lif ts not to exceed four feet. The first lif t shall be consoli-dated with a three arter inch (3/4") flexi-ble cable vibrator ediately .af ter placement.
- concolidation of the second grout lif t and reconsolidation of the second grout lif t may be done in the same operation. Reconsolidation e of the last lif t of the pour is required as a special and individual operation.
13.5.6 When work is to be stopped for a period of 45
- inutes or longer, the pour shall be stopped cpproximately 1-1/2 inches below the top of the last course and the surface of the grout shall be thoroughly roughancd. When work is .
resumed, the laitance shall be removed and the existing grout shall be dampened and coated with neat cernent before additional grout is p ~ poured. b 13.6 Jointing All mortar joints shall be flush, clean and uniform in thickness and appearance, unless otherwise noted on the drawings. Defective joints shall be cut out and repointed.. _) 13.7 Pointing and cleaning - 13.7.1 Mortar and grout stains on the face of the wall shall be removed insnediately. . 13.7.2 At the cocpletion of the Work all holes and defective r.ortar joints in the exposso Easonry shall be repointed. The Subcontractor shall clean all masonry, remove scarfolding and equipcnant used in the Work, re=ove all debris and refuse pertaining to the Work ans shall remove _all surplus masonry e.aterials. 14.0 WEATHER PRECAUTIOttS
- Noexterformasonryshallbeerectedwhenthetecperatureis y may be erected when the temp-below 40 r. Interior maso erature outside is bglow 4 F, provided that an achient ternperature above 40.F is maintained while erection is in
; progress and for a riod of not less than 48 hours after.
erection has sto . E
- ..g.
[
- - ~ . - .
-s4
, - m EE .
i i
= '5 ! ?$
--L>- l 1
- . s .
Specification No. 6498-A-1 l
; :x - - . . . .
,-g 15.0 TEST SPECIMENS hP '
' s .. .. . '
i The Contractor will sacple and test concretahsonry units for compressive strength, absorption, weight, solsture content and Ca::ples for test will l ,
- _ dimensions in accordance with ASTM C140.
( i be takun at the place of manufacture from the lots ready for ' delivery. . The contractor will random sample concrete sasonry unitsThe at the time of delivery to the job site for weight tests. tests will be recorded. The Subcontractor shall provide sa=ples of concretc masonry units, mortar, or grout for tests when and as directed. 16.0 INSPECTION The Contractor will inspect the Work during construction and upon completion of construction of each wall.
^ Method of inspection may be by taking sample cores, re=oving i
face panels of blocks at bottom of wall or by radiology. Any wall or portion of wall which is found to have voids in the grout which the Contractor decides would affect the structural require =ents or the radiation shielding effective-ness shall be replaced by the subcontractor in a manner which will be deternined and approved by the Contractor. The Sub-
' contractor shall replace all face panels defaced by inspection.
The cost of replacement shall be by Contractor where grout consolidation is satisfactory. 17.0 SAFETY The Subcontractor's work shall comply with all local, state This compliance is sandatory and Federal safety requirements. for all phases of work, personnel, equipment and materials. 18.0 CLEAN-UP The subcontractor shall clean up all debris daily and shall remove all unnecessary scarfolding, equipment and surplus materials. When the work is complete, the prec.ises shall be left in a neat and clean condition in respect to the sub-
,7 contractor's work. , ,
l' 19.0 Excr.PTION TO SPECIFICATION __ l If the tidder takes exception to portions of,these " Specific Conditions
- or any attach::ents thereto, he is required to ,
attach to his proposal a statement identifying the exception l in detail. . l
.....:" ^ ^ ^ -
- 7. For tension normal to bed joints, an increaso of 50% over the aIIowaole value tor normal loads was assigned to factored loads. l Bowever, the SEB criteria (2) allow only up to 30%. The Licensee i
() should identify literature references or test data to support the use of a factor of 1 1 ' l i The basis for the allowable tension stress values are provided in Appendix B of the revised criteria., It should be noted that the masonry walls at Pilgrim are vertically reinforced and allowable moments were computed based on tension in the rein-
.-forcing steel only.
The Owner's Group (R1) reported 14 test.s of hollow unit construc-tion with type M or S mortar (see Table 1). The mean value and standard deviation of the modulus of rupture from these tests are 88.4 and 14.3 psi respectively. Taking a conservatively low value of modulus of rupture of one standard deviation below mean gives 74.1 psi, which is approximatley a factor of 2 greater than the Pilgrim factored load allowable of 34 psi. Omote et.al. (R10) reported tests for hollow brick AdditionallyIng masonry show variation of modulus of rupture versus mortar compressive strength. This graph is reproduced in Figure 1 along with a curve showing twice the Pilgrim allowable stress for hollow unit masonry. The curve is conservative with respect to the data. O s e 4 0 e i 1O
FLEXURAL STRINCTH-SI!! OLE WYTHE k',u.LS OF HOLLOW UNITS--- UNITOR!! LOAD-VIRTICAL SPAN Mortar Type
- Propor~: ion Modulus of Rupture ASTH C 270 -
psi. Net Area Reference M 110 10
. , M 108 NOfA M 102 10 M 97 10 M 95 NOR s .. 94 NOR M 91 NCMA .
M . 89 . NOR R 88 ' 4 5 84 10 - s 83 Nom 5 81 * . 10 -
. 5 75
- NOM
, s 69 -
Nom N 67 4 N 62 4 8 60 10 N 58 4 K 45 4 0 60 . . 10 0 , 41
- 4 0 36 -
4 - 0 36 - 4
, 0 33 4 0 32 4 0 30 10 0 . '
, 27 4
G
,9 e e
e TABLE l' * (From Owner's Group) O', S
. _ . . . - _ , - --w
O 300 - REFERENCE NO. . e - 19 o - 45 A - 20 A - 22 .c ! x - 47 l _ e - 28 g 0 - 29 D l A ,
}200 E e e e - -
o
> e g -
e e; O I og g g _ A x b ga x OD $
- M O* a A* x 3 goo O s i
e o ei. sam. -
@ 4 g 4 a . L
= i g r .T5R
-..b.. -
I I I O 3000 O 1000 2000 1 MORTAR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSI) , FIG. 5.9 ETTECT OF ICRTAR COMPRESSIVE STRENGm! ON PCDULUS OF RUPTURE OF BRICK WALIA
- \
\
O . 128
__ r. _
- 8. In Exhibit G of Attachment 3 (1), for factored loads, a factor of O 1.5 was introduced for allowable shear with no special reinfor-cement (both in-plane and out-of-plane). SEB criteria (2) suggest a factor 1.3. The Licensee should cite literature reference or test data to support the use of a factor of 1.5.
The basis for the allowable shear stress values are provided in Appendix B of the revised criteria (RI). The ACI 531 and other masonry codes address shear stress for in-plane loads only. The Pilgrim criteria differentiates between in-? lane shear and out-
.: of-plane shear, which is analogous to perip:1eral shear in slabs.
The in-plane shear factored load allowables were derived from the work by Schneider (R4). A plot of his data and the Pilgrim factored load allowable is shown below. Pilgrim walls are reinforced but do not have special shear reinforcement. Materials used in the Schneider re? ort are similar to those used at Pilgrim. The ulti-mate strengt's curve for fixed and grouted piers is reproduced below with the Pilgrim factored load allowable drawn in. The Pilgrim allowable maintains a factor of at least 2.0 below the comparable ultimate strength curve. mua mm .m rauem - .a
=e - --- --
- o.a , s
. .e l
F m
, m [ Comparable Ultimate Strength curve l I .=
i m 1 lin
* % ., d p3 , .g
's *' 5 m i
's ' -, _ =
-- m
____ _[ -- Pilgrim Factored Load Allowable . O se 34 ; 3. o nouis is
i ! Additionall , a study was undertaken by Englekirk and Hart (R4) to (] develop a b sis for limit state design of masonry shear walls. The experimental work consisted of utilizing existing data from load / deflection tests. The most complete testing program was - done at the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California. A series of tests were con-ducted for wall height to width values of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0,
-corresponding to M/Vd. ratios of 0.25, 0.50 and 1.0. Since the ultimate compressive masonry stress, f's, varied among tests the ultimate shear stress is expressed in terms of f's. The ultimate test shear stresses, using the average ultimate shear stresses for the minimum reinforcement level per UBC (1979 Edition) are:
(M/Vd) = 0.25, V = 6.2 V f 's (Ref. EERC 79/12, Test HCBL 12-3) (M/Vd) - 0.50, V = 3.3 V f '.m (Ref. EERC 78/28, Test HCBL 11-4) (M/Vd) = 1.00, V = 2.0 Vf's (Ref. EERC 76/8, Test 6) The value 2.0 f'm for M/Vd = 1.00 is a conservative value since the test specimen did not have horizontal steel. From the test data, a limit state design standard was proposed. The values proposed for masonry without special reinforcement are shown below in comparison to the Pilgrim factored load O allowables. Pilgrim Factored Ultimate Strength Load Allowable Proposed Allowable M/Vd 1 1.0 1.35 (f 's 1.7 (f 's N/VD = 0.0 3.0 $E 's 4.0 ff 's G 4 4 0 1 i l
- 9. Provide appendices C, H, I, and J of Attachment 2 to the design criteria.
The appendices to the design criteria contained data necessary to perform.the concrete block wall evaluations. Since they C were subject to change during the course of the project, they were eliminated from the revised criteria and re-issued as CYGNA project memoranda. The project memoranda corresponding to the original appendices are listed below and are included for your review as part of this response. Appendix Title Project Memo No. A Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis 10 B. Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis 10 () C Differential Floor Displacement Values 7 D Masonry Wall Section Properties 9 E Attached Component / Equipment Weights for - Dead-Load Calculations 8 F Loads due to Pipe Breaks Outside Containment 4 Allowable Stresses in Reinforced Masonry Walls
- G.
H Support Conditions for Reinforced Masonry Walls ** I- Allowable Block Pullout Loads 24 J Tornado. Loads. 5
*See-Attachment A of the revised criteria contained'in Question #4. '
,. - g,) .p **See Section 4.1.2 of the revised criteria, (DC-1, Rev. 1). s
- -<s- - v r - ,m s - --v-s,,,~e-+ , ,--~m e e s m-- a -- w ---~v
Memorandum l I Project Memo #10 ( g g Revision #1 lillllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilli To: Project Personnel Date: October 26, 1981 i From: J. D. McWilliam Job No: 80034 subrect: ARS for Level 1 & Level 2 coes: P. Baughman Analysis C. DiNunzio S. White Project File Central File Attached are the amplified response spectra (ARS) that are to be used in the renalysis of masonry walls at Pilgrim I. Attachment 1 includes all ARS for 2% damping (Design Earthquake) and 5% damping (Maximum Earthquake) for use in Level 1 analysis. Attachment 2 includes all ARS for 4% damping (Design Earthquake) and 7% damping (Maximum Earthquake) for use in Level 2 analysis. Refer to DC-1, Design Criteria for Re-evaluation of Masonry Walls for further instruction in the use of these curves.
?
J . D. hicWilliam' roject Engineer JDM/ja attac1 ment l l
Attactsnent 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis EARTHQUAKE: Design SPECTRUM NO: R-1-1A 2% ,,' BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 1 ELEVATION: -17'-6" MASS POINT: Ref: 2.9 I d.
.o d .
? ':
S.: - 2 o' ~ (5.0,0. 56) 3 s
\
O 2 n-a o.. U y ..
<c , -
f \l z (12.0,0.31) (14.0,0.31) 2q
~o
=
N~ d (17.5,0.16) (26.7,0.12) o o. o 10.0 1 00.0 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) O V [ PROJECT FDD #10 80034
) PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION Page 1 of 44 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis t^a'"ou^xt: "*- O SeECTRu" No: a - > - >> DAMPING: 5% BUILDING: Reactor , ELEVATION: -17'-6" MASS POINT: 1 Ref: 2.9
= i i
- o. [
l
** 1: -
o l g i
- 6. - . (5.7,0.68) go..
L v i H . O 2 ,-_ go.- (14.0,0.47 N
' (16.0,0.47) 8 __ < , - i .
N ' l o (18.0,0.31) i q ! E (30.0.0.23) j t 1 ci o
- o. .
o 0.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 . i' FREQUENCY (CPS) PROJECT hD O #10 1 80034 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 44 ; I
.._ _ 2..
Response Spectra for Level 1 Maconry Wall Saicmic Analycic Attachment 1_: Design EARTHQUAKE: _ R 2A
^) SPECTRUM NO: _
l (J DAMPING: 2% Reactor ' BUILDING: 2 MASS POINT: ELEVATION: 23'-0" Ref: 2.9 . E O, N g 1 o w M - p " (5.0,1. 30) ... g l m ' id l t l U -
<o- *- :
3 N ', 5 s
;2 O
=
- m (o.s,u.40) L {
f N (15.0,0.39) (12.0,0.39
\(18.0,0.18)
(28.3,0.14) l o . . . . . . g_ . 10.0 100.0 1.0 0.1 FREQUENCY (CPS) l PROJECT MBO #10 (] Q 80034 V PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 3 of 44 (J BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
~
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Invel 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis Maximum SPECTRUM NO: R 2B EARTHQUAKE: Reactor DAMPING: % BUILDING: MASS POINT: 2 ELEVATION: 23'-0" Ref: 2.9 I N 2
~
S, --
, ~ .
(5.0,1. 10) 3 E-. { O h \ CJ $ 6 U
% o N
E I 1 S m (7.0,0.62) \k 14.0,0.60) I g (10.1,0.60 ) j m \ 18.0,0.3,6) (30.0,0.29)
. i o 1004 0.1 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) i 1 .
PROJECT FED #10 fl V 80034 l PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 4 of 44 1 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY ' 9
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis _
"^ar"ou^x":
O SescTau" "o: a >^ DAMPING: oi-2% BUILDING: Reactor ELEVATION: 51'-0" MASS POINT: 3 l l Ref: 2.9 o-Y - g . . G w 8A I .: O 2~a . (5.0,2. 57) d u - I
< o .3 N f :
5 8
=
o-A
,0.73)
- +
(25.0,0.21)
- o. - . . . . . . . . . .
o 0.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) PRaJECT FEhD #10 j_ [ 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION . i BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 44
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic An21ycio EARTHQUAKE: Maximum SPECTRUM NO: R 3B DAMPING: 5% . BUILDING: Reactor MASS POINT: 3 ELEVATION: 51'-0" Ref: 2.9 ~ l t1 o, . p c v O b - p .: (5.0,2. 50) , m 1 f') V 2 .. U$
.j u l
< o -
I 1 4~
?
z - O ' E o
- (7.0,1.04)
\
x (22.0,0.42)
$ 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 0.1 FREQUENCY (CPS) ,
PROJECT MEhD #10 (D,) 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR P01GR STATION Page 6 of 44 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY l l -
Attachmont 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis Design R 4A EARTHQUAKE: SPECTRUM NO: DAMPING: 2% BUILDING: Reactor - 4 : 74'-3" MASS POINT: ELEVATION: l i Ref: 2.9 -
\
'i o'*
,r 2
to . O. . l-= i _(5.0.2. 52) h d :- 8 .. .,
<o-ad- i N
z -
? i 8
;2 o !
= !
t o. (6.8,0.73) . l 1
,0.31)
(22.5,0.23) o, . . I o 10.0 100D 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) i S PROJECT FD D #10 I ' Q
- s 80034 V PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION Page 7 of 44 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY .
E s i t
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis _ R 4B EARTHQUAKE: Maximum SPECTRUM NO: BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 5% , MASS POINT: 4 ELEVATION: 74'-3" Ref: 2.9 I4 o N - g 3 - zo *. - (5.0,2 ,83) C .': n ;g .. U "i .. U y ..
< - ..j o
A i
$ i z i 8 l E t O ,1.17)
((6.5 o- x
\ l 13.0,0.55)
- (19.0,0.47)
- o. ' . . . . . . . . .
o 0.1 1.0 10.0 100D l FREQUENCY (CPS) g 1 l PROJECT MEMO #IO (V') 80034 f PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION __ BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 8 of 44 l
Racponco Sp;ctro for LSval 1 Masonry Wall Seicmic Analycio Attachment l_: Design EARTHQUAKE:_ SPECTRUM NO: R SA _ g DAMPING: 2% . U BUILDING: Reactor - 5 91'-3" MASS POINT: ELEVATION: _ Ref: 2.9 R o*
- I o -
v '
.( . ,0. :::
g . i , C .: - - ~ ' s N --
) d i
<o - -
M S \ y , 8 9
~
- (6.5,0.85) 0.36)
(26.7,0.23) o , , , 1 00.0 d 1.0 10.0 0.1 FREQUENCY (CPS) l PRGJECT FDD #10 i Q V 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 9 of 44 _ BOSTON EDISON COMPANY 89
.. n. .
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis EARTHQUAKE: Maximum
! SPECTRUM NO: R 5B Reactor DAMPING: 5%
BUILDING: . 91'-3" MASS POINT: 5 ELEVATION: Ref: 2.9 E
~
o
~
m
* :~
(5.0,3, 28) o z . om - Y .. m f .. (U "! ._ d . W o_: . e : . 2 E (7.0,1.33) E o~ ^ J (13.0,0.70)
~
(30.0,0.47) o, . . . . . . . . . o 10.0 1 00.0 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
,A PROJECT h0 0 #10 \-
j CCQ _ j (,J 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION 44 Page 10 of BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
1 Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis __ R 6A EARTHQUAKE: Design Q SPECTRUM NO: U DAMPING: 2% BUILDING: Reactor
=i ELEVATION: 117'-0" MASS POINT: 6 Ref: 2.9 I
o, i 4 . ! I _-. -,(5.0,3. $1) ; Q o . v, .
@d .
C . '. g .. ua g .. 4 o-
- a N
z O E o
- ,1.08)
((6.5
\
Q .0,0.38) (19.0,0.34) e, - . . . . . . .. . . . . o 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) PROJECT FDO #10 (m 80034 V PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h*ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 11 of 44
l ic , l Response Spectro for Leval 1 Maconry Wall Sairmic Ana y2 l
, Attachment 1( Maximum l EARTHQUAKE:
SPECTRUM NO: R 6B _ 5% DAMPING: " I Q BUILDING: Reactor 6 MASS POINT: ELEVATION: _ 117'-0" _ Ref: 2.9 1 E a (5.0,4 06)
=t .
g .. S gb . p .. O d :- 8 ..
<o "
a n' ~ (6.1,1.66) N y , N _ E
=
o, 7 ,0.83) (21.0,0.68) 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 FREQUENCY (CPS)
' PROJECT FB10 #10 C 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 12 of 44
/_ BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis R 7A EARTHQUAKE: Design p SPECTRUM NO: l' \ DAMPING: BUILDING: Reactor 2% ELEVATION: 138'-0" MASS POINT: 7 Ref: 2.9 o , dT l o' E.. (5.0,7.d4) Q IE .. o v
$d .
2 p : I o:--
$d..
m l
. I u l u --
<o--
- a z
O. Ea o
- L(6.3 2.28) o- N
\
o . ..
.U,U./W) w (27.1,0.49) g . . . . . . , . . , ,,
I 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) PROJECT MEMO #10 Os
~...,
Q
%J 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 13 of 44 i
~ =
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis R 7B EARTHQUAKE: Maximum SPECTRUM NO: BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 5% , ELEVATION: 138'-0" MASS POINT: 7 Ref: 2.9 ( i Ch . (5.0,8, 19) o co - o- --- g4. e v Q@ - l
~
H .
/~ ho-_ - 'O] ".$ d ..
m . U g ..
< o
$ k(6.0,3.33) 29, g
S (10.0,2.34) 3(13.0,2.34) o-l (17.0,1.64)
- (28.0,1.17)
- o. . . . . . . .
o 0.1 1.0 10.0 1004 FREQUENCY (CPS) PROJECT MEbD #10 3 (V C 80034 j_ PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION . BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 14 of 44
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis EARTHQUAKE: Design SPECTRUM NO: R 8A DAMPING: 2% BUILDING: Reactor MASS POINT: 8 ELEVATION: 164'-6" Ref: 2.9 R o
" (5.0,8.51) o, -
e .
&Y-c -
"o-
$d .
5 .
~
t
%J
$9 a m..
v -
<o- I a*
N 5* 0 .-
%? ? o?)
%(14.0,2.34)
(12.0,2.34) { o-n
' 15.5,1.24)
, N
.-i (21.7,0.81) o 1 00.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) l PRQJECT FB10 #10
. _Q 80034
., %J PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 15 of 44 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY se
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis R 8B EARTHQUAKE: Maximum (~} V SPECTRUM NO: BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 5% ELEVATION: 164'-6" MASS POINT: 8 Ref: 2.9
-- (5.0,9.49) o, -
m. o-4 . o, -- _ g5 . c.o .
$d -
H . o !::: u.i .
<o- ,,
,.av
, ;, uv.v ,
Nz g (14.0,3.33) 8 c. (12.0,3.33 ) \ E* 9 O~ (17. 0 1. QK1 N 4 (27.0,1.72) 1 I C. . . . . . . . . , o 0.1 1.0 10.0 1004 FREQUENCY (CPS) I fN d C PROJECT MEb0 #10 80034
- L PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 16 of 44 l BOSTON EDISON COMPANY 1
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Vall Seismic Analysis s^ar"ou^xs: o*- O sescrau" "o: '- Turbine
- 2^
DAMPING: 2% BUILDING: . MASS POINT: 2 ELEVATION: 23'-0" Ref: 2.10 I n - l (5.0,1 .89)
\ .
o V
- g. _
~
(7'. 0,1. 33) (7 .8,1.33) H 2-- i O ' n 8 ..
<o- ,
d ! W ', o , i U , a: o
=
9 (10.0,0.43) i I (26.7,0.23) o ' b 10.0 100D 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) S PRCUECT FBO #10 [ 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l L BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 17 of 44 i< l e
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis t^ar"ou^xe: " xi - O sencrau" xo: 1 - > - 28 DAMPING: 5% i BUILDING: Turbine MASS POINT: 2 ELEVATION: 23'-0" Ref: 2.10
.08) i
\(5.0,2
= . _ . . _ . _
N i
. 2
. ! l l'
g o v (7.2,1.56) (B.3.1.56)
$.-. 3 I-- ._
h .. ~ d m J .- i m . U " U 4 o ~ t E (9.3,0.94) ii-- Z i O n '
- \
a: (13.0,0.62) g m ~
& (23.3,0.47) i O
1.0 10.0 100.0 0.1 : FREQUENCY (CPS) O exa18cr te o <1o 80034
.ES I '? PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION '
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 18 of 44 i -
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis EARTHQUAKE: Desien SPECTRUM NO: T 3A f') v DAMPING: 2% BUILDING: Turbine , 3no" MASS POINT: 3 ELEVATION: Ref: 2.10 t I - ._ _. o, ' __ . w - Q . to . m o. om - H - (5.0,2 .60) g ' - bs $ ua :~ 8 4 t o
*;$ N (7.1,1.82) (8.0,1.82) i H
5 N i i E l e tl
- g
([9. 0,0.69) l
\ .i (23.3,0.26) I c3 t o 10.0 1004 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) ,
I I
^
\ PROJECT FD10 #I0 (V
i Q (J 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION i Page 19 of 44 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
Attachment la Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis , , T 3B EARTHQUAKE: Maximum SPECTRUM NO: Turbine DAMPING: 5% BUILDING: , 37'-0" MASS POINT: 3 ELEVATION: Ref: 2.10 o' k - E to . W . o p.u,z.v1) g ,,; - P .: N m Os u T l E,l ' (7.0,2.13) (8 .0,2.13) A A i
? I 5 l U ,
ce l 9 o' i
* (11.0,0.83)
(27.5,0.52) o - . . . . . . . , ,. o 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 l FREQUENCY (CPS) I f' Q PROJECT MEMO #10 80034 (J PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 200f 44
~
~ s ..
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analyci3 Design T-1 4A EARTiiQUAKE: __ SPECTRUM NO: DAMPING: 2% BUILDING: . Turbine - ,; MASS POINT: 4 ELEVATION: 51'-0" Ref: 2.10 E 4 . [
' (5.0,3.71) g to .
gg , (7 ,9,2.67)
- . (6.9,2.67) g,. _
xJ g ,, u -
<oy t
a n' ~ I N z 8 E e (8.75,1.09) ( o'- T
~
'11.35,0.70)
N (23.75,0.36) o 1 00.0 1.0 10.0 0.1 FREQUENCY (CPS) PROJECT MEhD #10 O Q 80034
- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POlfER STATION Page 21 of 44 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
Attachment la Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis T-1-4E EARTHQUAKE: Maximum SPECTRUM NO: (V~N DAMPING: 5% i BUILDING: Turbine , 51'-0" MASS POINT: 4 ELEVATION: Ref: 2.10
,- , ;(5.0,4. 38) m -
f3 - w . z . . (Sr672r91) (7.3,2.01) , on - ' I I p V g a I t ua ' y .. 4 o" i s-- l (9.7,1.66) g w E o
=
o- (13.0,1.041 (18.0,1.04) ( (25.8,0.73)
\
o . . . . . . . o 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) I i
/~' PROJECT FDD #10 O) [ 80034 L PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 22of 44 l
- Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Saismic Analycia , Design SPECTRUM NO: T 7A EARTHQUAKE: O BUILDING: Turbine DAMPING: 2% MASS POINT: 7 ELEVATION: 105'-6" _ Ref: 2.10
~ -
(4.9,9.56) -
' (6.7,9.3h (7[75,9.36) - .
m o' so -
. . 1 o i g s* . .
- o V
o
$J.
a.o. : 3 sn ..
, D3 . .
u .
' u "
<o-4 p -
s (9'.0.2.9 31 fidIO'.'E.931 Oo *
- - 1 g ,,
0 '
- x: .
o-g- . (15.3,1.70) , (20.8 ,'1.12) M e a a e a e e e . . . . . . . . d- 10.0 ' 1 00.0 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) PROJECT FDD #10 j ((Q , j_ (,,J 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 23 of 44 _ se
c. 8 Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis T-1-78 EARTHQUAKE: Maximus SPECTRUM NO: BUILDING: 'narbine DAMPING: 5% ELEVATION: 105'-6" MASS POINT: 7 f Ref: 2.10 . . o, so . o~ QZ. d - 8.- - J D=1 . H . . o, - __ (7 .6,10.9) ,_ iil u 3- -
~ .
U
<o-3 Ei H
Z 0o *
;;! d i ...
O .
..(10.0,4.5)j (14.0,4.,5) . ,
E' ' (16.0,3 .0)' , _ , , (27.5.2.241' a .' - - N
- o' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b 10.0
- 100D O.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
PROJECT MEh0 #10 CCQ Lj_t) 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION
~
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 24 of 44
)
1 Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analycio Design (] SPECTRUM NO: BUILDING: RW 3A Radwaste EARTHQUAKE: DAMPING: 24 , ELEVATION: 23'-0= MASS POINT: 3 Ref: 2.11 l 9 O (11.0,0.85) I co ' b . g o. c w 8a - Y .'. O & m-- b "$ d '. m . U " U
< 7-1 O H ((15.5,0.33) z
\
89 E o
= -
N*
* \
o (25.5,0.18) 1 0
's o .
g_ , , 0.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) O PROJECT FSO #10 ' D k 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 25 of 44 l i BOSTON EDISON COMPANY i t t i I
Attachment it Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry W311 S31smic Antlycio EARTHQUAKE: Maximum SPECTRUM NO: Rw 3a DAMPING: Ss . BUILDING: Radwaste 23'-o= MASS POINT: 3 ELEVATION: Ref: 2.11 I 9' n .
.P 8-
@d . -
p :: q I -- l O $ .- (12.0,1.12) ; a -
\
\
< o-a w 8
- (15.0,0.65)
=
m- ,0.44) d (30.0,0.36) 9 1004 o 10.0 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) PR(UECT FDO #IO O V ~# k b# 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 26 af ~ 44' , BOSTON EDISON COMPANY , e
_. TS O o a I I.N fWesASTE PeINT4 M
- h l
- b. ELivmT10as 37.3
~
at DAre'lIS
" MoneRSTE BLes EL 32 NE earles s.aae *
. E , ,F i.es [ (14,1.13)
.e I a E
E m W n
~
G e.es U r . m
- I ' 8 3 " ~ I g>
E p iS E r N U n.u " 8 a t lEw W n a ; ,O
- ~
a er s l4 E l-
.j _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _
_ _ _ _ . _ _ . g: eg e.se p . ..______ IC a. so C l9 n
. (18,0.24) g L . M' o.2e -
f _ _ _
*g 3 F
.a e
I l s-i m"
" ; .m tJ .
I ti 5
. . . . .i
.. .._.....i . . . . . ..1 too o s.co r . ,_ .
s e s 6 to ao so es so 6e a m o. o.a c.s e.s e.s o.6
- FREQUENCY fHZ:
u EARTHOURKE ENGINEER;NG Sf5TEMS .e
1 1 Attechmint 1: Racponce Spectra for Leval 1 Maconry Wall Saismic Analycio SPECTRUM NO: nw an EARTHQUAKE: Maximum BUILDING: Radwaste DAMPING: ss ELEVATION: 37 .o= MASS POINT: 4 Ref: 2.11 m O~ v . g 3 o-Z o 5 - i: :: h ua -
) g --
I 3
< o--
^
a N h z (14.0,1.77)
\
k. m
}
o W O Z o 4 f 17.0,0.52) N (32.0,0.36) o-g . . . . . . . . , , ,, . 0.1 1.0 10.0
- 100.0 j FREQUENCY (CPS) l l
PROJECT FDD #10 CC 8UO34
' J 1- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 28 of 44 4
e
- y 0 O Se8
" RADWtSTE PeteT5 M . .
ELEURTlast 51.8
- a nanim
- ano-art stes ei. si sec
- pseerises 8.029 -
i!?
- ,m -
- (14,1.s0) "g
. O
- pO '
n g i i.as
- i "
- E "
W t g t
; $a w
E , 4 F p u __. - . g i c (18,0.510) g r- 5. n f
..m t . g y- L -
- g-mv u - I is ; l ...i
...i . . ......i . . . . .
p.r . ..
..: ... s.s .. i a s .s e is a m a se so ioo A FREQUENCT tHZ)
EARTHOUAnE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS ,
v. Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: Rw Ss EARTHQUAKE: Maximum BUILDING: Radwaste DAMPING: ss ELEVATION: 51'-o= MASS POINT: S Ref: 2.11 - n.. (14.0,1.77) g 3 m
~ @A .
i: :: g UJ u -~ l U i
*C o--
3 0~ d z O E o (19.0,0.57) 9-o (21.0.0.55) (55.0.0.31) A a i t t e e e a ,, o 0.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 . FREQUENCY (CPS) i p/ w C k PROJECT hD O #10 80034 j- ba PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 30 of 44
' ~
Attachment 1
- Response Spectr.a for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis
_.._.__._ g m
... . _... ___ _ __..).
~
I l W L I - m 9 g
~S
! U m- _e Z w N !* H E
l - e
$ e ! t . -7 tu Rl w l tu l
d d i v' .! 2 E. a. o oo - I e H o-W d i i i tu I EE.E o o a $w '
+ ! tis EL E E= I i X wa -. -
_ _ _ _ _ _ - .. Je cr 4~ 3 I J G n - I T., co . ? b 1 1* i cc .
,o ".' l CC D
\
v) 9 O e l .e. a en N I 2:
- v
_m 1 Y i W J~E I : . a i , tu t 1 i
. ..____._.j__ .- l I
J 1
; !.c
; 9d
!w i.d 'e
.o I i i im
. j 7d i
t, = b i i b i LLI ...... .. ......... _u. , m,.._2.u m_. ,.u . .L .m g g g
. . tu , m .
g g p, um Page go 31 of 44 4 4 J d d d d
Attachnent 1: Response Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: nw_1_s.sn EARTHQUAKE: Maximum
-l BUILDING: Radwaste DAMPING: Sg ELEVATION: 64'-0= MASS POINT: 5.5 i Ref: 2.11 i E*
i a W ' (14.0,1.W4) .
. 1
- . I -
g j l o w l l m.- b I- .- O s
- u .
U " U
< o--
a H : z l l(18.0,0.75)
- t k t M t '
; I 9
~
(55.0,0.313
- i in . ,
d . i i-I
.l >
. i o .
f 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 e i FREQUEliCY (CPS) I t i PROJECT MEMO NO. 10 EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 32 of 44 . r
. i.
i- . .-. O O O' l : ~, . . . . m . . . . .m.... an aanrims
- (14 2 08) _aaomas u sons a en es
,, .- 2% s.nu l .
t . ,,,
- '8 g
- a 6 a.as
. g a
o ? " n l - I %
) 0 M
$,5 p X %
e 2 ; e , - o E i I
~
a
!n t ;
- l 8 -
--' -. , a 4
g l (18,0.70) :* 6 .
' x 6-O k m
- c. > -
a ___ . a , n
. (1.
- a
}-- ..
" E
' 5 t
h , ! %- ma r , , , ,
a' m 8.8 e.2 s.s o., s.s e.s a s u I c.,01.'E N, .. . t H ,,. .,
5 * = = = w " * *io.
- a. . . . .
us
,A p, EARTn0URKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
= -
O e
Attachment 1: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: nw - i _ r,n EARTHQUAKE: Maximum DAMPING: 5s , BUILDING: naawaste ELEVATION: si'-Oa MASS POINT: 6 Ref: 2.11 , I' o' M. g .. G v g. fb . p$ .. O ~ d -- (14.0,2.34) a y ..
*C O' a 5~
H Z o N o 17.0,1.07)
,. '10.0,0.9 0 (44.0,0.49) ;
0.1 1.0 10.o 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) PRGIECT FDIO #10
'- C _k 80034 J' b# PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 34 of 44 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY .
I p
ATTACHMENT 1 Response Spectra for Level I Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis m e T
- _c 7
u: g in
; i o i o : .)
ry t t
.o a L.
" o
=
Z w . , , o E s o , I i . . C i e5 i i Lu , i
- o z w i i .
j w o L i A wu e . f C == l w i == D E o ! ! c
; -o t= U Z wo LN t I
~ o
== 3 oo a "P zEm a*
2 wo u"i
. . . . i ,
a ~ zo 1
-w wm !
o 3 C" a: m e ==
.n s 5
i Q
.a - w
.aE , ,
i g
.z w =o e i
-o c Fa
- 1 - 3 I _1 4
O 1 - 7
, i H i
< I o a-t l
e c i , tu
- i. !. ,
I , i N
=
, i m I !
' ! r i U
' = ;
l i ! un ! i ; mo i' . . I o t
; w
; i'
, . ! c ,
; i : a. -!
l I ', I
. . t
~
. ! i 1
*
- l i i >
, ! l o
-g
.m
~a l '
-d i 6 ,
j
, o z . m.
, ,o i
t , i~ > 1 i o i
) C '
Id , t ,
. em j
.u . . u. w d ' ' ' ' ' ' ' "
, i . . . u . _ i u i. u _i .g . . . .
'6 d i
-o m e m m m e m . . . . e .
. m e4 - . e m c
. .; , , ; ., .4. p -: ~ .
-. Pg. 35 of 44 l
. l
>ae>O h ze "
1 Aem]Umm gaotNW r mo" *ta<eH H @mouG sW" eHmsrn 5WH*mPm 0 0 S 1 M O
- l il
- i E
e T
. i S 9 i0 Y _
S
.6 _
i0 _
. 5 G
i0 4 N
" I E "
S == . R _ S _ i0 3 E A - L R R T ._
. - E N
= -
- T C N E O P -
. I EZ S :0 1UR RI D
2 G TCH TO E0 P5 . N IU NR5 L O0
- E UT E0
_ M S1 2 V NG ._ - - E IE EN _. - _ RK . I K GRV =P _ - . LTE INL
=M
=R iig , '
i0
.1 R
PIE =D ._ ; e U O _. '- i
- i H
- i 6 T
R 5 A i E
- i 4I o
Z H
- (
i 3 Y
- C N
_ . - E
- - - i2 U .
Q
- - E
- - R
- F
_I i_ 1 a6i _0 5
-- u.0 . 4
- - i
- _0
- _. 3
- - i_ 0 2
0 O 1
- _- - - - - - ~
_- - .- ~~_ - - 0
.: . ~_ h _ - - : '
0 4 6 8 0 2 5 7 0 - 8 9 1 3 6 . 1 0 0 3 2 4 3 I
. > . a;
;e . h ,.
- ) . -
- e. m3g* 4m O*
4 a* . , , > ,lt
li!
>88>O 28 w n -
o g 7-
- $.oi#* C]ntND D e Hi N Me:<eH H h#0UNN 'EWHH tePmBPO :
gWH%"P# o u _d i s t O i _ I .
' n i
' o,e
'os
~ G a
'oy N
- I s = - H -
a a 'o3 E
~ n
~
- v. iC E -
t l t E ' l E P ~ ~
- E S ~ - I -
R 0 l UE 0 TB E0 - 2 G - TCO U P2 O0
- N
~
I - r NRL L UTA E0 .
' E ST V ~ .
M N NG ~ EO IRKZ EN I ~ - E GAI LTR
=P
=M
' K INO PIH
=R
=D
~
~
~
I i O Rl
~ l L
o i 1 T
'6 B
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'r - E A
- ~
~ .
. 'f )
_. Z
- H O ~ .
~
~ _. ' fI
~ ~~ - Y
~ ~
C
~ - N
~ .
- E
~ ~ -
~
_ '2U
- Q
- ~ E R
- ~
~ -
F -
~ ~
~
~
~
-1 -
~
l 6
- '0
-5 0
-9
- 8 0
3
- 8
- U 2
- e 0
S _ O 1 ___ E .
.y 0
6 0 9 2 1 4 3 6 5 8 7 0 0
. 0 4 3 3 2 1 0 5 . - e.
"~e..
" . i*
2i ..
- s. i. r - Qe. W4 S i
ATTACHMENT 1 ,
, ,f, Response Spectra for Level I Maconry Wall - _ _ _
Saismic Analycia -= x
--l - ..
l -
= .o : e w
4 -? :. . =,
.o <
'I
_o# %
! er W
4
- -% Lt J 4
- cg e-te
.K l
y J U E W m A e-W2 m } I "o N C ( .: o , i
+ O 7"
* == 3e-N.m
- WD !
a= U E 4@ 4
! bl
== 3 O OO *
.J EEZ -
ne > x wo i, i y z
-w m wW- , .c w" Ee.. WL _o oE>
a-w
-zs
==
c. _- c,
- i
~ o I
! t ! _o u I '
e e c u.J
- . } i i i ,
. .e-fM t
t m y i z w
~2
)i . . t C l CW i *
' , L i
1 4 I l I
-_. -__-l t
t. 1 i 1 - t o
, -i
;o i
o _e. i O i
.g t
-d N
o i ff) i e - , I 1
' tii u ^ ***2'2 ' ' "*'-d l u.s i! u uu _ , . au_t.u .. _m -
$ U N .
E
- o y
". ' i - 7 !E . . . ' pg. 38 of 44
O o O EES W m un 0.55 - DIESEL GENERRf0M BUILDING 13 M00RL DRMFING 2Z ELEV. 23.00' O
- a
~
I 2
==== ENVELOPED SPECTAM ====
DRMPING 0.020 g 4 F,. __ _ . ~ . ' ,o l, O y 0.46" \ tt
'~ M .,
" 08 t F m F. j O
- n
. . _ _ p m
G,0.36.__.. - 4 d
- H d
*
- y
' H O 3 h, .
~ x $
c 5
- _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ ... g g O d "_i0.27 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . p N P W -
u . l 64 O ' 1 C l-
- Y H h "
a . m b w 0 .18 - O P-G- m i W B. p 1 , O
.r
{ ' E,, H l j 0. 09 %. . . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ 54 ce P-w - a w -
~
O
. .a . . . _. . s . _ . . s _ e . s ._ . s . t ..
' i n i . .. t ._ s ... s . . I .. ' 30 40 50 b0 100
- 0.00 LI___._._.._.._t...___s._._......._.s._.s.l1 2 3 4 5 6 10 20
. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 FREQUENCY IHZ)
EARTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS I i
- i ., y
ATTACHMENT 1 Response Spectra for Level I Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis a tn S I [ O l Lu l
- 1 j f I i
{ 1 _o h 6 is p l I Jo i C
! Jo Z E j !# %
o e ! 0-d 5 -R W
! 11J E S EN I I 2 eN l _
N. E $ C 11' "' 8 *
- I 2 0 5 ; i:'" w a
- 52 Mda .~ , w
!5!5 ! ,_
/! ,_g g
- 0
- O J r l &
,* c-
' T bm i W I
e-N
/Q 4
# E n
v r o y z
, w JN D s i o w
e is. t t l i _ to
-d
!=
id i 1 i !r I "I d i !
.m l
N l ; i i i W i ' I I e I W i ......t . . . . . . . _ , ......... ..;......l.........i........-- o e o m e .m W m m e m m e o, e o e o e d (D) NOI1BW373338 lBW133d5 Pg. 40 of 44 l
.. .. . - : s .
ATTACHMENT 1 Response Spectra for Level I Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis
-8 W
\ \
+
( N w
- I J m i ! Jo E
, ; != cn e
!* O je z j' .-.
W i cr i E = ao w E
!E S
w h z Eg .o
~
Eo "o ',~ a S i!*o h3 , z 5 k'a dd W
*8K E'"g -
da. W 080 Ig - I i x EEd != o c J~ --) O
! I 1 F--
m* cc I I c
]* , W E
( .
,. _n 8,J
{ :: J _1ND O w e A
- s J
l id I im t id IF
~5l 1
n . a i 10o 4
@ i O L'i iy i>> iia.u p_uia uaA u u.u u.ign i.u i.uui.i, g LLI o u>.
m
..u m o n m o
o
- e e o
(0) NDI1BW3'13336 78W133d5 Pg,. 41 of 44
O o o a EES w e 1.09 DIESEL GENEMTOR BUILDING m MODAL DRMPING 2Z '*J:
, ]y
~ ELEV. 34.50 ' ,
a 8
' aman ENVELOPED SPECTM ====
OAMPING 0.050 m ' 5 -
~ l 0.91 a s f
M
. m !
O
~ M
~
E 0.73 C
~ -
I e e E : H n C E g l$
"w 0.53
~
p M e U g u . T 3 _, : e 1 t- W C m 5 w 0.36 f e p. a., u . 5 p
. n m 9.18 w
<a .
M
+ .
m p. a- . m w . O . n ~
,,,,,,; , , , , , ,2; _
100 0.00-a- , , , , , , , , 4 5 6 10 20 30 10 50 60 2 3
** 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 -
FREQUENCY IHZ) ERhTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
O . O . O EES 1.56 k
~
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILOING MODAL DAMPING 2Z m
- ELEV. 19.75* ]
==== ENVELOPE 0 SPECTRA ==== $
m
~. ORMPING 0.020 '
m 1.30 ~ 'O I e
. O '
. et
. N
. W
- m
. O N
G 1.04
~
. v m
z 4 >
. m "3
.c3 H *-3
>~ .
~ g . I H O CC .
* , 0.78 -
E M z m . m u . O 63 u . U id : :El l m > { C,0.52 U , u . M l m 4 . P-m B 0.26 - g m . . ? - M 4 W a k"
~ , O .
W . ' ' i ' ' ' -' ' ' ' ' ' 0.00 '- ' * ' ' ' 8 ' ' ' 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 t l ,6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.'l 0.50.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 FftEQUENCY IHZ) EARTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
O O O EES n
~
1.56 OlESEL GENERRTOR DUILDING MODAL DAMPING 21 1 s' . h. ELEY. 49.75' s u
. 8
==== ENVELOPED SPECTRA ====
DAMPING 0.050 m t 8 .i 1.30 O s re n [ si o n p G 1.04 m m e q z ~ o. E : :r E m m tg m 2 w . o e s
-80.78 w
u w I n - u ' 1 e s: _s : m e e m e ( m u0.52 w 2 e. CL (n m n e-o f 0.26 - b
- m
- e-
- e o -
s - 2___t _i _ _.i_i_ i - i ___t __._t __ __ _.o_ i . . > > 2_ i a 20 30 40 50 60 100 0.00 a i 2 3 4 5 6 10 Cll 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 I Ff1EQUENCY IHZ) i EARTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS i - __= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. e,.
I . ;' ' ! 1
.l - .
>+r+rnnaDmsM n
xmtdoD4e tden+rMm. %o. M e<aw w n A xmtood1M
- 5m'HH Mm>m5wO hmgM.gopi .a 0 0
S
. 1 M _
o t_ 4 t. 0 E T S Y S _ t_0 6 5 G T F =
- Lo t
N.
= I 5 =
7
= R 1
G A R a03 E LI
.N T C
E N E N EME GRM S P I NOR 0 l U 0 0LO E0 s_ 2 G LRH IRT P4 O0 N E UUA L STR E0 CE V NG RU - ORN EN F TTG I CSI A S
=
=W K EZE R5D
=R
=O 0 R j'
5.1 U J.. . s. O L H T a 6 R i1 s 5 A
\ E J.. 4Z )
o _. H I 3 Y I C N
. E L. 2 QU E
R F 1_1
. 1_
t_.. 6. _0
~ _5 J. 0 4
0 _3
- s. 0
. 2 _. 0 S _ . _ OE E ( L h r b f L' { , . . . . ,> F f . - [
, hFr4FEPh -
CIk . _1
< b ,, ~ 0 0 1 4 7 5 8 1 0 0
, 3 2 2 0 0 0 O
*0 "
n w o* i" o~ 2O~pmgwJ.wuug g M uJLnm
. 8 g
' l ' l
. _ ~ _ _
Attachmmnt 2
~
Responso Spect'ra for' Level 2-Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis
- O
,, r w
i i O ! i
; 1, H
, i i . l f i i , m . i jo >-
! . cn 6 Jo
- O C Jg Z W
p a l
,:g cc T E I -R W
.:k 0 W "8W t z W a!!! * -
EEE "o ~2 o dE g b; 2 EMw dd W
,E! bI w r
n: :g Wr:1 'a ,
= C 1 i a
D o
! I l-I--
cc w I N E
.C) _--
, u Z
w
. . w N =>
O w E I-l ! 4 1 1 wg ja 1 t i :o I 1 .! =5 l M mg i N d ([) ! Om LL.l
- i i la.u.u.u.u Li u.i t u a i ir u.i.u u il t.u t.ua u.Ia
~
i
- u.ua i.u i u.u 42.u.1=" 7
= = = =
= & J d d -d i d (D) N01189313336 188133d5
l .
, y!:i'.
>n n:U4ztr r N c:omcOuwO mc0ne t
o %OM Fog
- N
- + -
ZmmOUsN -
+ tmw9 to HmUHn >Mm ) pm 0 S 0
M
- L.1 E O - -
t.. T S s_ a0 Y
.6
- S
- a0 5
G i o N T = - _t _ I F =
= _ R
- 0. G
= ~ s03 E A E 3N R
2.PI T C N LM ERE E I DN P s02 G R S NLU G IRO DRH E0P7 G N LUT lTA O0 E uCR L BUE E0 V RTM R NG E 0SU MEN 1 I
. K C1I =P
=M -
-0 R R
E 5.X A =A
=D 1
U 13R7M '
' s_.
. ' O
. H
- s. T
~ _
R s_6
- 5 R
I \. E t4)_ Z
/
. H O . I
- -3 Y
C N E s_2 Q U E R F 1
)
- I 4
l . s. t... 6.
. s_ 0.
.5
_ s _0
=- .
9
- 0 .
1 a_ 0 . 2 0 - OSE
- [ L b P"t._I.
Cp._.
. . - [p - p L[gL Fr ~ 0 0 E L F I,-
'_ {Ie b> h0 0
_t- rP 0 0 9 2 0,
- 0 6 -
8 0 0 - 0 0
, O _
1
. 1 0
~ OW twn _
uu1 :ac u A* o 2O emma i
.t _
.6 Attachmant 2 Responso Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wa11' Seismic Analysis -
o (n
' I '
=2 I i ! Lu p i !
! i F-Q '
g
.- cn
.o i* in Join g
= . o e
Z i .-. w Eg ! -R W dr S
- W h Z oE"$ =
5 _o
~
lSWE ES
- " C Z
E.EE.- a *wo } W
=E E= -
/ -
i-w cae
... .. .I l "w "
, i o M
e
- a~ =
J C J r i F-w
-l 2 J.
l c w . a,- N 1 a O ! >-
. u l z
; w
. = ::a l
! 0' e u.
I . s . .
- N ,i J
l J.o* le "d 9 i "d (
-d L
. o l
O t . . l \ b_] ' - - - u uu - u- 'd 2 E E 2 3 2 E
- 4 4 4 4 d (D) NDI1BW373338 78W133d5 .
. i 8- .- _ i
= ---
'l
- O. O O I _ _
, 1.00
~ REACTOR BUILDING EL.51.0 FT 5% STRUCTURAL DANPING 2
l OESIGN EARTHOURME I .
~ ==== ENVELOPE 0 SPECTRR ==== l t
~ ORRPING 0.040
~ ,
1.50 4
. r'
~
I 3::o mo um OD D0
~
! . y@
c
] 1.20 o m en Z - s ts 0 - wa
" - n >
>- - us r+ r+
K - GH r+ EC - Hm ID W . - - m n 0.90 5% # lJwu
} H. O OM e 5
u 3 'l E
>r Do d
C _J . w< N c . He cc . MH
>- . 1 m r u 0.60 HN w L m
. 0-en }..
4
~
*ts 0.30 _.
tn .
~ !
O ~
}
in : _r . _ . _ _. a
#-* * ' ' ' 1 _t ' t- '
L L. ' ' t t 1 s - _ L_i_ t.. .t.- 100 N 0.00 L . 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.50.6 1 FFIEQUENCY IHZ) .
, ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
O _ O - O EES 1.N RADWASTE SLOG. DOE [ ELEV. 37
- 7.5Z M00AL DAMPING
~, ==== ENVELOPE 0 SPECTRA ==== ;
DAMPING 0.070 j' I. l.M - - !
- Z :n
- mo
- en en
- O *C
~ ~ DO
- 0. M MM o-- - M tn 2
-4 o >
e tn n o. wm n we m g n n M mn y U 0.60
" *y g, l W -
m u U - 9% d
- p. o U -
nM N E -
> t"
-I -
me E (C m< w wa 0.90 Mw u -- in W - H= N G. . in (n . c." l ( ' I w - o - a a a e a a s_ . t _ t. : i _ L__ s_._s-.s ._s_ C 0.00 0.1 a 0.2 a 0.3 e 0.4 0.50.6 s s 1 a 2 a 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 FREQUENCY IHZ) - ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS I .
O O O
~
EES i.20 . . - . . . . RRONASTE OLOG. OBE i
. ELEY. 51 ,
- 5% MOORL DAMPING :
~
==== ENVELOPED SPECTRA ====
CfmPING 0.040
~
1.00 _ - -_.
- i'.
xuo:o
- in an
- O 't3
- MO o 0.00
---- -. - I y@
~
. a
- 5* >
'Z
- O p.v m n c g
*-* - wa m
>F . n n T - r tn n W E - oM U W H. m o v .; s 0.60 - - - - - - - - - - en W s% n u '
- p. O
- u . nM N 1m . [
. > t*
- pa
- s
- m<
Er we '>- - Mw U O.40 , in 'W . H. N tn E1. . .tn . 1 f
'ts 0.20 .-
so .
+ .
m M
- /
~
)
O
~ :
L O.00 s ' L s. .s_s._.t. _s a ._ n s _.i s ._ s_J ._ . . s s_ ._. e . . i s . e
" 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 to 50 60 100 FREQUENCY IHZ)
E.ARTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTFMS I .
O O . O EES 2.,0 RERCTOR BUILOING EL.91.25 FT
- 51 STRUCiunRL DAMPING
. OE5tGN ERATHOURKE
==== ENVELOPE 0 SPECTM ====
OARPING O.040
~
-g 2.00 ._. I
!.4 i : 5 o
mm g
@]
,n G t.60
~
- Z .
tm O . W *ts wm :> 0 .E wn o m g" " , U l.20 " em
- p. k.
W 3 u m% g u Eo m wg n C - n n m I .
/ - - - -
#r mo w
- ww
, u 0.00 N uJ m o
n.
. p. u sn .
m
*ts o.g 0.40
( W. O m . , - es,
- J w : / L.1 t.. I t ' t . l 1-. L
' a t. _.-.L_ _t.. _.1 . I -. s f 100 0.00 L- t
' ' t_ .-
3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 2 0.1 0.2 . ._0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 FREQUENCY IHZ) EARTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS l .
~= ^
I Attachment 2 i Responso Spectra for Level 2 l Masonry Wall Soismic Analysis , cn
- .2 r w
-=
i !
' t r
i , O i-i i i 1 i. 1 J 12 i (/T (n
.o
- a C a Z
. I l'
" : 1 CC 52 e "R W i
.t : i w dew S Z o ~
[ Jg Ea5 6* o EEE So v
~
dag EMw dd ta i
' w'
.5 := w
*E "5 g WM: it / -
o cr
-we: :a _ -
o 3 o i I 1- cc I
- W.
e-l N l ., 3
.O O z
w _~o O
. m m
L k - l
'l
]*a e
d _o art g 1 i L"o (D ' OWbJ .. . . . u.J 1 1 u.aa.u2 2 2 2 3 i-u ua - 8 3 .8 3 ; d d a 4 ; 4 Pg. 10 of 52 (D) N0liBW373336 188133dS
Attechment 2 Response Spectra for Lovel 2 Masonry Wall Seirmic Analysis o M
,s
, 2
-- 2 r
- I !
l M i i .:o b to cn Jo'In C . -g Z
= -
a : e 3 E -R W
.;! u W z
% .e
!og, .-,
15 E= -2 a
- SWE US z W
EE5hd / EL su w x Gme .g SMS IE / - S g
. ] '
a I
"* c j* c ul N
t x 5 O *
>=
u z w a m, w e u s N 1 o
-d j"!,o I,
-d M
d l
. i ".
o l
- W O to
>J.u..t. w - - --
~~
LLI -
~
S 2 E S ~ 8 E S a d d d
& d PS.11 of 52 l' ,
(0) N011BW373338 1BW133d5 s - a
o 9 O od EES . 2.90 __ PERCTOR BultelmG EL. 117.0 FT 7.51 STRUCTURAL OnnPING
. MARIMUM EMTMOUME
- ==== ENVELOPE 0 SPECTM ====
1
. OMPING 0.070 2.00 .
1:
, s,
. vy mn ta un
. c 'O n
pg o 1.60 . _ _ x.G
. T 2 . I mm O .
} w'c
- . wo > >- . 0 " c . (n r* r+ rc . OM # w ra n a 1.20 .. A :f w . '5 % E u WO m a ". nM c g -
>r oa w d -
g C wa
>~ .
yg m u 0.80 .w. w w . EL - an . y 0.10 .-
- a. :-.
w . I F w . 0 2
>+i .
.: e . s ._t _.s_ e. I i s t..L a s.- s a-_ _a_- a t t_1 100 tn 0.00 E . -
_s _ _ 4-3 4 5 6 10 20 30 90 50 60 2 N 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.88 0.50.6 3 Fi1EQUENCY IH2) ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
- e
Attachm nt2 Rosponso Spactro for Lsvol 2 Masonry Wall Scismic Analysis W
.__ . E_ g W
' 1 j
m 5
) .
1 J
. o.
m ; i i ao O
- e. o Z
- i oc R
R W
';M ! w .
e- e Z ol'" s k**
~o a C a, a! Z m
5.5s $3! o EN bE w cas .- .o M e L em O :. D f, '~ o J I J. $C c W.
. e-N z~
. n O '-
u z w
. ww O
w e u.
\ _
T.
- 1 a
o m d v d
- s. "o i
t W W ..................,...........................J;. O W ......... a 8 a a s a a
- A d d ,
i a A Pg 13 of 52 l (D) NDI1BW373338 1HW133dS
.. -e.+.
. . . . ._=
_. . A o O O EES _
... !RERCTORBUILDIleGEL.130.0FT I I 7.5Z STRutionAL DARPIIIG MIIMUM EMTHOUME
~. .
~
==== EMvELOPED SPECTM ====
DAMPING 0.070 ,.
~ : .. ...-- -_
.t 2.50 ;.--- t 6
1 Z :o
. m en
. mu
. O 't3
. Do
*13 o 2.00
- Mm
- . G
. Y Z . m tn O . * * *d
- . WG n
r+ e . tn r+ r+ c * # zg,g w "myn s 3.50 m w - U" E y ~ WO O u nM p g h .
>r "
d $$ C $ --- _ - . . _ - - g"'
- b m u l.00
- ;M sn
( . l
- ~ . _ _
'ts b --___ --
og 0.50 .
*a .
a ( O C F M (n ( f 1_ _ s_ e_2._s -a _ i _1 _s_a_i_a . _ _a a 30 4 . __ s _._. s . __ to 50 60 1 100 N 0.00 I _.-.c. 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 3 FREQUENCY (HZ) ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS _ ___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G7 - ~G
i O O O 3.60 REACTOR BUILOING EL.169.5 FT SZ STRUCTURAL ORMPIIIG DESIG88 ERR 1HOURRE
- m use ENVELOPE 0 SPECTM muun
~
OMP188G 0.090
] i t 3.00 I gy wo
~ o
~
- y 'o@
~ ~
g, 2.90
- o, - Y so tn z : w*o O we>
~
n r+ mee "g e C F EU" w u-g mg _J 1.00 [ .o o ta . u . n M D. . o .
> t-*
l E - Uew o< 3 - wa E - - . - Mw E - en
>- . >** N u 1. 20 . . w us .
- n. .
en _ t
~
'd 0.60:
~
w m :
~
O _j . s _L_i __s _, s _ s.1
- l #' n- -._..._s t_ . __s s _ a . <.
i 30 90 50 60 100
- L - t J s _. . t _ .__ _
il 5 6 10 20 2 3
" 0.000.1 t 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.50.6 1 FREQUENCY IHZ)
ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
- s I
8 5
EES I I 3.00 _ r MERCTOR BUILolNG EL. 164.5 FT b 7.5Z STRUCTUML ORITIIsG r MAXIMUM EMTHOUME b
",, mema ENVELOPED SPECTM ==== (
OMPING 0.070 i
-- i L
2.50 ;_ _ . L i
. i
:0 P Ne I tn tn
. O 'c UO e .
MU o 2.00 _ _ M in
- L O
[ 2 .. 2C (n o . N 'c
~ . wo >
- - - -n o a f r+ r+
x -- (A M m w t om n
.s 1.50 ... -.
>" D' ts.s m% D u 5O m u .
i
*M U c P O "
a ,
>G N m .
g g gg u i . 00 t._ + tu . tn ,u it. . da M - en t y 0. 50 p .- . - .- 00 F w - f O h a t _ L s s s~t-
"' t 1 t_ _a E -_t s _a_t_.t .
20 30 40 50 60 100 u, 0.00e.... .. - -- a_ _ _ t _ _ L s _._s . 2 L . 2 3 4 5 6 10 N 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 3 FFIEQUENCY IHZ) ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS gig. - - . g
Attachmnnt 2 Response Spectra for Loyal 2 ; Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis i i g V 1
- C )
f e
! . p.
. m
. o F-
- D
-S C
y Z C - o CC ) d ?:-
!S R
.1 L 1 w - Z '
WM k i Eu oo 2 C Z
- e eke 5 5 w$ k /. w y gw go L
E.d.!. EI. M EEE = i i
. o-c
. C2 Z
F-
. . g-
. . C.
. e 38 Z
s . = w z s' w
.~m c-w m
m 4 d d
~
d m d N 4 O O ua .. ......
.......-}
b_j .... .... -
......... ......... ......... o
. o m.
. o.
. e. o R . . i
& 4 &
Pg. U of M (D) NOI16W31330B 'yb ^1es
. ._ . c -
Attachmant2 Response Spectra for Laval 2 Masonry Wall Saismic Analysis a t- _....__. . _ ..___.-
- I
_____._...._._7 7 t.:
, +
- - u; .
t j !
.' o >-
i (* ff) i
. ; ao = ,-
l ; - , i ! w I . o Z i s l *--
= " l .l .i .
c i
.. E , {
a - ! www u
!,-]5 ! I l
[ ogz o i t
' l N C z
drE
==w EO. s wo t.
1 L2-g i i i, WEEmW
-oa s .=-. I L2-E ES: "g "o I l _ -._ _ _._ ._ .__
l.
...___..,o I
c
, =
- C I
1 H i l
- c
' .a . C I , u.
i i .
. , .u i i z
=
- l 4 t i am I I i t [,
/ I 8
i i l az t .;m 3 l t = I
- i. w f *x l
l i i I, I
. . .__f
- - . . . 7 . _ -
' 4 l.
t - i :. l u ; -s 'e
- 1
' i : i -d
- i-l 'd '
l ! l i i :. 1 .
-i
} !. ,
, I
} i. .
l ; ' ' l .d I ' f W ' LLI ! , I I la.u.. . . . .e l . . 2 u.u .i.!>>>>..u2.u.a. . i .2.1.du u.u .u i t u i . , , . _ -- LLI o
~ a a
~ -
o a o o o ; i e o M . 18 of 52 (0) N011b83 333e 188103d5 : (
Attachmsnt 2 Responso Spsctra of Loyal 2 o v3 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis ,
._ .... y
- 1 .
i i -
} l i ;
- u-l i b
= .
} ;
- i CC t
1 i la I l* C
.o Z b 8 l
l j' - a-a m i i i l E 12. I i . L E 3 ! t
, -r "w
up 0
- a. <
t
+
I I
~
me e J.2 C i Bo o e
; l m
- f5 kE
' 7
==$ dd
*I w
Es5 5E i I
-I I
l
~ : I Z EEE . : i. .
c EEE =I .a i 1
;- 3 j
I . o i I
~
W
.. g ae I C
/ i g
W . r-I N 1 z I
- da
] l l P. -
I z J u.
. = _ .
. c I w
' ? x u.
?
1 i 7~ 1 i w 1-l.
.I I l, .
i, i d e 1 i d I
, 'e
' i -g
' I l
'M f
-d i I i im i
l
. .d 1
l l i, W !. u e _.
.........+a u.u.u t.uex u_s.u u.u.u .
[ LJ i.........!........ 1 S i 8 E d
- R E 4 & d &
4 4 Pg. 19 of 52 (0) NOI1BW373338 78Bi 3d5
'"',r
C U O C1 EES - 0.42. TURBINE BUILDING EL.23.0 FT MODAL DMPING 7.51 f MMIMUM EMTHOUME 7 = === E8tVELOPED SPECTM ==== I . DMPING 0.070 t
. - I l ~
j 0.35 i :e w wo M (n
. - _ o 'ts DO
~
nu o 0.20
- ~..
M t.a x N in
- P2 .
N*t$ o Wa > n 4 w . to r+ r+ G- P mH m m ,-= n m p M D'
* .J 0.21 e
; B0 9 m #
; . -n o U t.J )O e .,
g ?- I:D<w . a. J - _ _ _ - _ , as C i-P ,g lWN tiuJ 0.n r ,w I* 0-
& g C
( t f og 0.07'
- L l N
t. f L i O 1. e t
- o a m P r . g__ i e i a _L..t.i i t_, _i._ t_ ,1__g n 10 50 60 100
' m t- -e i.._, n,___ _ .3, _ 10 20 30 a *
- a n 2 3 'l 5 6 N O.008 0.2 0.3 0.'l 0.50.6 1 0.1 F FIEatlENC I IH2)
FORTH0llAKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
. l .
]
" I
Attechment 2 Responso Spactra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis a U.
.S r
. t . , w n -
r (J
- C
- l O V.
. o Y
> . o alf la. S D'-*
O a C N -
'R t.:.a E o
.g .
g g Z I' f - ow"g-U, N C. , A 2 o t, -
--- we ,
oe eEE ao .J * { ogw 3 E go E I w2 Eo;g;o . o x oow =
~== l _ _ .
.a c J~ -
.! c
- J 4
. . g
_ , .C. -- t1. .
- .: r x
A . m Q - c z w
. .w r O
u c u. N .
-d d
7
.g
- n
-i N
-d f O lO.LLI I
J W ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-
.... .... .. .... .... . t u. i. g E E
~
E. c. ka i 3 & a o ! a s & Pg. 21 of 52 (D) NOI1bW3733'iB "188123ds
- ^ - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ , , , . _ _ _ _ _ _
. ..__ L =
Atte. chm:nt 2 Rasponso Spactra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Anslysis -- g e
- r
. 4 !
J w i I - w I
; (n i,- l . . >-
- l
* (n
. e c
- = Z
= l* I T
G
" j 'R ' i E i . W e ,. . . :; -. . .
i Z o ac "Si / : - Eg a / f - li, (, Z 5 Nk"E! [ w $5 W E d EI g - Eo;; .g EEE "ig , I __._ . J . c i J- =
. C l .
I i 1-- i c l ]^ - 1 u. . N z_ e h .
>u -
z w
. NO C
w
% e A
]
a d 5 - g e g . 4 d d i. O l ii i. i. V) LLI W l,,,,,,,,,1.........-le......... l .u ' a i-u.u _i='' ,- E E.g 3 S 2 E $ = = g g g d a pg. 22 of 52 (D) NDIleW373306 'BW103d5
1 O o ) i EES 0.54 TUR81NE BUILDING EL.51.0 FT
. M00AL DAMPING 5Z
. DESIGN EARTHOURRE
==== ENVELOPED SPECTRA ====
OfNelNG 0.090 t i
- 0. 95 . - _-.
q
. 3::lc
. wa mm
, OM
~ -- ._. po
- c. 0.36 -
x= O
- E Z . to Ch
. HM o.
t- . N8 > e-- . r O d E . MM M E W 8y O.27 ,p._ _. - _ . - - . _ - - - .- -- I in :r i. l Mm 3 u r~
- WO m o 8 OM 3 g '
>r pa w 8
d g - . I g4 E p . - - - . - - . - - . - - - - - -
-- --- g" *
. gn
?.2 0. l 8 ". - . . . . - - - . . - - - . - -
WN tJJ en E P O .- P C y 0.09
-H...-.--..
o.g - 1 N L u ' o - m L A,(
* . a E ,, 3 ,j j_ t t e tes _ L, t R 8_ 3_ _ = 1 100
,@s a e a a R A a i e 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 l 2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 F HF OUF.Ne' f lH 7 ',
FORTII011AKF FNGINEERING r.YSTFM9 . I .
- u
Attachment 2 Responso spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Scismic Analysir -g U.
- r
, I -
i "
- b g
r
-O ;
j l l 1 _a -n -
;* 07 o
t
, C E : I
- E i
i' o = . c
; l
* ~$ I L.
t L-duw G ! Z E 'r.: e t' . -
=
Euf a c Z NE5 E! ! L-dd "g"I E., EE I .- . . COM e4 a t M
.s e
- z. a s
r 1
-a:
C D
- C
. i I
'i e
- C
- c. _.
,m ,
t N ; m x_ e .m
'%._)s ICz -
W n=
; o
. W i
i u ~~ .- 1 I i E I .a g 75
% .M. .
l- -
-d
.m
.d i ,
i n
.d I
f W : O W V u_) ....
,.............l....... u... .
u u p i.u u tu p u ' io -d
- : : . o. s e a g g d o Pg 24 of 52 (D) NOI1BW3'13330 189103d5 8 -
O EES 0.60 TURBINE eulLDING EL.66.0 FT
- MODAL DAMPING 5Z .
DESIGN EMTHOUME
==== ENVELOPE 0 SPECTM ====
~ DAMPING 0.040 0.50 4
I? zw mo
'n
- O *t$ '
UO
- - - - - - - Hp 0.40
% en t.3
~
o
- C ;>e w tr 2 .
N *t3 M o . Wo N n n t- . tn M :r m . eM B m . l -- YN e w --- -
-- 1
- 3
.s 0.30 . . - - - . . . . . . - - . - - . . . -
I. B" " tLe . H' O u . , I OM N u - cr L km m< J -
- wo
~ - . - - - - - - - -
j* u 0.20 .. _ . . . _ _ -
-. m w F (A
Q- r :
)
l
'I$ 0.10 . - . . . - - . . . - - - -. - . . - ,--:---- - - - - - - - - - - -
00 l
* [ .
w - e.n -
~
O
- C s . . n . . s. s . l s . . - - 8 . . A . s
..e.. 2.. . -.s . . . s . . s . .s . t s- . . . - . a - -. s .. . . s . . . e . . s s . . n . . .- . - . . -.-
30 40 50 60 IIM
" U . 00 W _ . . . s. . . .. . ._ . . .
2 3 4 5 6 10 20 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 FRFOUENCY WZ) EARTHQlinKE ENGINEFRING SYSiFM; 6 .
Attachment 2 Responso Spuctre for Level 2 Masonry Wall Scismic Analysis ,
. . . _ ----.o .
i , w
! i l
I
\ >
l A w
!a >
l b(m . p u. =
.: s
{* c
-, z a :* ,
C f
- 1 I
/ .
-R 1 L r Lw G ! Z
.": E. , ~,
5- C ai- So i
; !~ Z sci kB j l
*E" dd W E Eg 1
' W E a!E E" E o at i g
# ' J= c "EE 15 ' -
i , q ~~ C j
% E i l-
.a g
.I . c i -
k lN I l 'n c u O
!zw
.i s =
i i O t t.L
%% !=
1
- -d s
- o.
e
- id ,
I en 9d I i O ,
....-j . . . . j3
() w 3 g a-
.........;...~.u- "
a o c d g I pg. 26 of 52 (0) NOI18931330B 1U91 3dS 1
~
. )
Attachment 2 Responso Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Saismic Analysis g o' r i w W O . l i --
. t-t-
.c i ( *, '
- . a z i l r -
I a-8, g . E t.r s
-- i !.u w U 1 z
h l - E7.*$
~
o o -2 c.-
=f*5 Eg '
z Eh! " . , w wE" W"
= =o I
_= a o w=~ w EEE =
- M a?E .i / '. n
- c_.
N. d E
.; a g-I= c s
l r i . . m
.; a -
x I 'e
. c. o
.D 5
e
.L.
i r ( _ T . la
.i l .
g ,
- l. r -
& t om i
-d 6o D .
n LL) Vy ,,,,,,,,, ,,....... . . . . . tri .u. i
. u 11 J- 'L' t 8 -. i. u_ taas.iis-e
]_g I E. ; g d d d l
~ ~
pg. 27 of 52 (D) NOI1BW3;3306 1BW1:3d5
S Attachmont 2, Response Spectra for L@ vel 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis
- - -
- I J m i O. i jo**
D l i l [ C
- l _o Z
= 1 :' ~
)
o- =
! CC
,g 1.a E * *
{ U ! d-w* U ' I : Z
- o. E a !
~
j my 1 -2 C
*$e a
Oo I Z
! t u.; -
gtg
- 353 es l
W"{ Eg '1' u- - { , gg=
-== I'[ ,
I
.Jo C
=
i
,! d C
< r
~
w 1* C e-- L.- 1
+
_w-r%
- l z M
4 - O.
, uu.
dN , o 3 u.- I i z u. I i
. I-l- 3 2
l ie
, e la 7d j '. -
.i =
t =*
-d l
1 I ~ i l
-d
! .l i :
W 1 l, I, 3
,,,,,,,,, .......iu. .2 :e m ,*
= s. e e -
- ~
PE 28 of 52 (0) NDilOB3'i33 g 3ggi33as
--- 8 -
emeO-
.e ae4 e--
r - - v.m 4
Attachmnnt 2 Response Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis .
- -- - o z l i '
1 W l i ! H c' i i . ,
- I a. >-
t I
- L".
' ~.- E ,.
- l .
i I .:o z
- I= ! ! i* ~
g ' ! c d w wC E I l I is. uJ L' ' EM h . i, : 0 "W So ' ; la. C Erg kE Z l l
*Ew dd '
! t i W I Wa r "g E I . .
EWS - i j u_ 380 lb l r
-== ;g - ,
I o c-
. I -
I %; l, _ c I
. ', w i o c-i i c I
i 1* u_ - l
; _r-i i m
. m
;n -
i . l , ._.
. z j . . W
, _u= '
I 1 l D I8
, e
- : t i, I e
f i ; ! A T _ i l 1 . I I
' I
; i 1. i A
I -d l l
- fan 1 i ! ,4
\ v .
.d l- !
n l l ;- id i i I i do
!. j I.
i t i l (f)
, '. i l.L I '
O W i.........
. . . . . . . . . ; . . i n i u m . u a ' ' ' ' .' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
8 8 i 8 8
'd a a 2
; ; ; d a = =
(D) ND11683 33':b 768133ds Pg. 29 of 52
.._ w - --
Attachment 2 Rosponse Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis o V. l
= :;-
. 1
. i H
i ' i - r. i -
' i e 40 '
i . i i
. _o.o ,-
i . C 1 I
)o- Z 4
I i !
! C. l f 1* -E 'A' aj 1 - l : u_
i and De 14 6 1 l a m w i E4 h i o ; o 4 i .2 Z EsR wo '
'. tu s.tEg w k.B wo
' i t_
EE .
"5. E -_,I - -
i . x::
"3 O E
-== =
5 1 i _ - - , . - o .c- , a ,
-i 1 - -
i
- c ;
i- a. , t, w 1 2
* =
1
?
8 . + a C
! 1 u .
\ N
=
l . - _m i u i . z w J ew O l
, , c I W
{e I. u. i l ! , i I N--- - 9i- ;
} !. T -
i i s *
*d i ;
i i . l s -d t 1 :- - l i ; 1 i -di , g i
! es 1 g 4 -g ,
I
; i !
l := ! I - I j I l
- - a i
i ; t (f) : , i s gd W , l
<.u i.g.u oxuet o 2- 2 " ; s y . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . i . u u u. ..
3 2 8 * o = 3 - a i , Pg. 30 of 32
- 10) ND118831333t:' iUul:3ds .
-- I
- - - l
Attachment 2 Response Spectra for Lovel 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis a f.D 2 I
~
W O l t 1 m J W c.n
]oa >
l i m
"Si o Jor Z
= c 1 / "R W
- w w U
- z 8g h -
2 o g ,=. Z S I BE W
=E dd M7d Eg W
=.8" .
E 80,5 "k l
= C Ed E- - ._ _ . _
. c l
.. o J r
.\ a x
= G g
eg o - s-u z
' w
. . No o
un m La. I _
- ~m .
J l* l O l a la M
-d N
-d l t L1] i.i u.u 22_u .t.u a. s.u 2 i .ti s.t.u S 4.uAt S
.u a t u$ u.t.f tru2.a a u.a R 2 i & J d 4 d d (01 N0l itf 8 r13338 18H133d5
O . O o 0.12 MDWASTE BLDG. DOE [ ELEY. -1
- 7.5Z MODAL DAMPING
~
~ muum ENVELOPE 0 SPEC 1M ====
I DRMPING 0.070 0.35 t
- \ '
Z :n mo ' mm O 'd e Uo 8 0.28
~ N
- E mu d ;
>a se . w ts r+
I wa m
.c3
. n n e . (- (n r+ D' m . mM 9 a- . ** m (D u.a - 1- m M s 0.21 5* r+
w . 6* O U . OM N I U . 1
- 1 >r Ue i
a .
~
No x M '-* e U 0.14
> N uJ .
- I
- n. .
sn .
~
M . 0.07 . p . N
.=
o . Ph .
~
' ' ' ' ' ' - t_ ' 2 ' 1 a tt:
E 0.00 t a ' t. t_ t 2 a 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 FREQUENCY IHZ) ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
Om O o EES l 0.42 RROWRSTE OLOG. 00E h ELEY. 23
'. 51 MOOAL OpnPING mama ENVELOPED SPECTRR ====
i
- OAMPING 0.040
, 4
~
0.35
- Z .c
, ti o
, am
. ot j
- J po i -
MNo o 0.28 ~.. f- >n
~ n ut wm n M WG 10 o
o n H e CD d D' 9 - oM B H 93 m E - m 3 tc C 5* n tsJ L PO _J 0.21 - - - . oMN' uJ 7. . y L l U >r mo
" N<
% we
,_3 i MN W ---
- cc I --
HN r [ " U 0.14 uJ .
- n. .
tn .
- l -_ _
tra n.n, i-
/ - - ._; _.,.
(A . ts .
~
O . _.s_s s m t I. t-- s _ s ,. 's a n s_1_t t 30 40 50 60 100 I s t - a _t- :- s _..a _ 4 5 6 10 20 tn 0.00 t" 2 3 N 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 FFIEQUENCY IHZ) EARTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
O C O EES 0...
~
RADWASTE BLOG. 00E
- ELEY. 23 1
7.51 M00AL DAMPING
~
menu ENVELOPE 0 SPECTM ====
. ORMPING 0.070
~
0.90 ; C f \ l - 3::o
. - mo
- mm
! - O *O
~ ~
o 0.32 Mm
- o 2 - :r.
m tr r+ O -
" - w'c r+
H - wa m E n n E (n r+ :r W oM s wm a J 0.M m y w . 1 e, u . I s. HOn U . E - nM N
.J [ >
po t-* m "2 E 2 x u 0.16 J Mw m w . H+ N
- 31. .
W in .
~
*d 0.00 00 .
te : O [ m . En 0.00 1 e a a a e tta a a a a t_a_1 t_. a a _ s__t_s_t a_ N 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 , 20 _30 4G 50 60 100 FREQUENCY IHZ) ERRTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
o 3 O O EES l.. RR3 WASTE SLOC. 00C ELEY. 37 51 MOORL DAMPING
~.
==== ENVELOPE 0 SPECTRR mama j.
ORMPING 0.090
. 4 1.00 1.
~. .
1, T :x8 6-
. " "m u
O 't2 30 _ .. .- Mp
. Mm m
y 0.00 ~__ :C mw n
> j w'd r+
z ~. H8 n o 8 D .
~ M6 7 GM 5 e ~ --
[' W Q g m , 3% re 0.60 >* O
- nM N u .
u . >M e . I ea p #. we J - Mw E - ~~ m (C 6- .
>4. w 0.40 m U __-
W - Ex. . en . I s
*t,g q 0.20 __
1
. : /
tA . r I ui .
- l O .
Ph . s__s_L a. t -. _ _._ . . _ e . 100
.t- '-1 s 30 90 50 60
-a n t_s t._1._ i 4 5 6 10 20 w 0.00 ._ 2 3 0.1 0.2 0.3. _ _ 0.9 0.50.6 1 File 00ENCY IHZ1 1'
I EARTHOURKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
+
,,,. Project Memo #7 memorandum O f0: Project Personnel dBfp: September 1, 1981 frOm: J. D. McWilliam j0bHD: 80M4 5Ubject: Differential Floor COpi,e5: P. Baughman Displacements C. DiNunzio Project File Central File l l Attached are the differential floor displacements for all applicable buildings at Pilgrim I. These displacements shall be used in evalu-ating masonry walls for the effects of relative interstory drift. Please refer to DC-1 and WI-2 for further instruction.
/J. D. FicWi'lliam
/ P oject Engineer JDM/j7 attac1 ment COO ATLANTIC AVENUE
- BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS O2210 * (617)973 9671
1 & S S Q R S' % Q Q Q $ Q Q D gs v v x v = x x s s v it w w w = x \ k N k E k N N M 4 I s s g i d ee i s k *- d O
~
4 4
>
- 5 :s h
A
>6 A
>- omqo p AN q qg a s m >s s n se,, a s s.
u 3 9 I 9 3 9 ik o g d k% 3 ? ? k $ 3 3 N O Os s ed 4 A eq s % y o rf go N .
$ $- 4 h
'9 > o >
N N h w N A o, 4 A g q g A o o y o O M . % m 4 d+ D D D s N 4s y N 9 9 9 )i l l I
+ - s s N
D Q wQ Y Q YQ Y Y S Q S S k & & s \ Q Qw Q w \ [i g s x s < v s < v s Q v < x w
\
k t o b d h 6 (s N o w
- 4 $
s % % A 4 %$ s > 4 4 4 4 4 k
- D 6 %
^ s s N" % s 0- 4 0- % s % b h o N s s
% N s N s k s N g 4 o,h 3 s N O N tt
? ? ? ? ? '1 9 g g Q d! R 9 9 i ? 9 3 $ 3 0 0 S d QQ$
ht i E B i h 3 th 9 3 3 3 3 3 . = B 9 0 0 i is i lB W 0 C o, k xdi ' s a S s s s s g m n o o % ss i s e s s e s g k m n o o 4 s :s 4 :s 4 M N n m u m ts D 4 m W W m N mq
, s w o o D h 9 R D h 0 0 h h o 9 4 Ed Nk f ;N N $ s. k f N N N M $ h
/f.4 ~>7OS L S3R7
~ */f L &O/Y ~ 1S yp 4
PROJECT MEMO NO. 7 IM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 6
- s REncTOR BUILDl/UG S702Y Oss04A?carepur~ avvercoE xi _Sls-w Hoa 2 onr4t-o DESIGN E'ARTHQunitE i
Hnx/ Mum G1RTHavn/fE T'OfMT # RELI1TIVE RELAT7lE Nlg Fi m t *DisPL IMWs DISP g i bA (h g (& I-2. .0173 4 27 x16* . 02.% lo.37
- to'*
~
2-3 .o/92 4.% s to" .0367 /, 3I = /0 " 3-9 .0172. 7. 4 IO" 0302. /.30* /0 A6 0092. S.41xI5' .0174 1.0zx 16* 5 -(. .OI92 2 96 a to'
~
0344 /. 59 */0" lo-1 02.sz 12 n to ' .04S9 2.19 */O'"
/ 7(, V/0'3 7-6 .037_ /,/7 *lo * .4972.
c) T1 ASS PolMT & f,g Ebahon M 50 ,
, O HASS PolmJT 7 '
, WVQhon 158.*
2J o hassPoint. (, El m d io n gg7 2.5."l$' o Mass Tbin+ 5 Elevahon RI.2s 11 ' o HAss hin+ 9 Eleva+ ton 24.2.s l 2.3.25, 1
,_ _. o Mass Poini 3 Elevokton St.oo IS '
o Mass 7 bird- 2. Elevahon 25 40 5' ! l
'r a Mass % n+ r )
Cicuahon -I2.50 PROJECT MEMO NO. 7 0~ S 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 6 1 d l
9, l [2 7 0., o f io Ig~ O R ( ? d;gsf!(Qnb i 6 ) ! g i Et
'\
.4 \ T es [ g l6 [! d pg O Mo h b h $ e h O b h grg o g o 3 g o s i; g s' *8 i
co2h 8 8 9 9 - -
= - @ 9 9 9 . .
h O w 7rW 0 g su e fhwAre$h er 8h0 0 0 0 ooOV 000 ar ggresso - 3 k g p . . . . . .- . . . . . . .
? ? T T T T o o o Y T 9
Yo T Ta T g ~o ~ g - _c ~ 2 .$- ? ! w 1 1 ;o A w g [ A h 2 g ,r
.~.
f - g r-4 4
- r. e*
4 c4
- 9 v4 y ._-
s s s N N N s s $ J a f E^ Q $ S h h~ h h b h. O 50 a, 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
#h q. FEEi3 m . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 n m d) C' T opDGO7a s 2 a b w. 'JAG** o c- r s w - W y, @ a E 8 8 8 8 +s s 8888555 3
^i h - m m v m -> 'r~- .-
an s m s r-e I ( 000b% 2WOh a o ct \- c tu w n b. i PROJECT MEMO NO. 7 I IM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOS"'ON EDISON COMPANY Page 3 of 6
TUREbitJE BLDG Eld lN.S Hont2auTAL S~70/2Y D'SPMCdH6M Strem onc=- DE:sieu EAnm20nkc HAuNus EnnH406KE t Tbior # RELATIVE Floor btSP 4 yg hmE ftocm.hsp g i . OOm s.w no * .cos a s. m e
- 2.-3 .002.4 1 11* 10-'
~
.co4ss 3 27
- IO" 3-4 .002.5 119*IO .009 6 ?.'/ J K /*
d 4-5 .002.(, g1.T1=_10'* .004B 3 2.* fo 6-G . Ooc,s 2.3 *Io * . os/c. A.83*l0 - la~~7 . Oo s t 2..O s b" . OO S T 3.(,B a 10
- n MASS PolNT 7 Oev.2fxan 105 5 5s.5 J-o HAss Fbut b Elevahon 90 0 LA' qL '
o HASS lbiOT $ 15, GevahoN (, t.. o l l f o Hass' Point 4 E. leu 1hou St.o . 14
-! O HASS htOT 3
,k Elevahom 's'7c I l _
- o Han Tbtor 2.
Devahov 2.30 I? l C ,, NAss %myr 8
~ GlevaHon G.O' PROJECT MEMO NO. 7 IM NUCLEAR POWEP STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 4 of 6 1
3Abt.0RST E 3CbG c-w/p - s Honnount. smey cvspacewsw ewvem-~ DESIGlu Ennruauna Hnxinun Enervaavant TosMr
- ret ATsuG RELRTId b Ft.ODR ' DISP 4 F/GR DISP
(^3 (d) l-2. .mo%7 /,95 r 155 000814 3. 52. =to- *
?_-3 .ccO2.70 /. 93 x/O .00018 3 45 x to
's-9 .00025 3 l.bl x10'# 6004S 3.3 I tto 4-s j .00059 /. 97 r/o-S , oofo7 3 57 x/O'S r o rin:s Posur s Ekuaticn Bt.o*
1 M [ a !
" o hass ~POtMT 4 Elethon St.o '
14'
,, Mass ~PollVT 3 EleVabon s i.o' i 19 a
l'
- [ C i N Rss 'Polut 2.
EletXIt. iott 23.o 2.9 V .-- O M%s Poom i -- Eleva+ ion - 1.o '
. PROJECT MEMO NO. 7 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION '
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 6 b
=_.
s,
\
o b o o i 'S , a Q = 8% h 'S g s 'o 1 I Y s x S ' O w 2 9 9*5 4 ~ ~~ 4 0 5 3 x
= _
n e g g t N I g y sa g 3kv g . e e a o O M l . a. g a . C a O 1 5t h J YbgN N C 3% $ z b A q; rd de maB 9 D 83.. 08 h. E 8 G 8 3 5 .. . . - - o 4 9 4 9 i m 4
'g 'o b .
'o S 'g 'o g * -?- ' '
b <
.J -
5 u, n' n
'^
s g
$ Ed r- o A e-g Qa d e d 9 $ o O
e k$e g 8 8 g l g 8 @ Y A Q $8" - 9 - - - - s O$ E y ' FN N N 5k% Y
'%f $$d5 3
o $
- @h $5 bESEN - .- i P
b'
'y ~anvc -~nv*
e l @O b l~ % 1 D' W b z o ec b = W Sc M b-
- n. PROJECT MEMO NO. 7 h 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 6 of 6
M:;morendum Project Memo #9 4{ , Revision #2 11ll1lll11111lll11111lllllllll To: Project Personnel Date October 9, 1981 From: W. J. Duffy Job No: 80034 k subject; Masonry Wall Section copes: P. Baughman Properties C. DiNunzio . B. Gang (SF) ' H. Reeser (SD) P. DiDonato (SF) M. DeGuzman (SF) Project File Central File Attached are the masonry wall section properties, cracking moments, and allowable moments that are to be used in Level 1 and Level 2 anal-ysis of masonry walls. Attachments 1 and 2 describe the properties and moments for Level 1 analysis, while Attachments 3 and 4 cover Level 2 analysis. l This revision is issued to bring this memo into compliance with DC-1, ; Rev. 1. Refer to DC-1 and WI-1, WI-2, or WI-3 for further inst' ructions in the C: use of these tables.
~
M.' J( gaf fy iV 4 Assisnnt Project Engineer JDM/jp attachments f s t I i t s _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ m +v -
=
ATTACHMENT 1 Single Wythe Masonry Wall Section Properties
) Level 1 Analysis la: Definition of Reinforcement Cases Vertical Case A: Shield Wall with 1#5 bar Case B: Shield Wall with 2#5 bars Case C: Partition Wall with 1#5 bar Case D: Partition Wall with 2#5 bars Horizontal Case E*: Sheild Walls with no reinforcement Case E**: Partition Wall with no reinforcement Case Fa: Shield Wall with Bond Beam Case F**: Partition Wall with Bond Beam Case E*F*: Shield Wall Case E**F**: Partition Wall ib: Wall Mass Density and Equivalent Static Pressure Actual Equivalent G'i Wall Wall Static Mass Reinforcement Thickness Thickness Pressure + Density Case (in) (in) (1b/in2) (1b-sec2/in4)
A 8 7.625 .579 1.872x10-4 12 11.625 .868 1.872x10-4 B 8 7.625 .579 1.872x10-4 ' C 8 7.625 .428 1.383x10-4 12 11.625 .567 1.222x10-4 D 8 7.625 .428 1.383x10-4
+ Due to a 1.0 g horizontal acceleration Ic: Material Constants E (masonry) = 600 t'm = 810,000 psi E (masonry) = 337,500 psi O
V g g w;- PROJECT MEMO N0. 9 80034 [i((tj2fil PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION lll11lll11lIilll11lllIllllll11 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 4 won
e ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) O 1a: Me e=ts or 1 erti-Cracked Section Reinforcement Thickness Ix t I ty Case (in) (in4/in) (in 4 /in) A 8 - 4.72 12 - 12.6 B 8 - 10.3 C 8 - 4.72 12 - 12.5 D 8 - 10.1 E* 8 36.94 - E** 8 25.73 - F* 12 8.68 - F** 12 8.63 - E*Fa 8 36.94 -
# E**F** 8 25.73 -
Uncracked Section Reinforcement Thickness Ixg I gy Io Case (in) (in4 /in) (in 4 /in) (in 4 /in) A 8 36.94 36.94 12 130.93 130.93 B 8 36.94 36.94 C 8 31.57 36.94 12 105.23 130.93 D 8 31.57 36.94 E* 8 36.94 36.94 F* 12 130.93 130.93 E*F* 8 36.94 36.94 E** 8 25.73 36.94 F** 12 77.45 130.93 E**F** 8 25.73 36.94 l O PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 80034 l [T((2 M 111111111111111111llllllllllll PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 4 mon
ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) 1e: Orthotropic Section Properties {' } Cracked Section i Reinforcement Wall Case Thick. Cx C C yy Gxy _ Vert. Horiz. (in) (ps;i) (p![] (psi) (psi) A E* 8 844000 60400 108000 121000 A F* 12 55700 13500 81000 27000 B E* F* 8 LATER LATER LATER LATER C E** 8 588000 50300 108000 101000 C F** 12 55700 13300 81000 26700 D E**F** 8 LATER LATER LATER LATER Uncracked Section Reinforcement Wall Case Thick. Cxx Cxy C yy G xy Vert. Horiz. (in) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) l A E* 8 844000 169000 844000 338000 A F* 12 844000 169000 844000 338000 B E* F* 8 844000 169000 844000 338000 () C C E** F** 8 12 588000 499000 130000 116000 721000 675000 260000 232000 D E**F** 8 588000 130000 721000 260000 if: Allowable Moments (1)(2) Allowable Moment (in-lb/in) Vertical Wall Design Maximum Reinforcement Thickness Earthquake Earthquake Case (in) M yy Myy' ( A 8 1230 2260 1 12 1963 3534 B 8 1814 3266 C 8 1214 2277 12 1982 3568 l D 8 1826 3286 ,
- PROJECT MEM0 NO. 9 80034 i
[i[(t{ l fil lll111!Il1111!!""""lll:'!! PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 3 of 4 j l moo
t ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) Allowable Moment 0 Horizontal Wall (in-lb/in) Design Maximum Reinforcement Thickness Earthquake Earthquake Case (in) Mxx Mxx'
~
E* 8 649 979 E** 8 304 452 F* 12 1317 2371 F** 12 1406 2403 E*F*, E**F** 8 Later Later (1) Applicable to load combinations (1), (2), and (4) if
'D' imposes only bending on the wall.
(2) Maximum earthquake limits are applicable to load com-bination (3) if both 'D' and 'T' impose only bending on the wall. () , l l i 1 PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 , f tillllllimii. GRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 4 of 4 j
,coc co
l ATTACHMENT 2 i Multi-Wythe Masonry Wall Section Properties ('~) Level 1 Analysis (_/ 2a: Wall Mass Density and Equivalent Static Pressure Actual Equivalent Wall Wall Static Mass Thickness Thickness Pressure + Density (in) (in) (1b/in2) (1b-sec2 /in4 ) 16 15.25 1.25 2.122x10-4 18 17.25 1.414 2.122x10-4 24 23.25 1.906 2.122x10-4 30 28.875 2.367 2.122x10-4 36 34.875 2.859 2.122x10-4 42 40.50 3.32 2.122x10-4
+ Due to a 1.0 g horizontal acceleration 2b: Orthotropic Section Properties Wall thickness I I Cxx Cxy C yy Gxy (in) (inbfin) (inkfin) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 16 73.88 9.45 211000 15100 27000 30200 18 73.88 9.45 146000 10400 18600 20900 24 17.37 25.18 14000 3370 20300 6740 30 17.37 25.18 7300 1760 10600 3520 l
l 36 44.52 32.02 10600 1800 7640 3600 42 62.10 32.02 9470 1360 4880 2720 l l l 1 Ct' PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 . 80034 l [Q'(tj l fg'j PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION i ll111!!!1llllll1llllllll111111 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 2 iom m
ATTACHMENT 2 (con't) 2c: Material Constants E (masonry) = 600 f'm = 810,000 psi G (masonry = 337,500 psi 2d: , Allowable Moments (1)(2) Allowable Moment Wall (in-lb/in) Thickness Design Earthquake Maximum Earthquake (in) Mxx M yy Mxx' Myy' 16 1298 2460 1958 4520 l 18 1298 2460 1958 4520 l 24 2634 3926 4742 7068 30 2634 3926 4742 7068 36 3287 5466 5916 9838 42 4814 5466 8664 9838 O (1) Applicable to load combinations (1), (2), and (4) if V 'D' imposes only bending on the wall. (2) Maximum earthquake limits are applicable to load com-bination (3) if both 'D' and 'T' impose only bending on the wall. O- CT MEMO NO. 9 [((dlfj PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 111111!!111111111lllllllllllll B0STON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 2 ioco co
ATTACHMENT 3 Single Wythe Masonry Wall Section Properties Level 2 Analysis 3a: Definition of Reinforcement Cases , _ Vertical ! Case A: Shield Wall with 1#5 bar Case B: Shield Wall with 2#5 bars Case C: Partition Wall with 1#5 bar Case D: Partition Wall with 2#5 bars Horizontal Case E*: Sheild Walls with no reinforcement Case E**: Partition Wall with no reinforcement Case F*: Shield Wall with Bond Beam Case 'F**: Partition Wall with Bond Beam Case E*F*: Shield Wall , Case E**F**: Partition Wall 3b: Wall Mass Density and Equivalent Static Pressure () Wall Actual Wall
. Equivalent Static Mass Reinforcement Thickness Thickness Pressure + Density Case (in) (in) (1b/in2) (1b-sec2/in4 )
A 8 7.625 .579 1.872x10-4 12 11.625 .868 1.872x10-4 B 8 7.625 .579 1.872x10-4 C 8 7.625 .428 1.383x10-4 12 11.625 .567 1.222x10-4 D 8 7.625 .428 1.383x10-4
+ Due to a 1.0 g horizontal acceleration 3c: Material Constants E (masonry) = 1000 f'm = 1,350,000 psi E (masonry) = 562,500 psi
- /~3 l (_)
- PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 Ei!!!!- 80034
[e(([tj g 3 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 1lllll11ll1111lll11lll111lll11 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 4 sooo oo
ATTACHMENT 3 (con't) 3d: Moments of Inertia Cracked Section Reinforcement Thickness Ix t I ty Case (in)
~
(in4/in) (in 4 /in) A 8 - 3.33 12 - 8.64 B 8 - 7.19 C 8 - 3.34 12 - 8.58 D 8 - 7.16 E* 8 0.00 - E** 8 0.00 - F* 12 5.92 - F** 12 5.92 - E*F* 8 (Later) - E**F** 8 (Later) - Uncracked Section Reinforcement Thickness Ix g I gy lo Case (in) C>1 (in4/in) (in4 /in) (in4 /in) A 8 36.94 36.94 12 130.93 130.93 B 8 36.94 36.94 C 8 31.57 36.94 12 105.23 130.93 D 8 31.57 36.94 E* 8 36.94 36.94 F* 12 130.93 130.93 E*F* 8 36.94 36.94 E** 8 25.73 36.94 F** 12 77.45 130.93 E**F** 8 25.73 36.94 l
;n 1
LJ ! [_ _ PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 NML Al RIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 2 of 4 l1111111111llll111111111I1ll11B0STON EDISON COMPANY 1000 00
ATTACHMENT 3 (con't) 3e: Cracking Moments Reinforcement Wall Mc Mc Case Thickness (in-lbfin) (in-lbfin) (in)
~
A 8 - 659 12 - 1531 B 8 - 659 C 8 - 563 12 - 1231 D 8 - 563 E* 8 1299 - E** 8 904 - F* 12 3018 - F** 12 1785 - 3f: Allowable Moments (1)(2) Allowable Moment (ir.-lb/in)
- Vertical Wall Design Maximum Reinforcement Thickness Earthquake Earthquake Case (in) M yy Myy' O- A 8 1051 2103 12 2011 3620 B 8 1760 3453 C 8 1056 2112 12 2002 3603 D 8 1724 3448 l Allowable Moment (in-lb/in)
Horizontal Wall Design Maximum Reinforcement Thickness Earthquake Earthquake Case (in) Mxx Mxx' E* 8 649 979 E** 8 304 452 l F* 12 1350 2430 F** 1359 2447 12 E*F*, E**F** 8 Later Later D Q,) PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 80034
*((d [fd 11111llll111111111ll1111llllll PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 3 of 4 1
. ATTACHMENT 3 (con't)
(1) Applicable to load combinations (1), (2), and (4) if 0- 'D' imposes only bending on the wall. (2) Maximum earthquake limits are applicable to load com-bination (3) if both 'D' and 'T' impose only bending on
~
the wall. O PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 80034 l [ g PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION lillilililllilllilillilllillli B0STON EDISON COMPANY Paqe 4 of 4 l ,ow n
ATTACHMENT 4 Multi-Wythe Masonry Wall Section Properties () Level 2 Analysis 4a: Wall Mass Density and Equivalent Static Pressure Actual Equivalent Wall Wall Static Mass Thickness Thickness Pressure + Density (in) (in) (1b/in2) (1b-sec2/in4) 16 15.25 1.25 2.122x10-4 18 17.25 1.414 2.122x10-4 24 23.25 1.906 2.122x10-4 30 28.875 2.367 2.122x10-4 36 34.875 2.859 2.122x10-4 42 40.50 3.32 2.122x10-4
+ Due to a 1.0 g horizontal acceleration 4b: Moments Of Inertia
( Uncracked Section Cracked Section Wall Ix G IGy Ix T ITy Thickness (in) (in4/in) (in4 /in) (in4/in) (in4/in) 16 73.88 73.88 0.00 6.66 18 73.88 73.88 0.00 6.66 24 261.86 261.86 11.68 17.28 30 261.86 261.86 11.68 17.28 36 261.86 261.86 27.65 22.47 42 261.86 261.86 38.83 22.47 O
/~T ' , PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 i 80034 l [*((t((fil PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l 111111lll1lll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BOSTON EDISON C0!!PANY Page 1 of 2 iom m l
, ATTACHMENT 4 (con't) 4c: Material Constants
() E (masonry) = 1000 f'm = G (masonry) = 562,500 psi 1,350,000 psi 4d: Cracking Moments
~
Wall Mcrx Mcry Thickness (in-lb/in) (in-lb/in) (in) 16 2598 1318 18 2598 1318 24 6036 3062 30 6036 3062 36 6036 3062 42 6036 3062 4e: Allowable Moments (1)(2) Allowable Moment Wall (in-lb/in) Thickness Design Earthquake Maximum Earthquake (~')
's- (in) Mxx M yy Mxx' M yy 16 1298 2102 1958 4200 l 18 1298 2102 1958 4206 l 24 2700 4022 4800 7240 30 2700 4022 4800 7240 36 3322 4783 5980 9555 l
42 4878 4783 8782 9555 l (1) Applicable to load combinations (1), (2), and (4) if ,
'D' imposes only bending on the wall.
(2) Maximum earthquake limits are applicable to load com-bination (3) if both 'D' and 'T' impose only bending on the wall. ! (~ . PROJECT MEMO NO. 9 80034 l eg{ g i PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 111111111ll11llllllllll11ll1i1 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 2 soco m
Project Memo #8
,, ,e ;-
r memorandum tO: Project Personnel dafpl September 1, 1981 ffDm J. D. McWilliam j0b90: 8W4 5UhjeCf: Weights of Equipment CupiPE:P. Baughman on Masonry Walls C. DiNunzio Project File Central File . Attached are the weights of attached components that shall be used in the analysis of masonry walls. Attachment 1 lists the piping weights, Attachment 2 lists the conduit weights, and Attachment 3 lists the weights of miscellaneous equipment. Refer to DC-1 and WI-1, WI-2 and WI-3 for further instruction in applying these loads. nGhJitu J.'D. McWilliam O P oject Engineer JDM/j? attac1ments EE6 800 ATLANTIC AVENUE
- BOSTON, MASSA CHUSETTS O2210 * (617)973 9871 .
__ u_
.~. .
.. ATTACHMENT 1 PIPING ATTACHED COMPONENT / EQUIPMENT WEIGHT STEEL COPPER PIPE FILLED FILLED NOM. SIZE WITH WATER WITH WATER (0.D., IN.) (LBS/FT) (LBS/FT) 1/4 0.57 0.49 3/8 0.8 0.7 1/2 1.2 1.1 3/4 1.7 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.1 1 1/4 3.6 3.3 1 1/2 4.4 4.0 2.0 6.3 5.6 2 1/2 9.5 8.0 3.0 13.1 11.7 3 1/2 16.4 15.3 4.0 20.0 18.0 5.0 28.7 24.1 6.0 39.9 30.7 80.0 63.2 51.4 10.0 95.4 77.3 12.0 132.5 100.5 l
I p PROJECT MEMO NO. 8
'V pr -
80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 1 1
....___.a
- e- .-
ATTACHMENT 2 O cosoo'r NOM. SIZE cowou r vtus STEEL connocron w8icar ALUMINUM (IN.) (LBS/FT) (LBS/FT) 3/4 1.4 0.7 1 2.1 1.0 1 1/4 3.0 1.4 1 1/2 3.6 1.8 2 5.0 2.5 2 1/2 7.9 4.1 3 11.0 6.0 4 16.5 9.5 5 24.0 14.0 6 32.5 19.5 O i . l 1 L . PROJECT , MEMO NO. 8 i F 80034 j j"' PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 1 n
*N ' ! '
l, ATTACHMENT 3 EQUIPMENT
- WEIGHT (LBS)
JUNCTION BOXES SURFACE AREA x 5.0 LBS/FT2 SWITCHES 5
' EMERGENCY LIGHTS 50 STEEL PLATES PER AISC RECEPTACLES 15 DOOR 100 SPEAKER 25 HOSE REEL 75 FIRE PROTECTION PANELS SURFACE AREA x 16 LBS/FT2 FIRE EXTINGUISHER 30 GAITRONICS BOX 20 PRESSURE GAGE 10 FUSE BOX 30 LADDER 8 LBS/FT UNISTRUTS 3.8 LBS/FT GRATING 13 LBS/FT LIGHTS 5 AIR TANK 10 HOT WATER HEATER TANK WT AND WATER WT WIREWAYS PER AISC REMOTE VALVE OPERATOR SUPPORT PLATES 50 l
UNIT HEATER 400 CABLE TRAYS 50 LBS/FT
- Note: For equipment weight not specified above consult group leader PROJECT MEMO NO. 8 O'~' ' 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 1 l
C
- ._._n: s 4
Mam::rendum Project Memo 44 ( g g Revision #1 lllllllilllillllillllllillllll To: Project Personnel cate: October 2, 1981 From: J. D. McWilliam M No: 80034 subact: PBOC Loads copies: P. Baughman H. Reeser C. DiNunzio B. Gang
- Project File P. DiDonatc Central File M. DeGuzmar.
Attached are the pipe break outside containment (PBOC) loads that shall be used in the analysis of masonry walls. Please refer to DC-1 ani WI-2 and WI-3 for further instruction in the application of these loads. n ~ _
. D. McWilliam roject Engineer O an"/39 attachments t
?
O
ATTACHMENT 1 r' , DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADINGS ON (m/ T SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALLS SUBJECT TO PIPE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT LOADING [R') Wall Location Peak Equivalent No. UTETerential static Pressure Pressure (PSIJ (PSI) 62.0 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 62.1 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 62.2 R.B. El 23'-0" 13.6 20.4 62.4 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 62.5 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 ' 62.9 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56
- 62.10 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 l
l 62.11 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 () 62.12 R.B. El 23'-0" 13.6 20.4 62.13 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 ' 63.1 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.25 0.28 63.4 R.D. El 23'-0" 2.70 2.97 63.5 R.B. El 23'-0" 3.50 3.85 63.7 R.B. El 23'-0" 3.50 3.85 63.8 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.15 0.17 , 63.9 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.15 0.17 ; 63.10 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 > 63.11 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 63.12 R.B. El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 ! S 64.4 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 i l O __ PROJECT MEMO NO. 4
- 80034 j.
d N lfj PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 1 of 7 llll11111111111111111111111lll woo e.
. -s ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) p/s_
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADINGS ON SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALLS SUBJECT TO PIPE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT LOADING (R') Wall Location Peak Equivalent No. UITTerential Static Pressure Pressure (PSI) (PSI) 64.5 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.66 9.66 64.5 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.25 3.58 64.6 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.20 0.22 64.7 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.20 0.22 64.8 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.56 9.56 64.8 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.25 3.58 64.13 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 65.0 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.20 0.22 () 65.1 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.56 9.56 65.1 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.22 3.54 65.2 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.56 9.56' 65.2 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.22 3.54 65.4 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 0.10 0.11 65.4 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 2.70 2.97 65.5 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 0.10 0.11 65.5 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 1.38 1.52 65.6 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 0.10 0.11 i I 65.6 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 1.38 1.52 i 65.7 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 0.10 0.11 l l 65.7 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 1.32 1.45 O ~ PROJECT MEMO NO. 4 80034 I eb[ g i PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 7 I ililllllillllilllllililllllill i ===
4
. . . \
I ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) r~N DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADINGS ON (_) SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALLS SUBJECT TO PIPE BREAK OUTSTUE CONTAINMENT LOADING (R') Wall Location Peak Equivalent No. DITTerential Static Pressure Pressure (PSI) (PSI) 65.8 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 65.9 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 65.10 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 65.18 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.76 0.91 1 65.19 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.76 0.91 ; i 65.21 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 I l 65.22 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 1 66.0 R.B. EL 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 (') s-66.1 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.2 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.3 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.4 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.5 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.6 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.11 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56
/
66.12 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.18 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.21 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.22 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.23 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 O PROJECT MEMO NO. 4 Mi mmn; - 80034 P1LGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 3 of 7 wnm
-~
ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADINGS ON O' SAFETY-RELATED MA5ONRY WALLS SUBJECT TO PIPE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT LOADING (R') Wall Location Peak Equivalent No. UffTerential Static Pressure Pressure (PSI) (PSI) 66.12 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.18 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.21 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.22 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.23 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 66.24 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 67.1 R.B. El 91'-3" 0.43 0.49 67.2 R.B. El 91'-3" 0.43 0.49 68.0 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 68.1 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 68.2 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 68.4 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.58 0.64 70.0 R.B. El 117'-0" 1.5 1.7 70.1 R.B. El 117'-0" 0.50 0.55 77.0 R.B. El 17'-6" 1.13 1.22 77.1 R.B. El 17'-6" 1.13 1.22 95.0 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.59 0.65 95.1 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.59 0.65 111.0 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.0 0.0 ,
\
l ( l I PROJECT MEMO NO. 4
""N 80034 I T (( 2fd PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 4 of 7 1111111111111llil!l111111111ll iom m
ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADINGS ON () SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALLS SUBJECT TO PIPE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT LOADING (R') Wall Location Peak - Equivalent No. UTTierential Static Pressure Pressure (PSI) (PSI)
~
111.1 R.B. N1 si'-0" 0.0 0.0 111.2 R.B. .. 51'-0" 0.0 0.0 111.3 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.66 9.66 111.3 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.41 5.97 111.4 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9,66 9.66 111.4 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.41 3.75 111.5 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.66 9.66 111.5 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.41 3.75 111.6 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.66 9.66 111.6 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.41 5.97 111.7 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.66 9.66 111.7 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.41 3.75 111.8 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.66 9.66 111.8 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.41 3.75 111.9 (1) R.B. El 51'-0" 9.66 9.66 111.9 (2) R.B. El 51'-0" 3.41 3.75 111.13 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 111.14 R.B. El 74*-3" 0.51 0.56 111.15 R.B. El 74'-3" 0.51 0.56 i 111.16 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 l CT MEMO NO. 4 l [i[(4jlfil PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 1111111111111!!!!!!!'""""' BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 7 mano
1 l ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADINGS ON SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALLS O.. SUBJECT TO PIPE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT LOADING (R') 1 Wall Location Peak Equivalent l No. DITTerential Static l Pressure Pressure TPSI) (PSI) ! 111.17 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 111.18 R.B. El 51'-0" 0.52 0.57 184.0 R.B. Aux Bay 0.50 0.55 El 37'-0" 184.9 R.B. Aux Bay 0.76 0.91 185.1 R.B. Aux Bay 0.56 0.62 El. 3'-0" 185.2 R.B. Aux Bay 0.56 0.62 1 El. 3'-0" 185.7 R.B. Aux Bay 0.62 0.68 El. -17'-6" 185.9 R.B. Aux Bay 0.62 0.68 El. -17'-6" 185.10 R.B. Aux Bay 0.62 0.68 El. -17'-6" 188.7 R.B. Aux Bay 0.50 0.55 El. 23'-0" 188.8 R.B. Aux Bay 0.50 0.55 El. 23'-0" 188.9 R.B. Aux Bay El 23'-0" 0.51 0.56 188.10 R.B. Aux Bay 0.50 0.55 l E1. 23'-0" 188.12 R.B. Aux Bay 0.50 0.55 El. 23'-0" l [ -- PROJECT MEMO NO. 4
\
l 80034 l (T (d l M ll;illiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillil PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 6 of 7 me ao
4 ATTACHMENT 1 (con't)
/~' DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADINGS ON SAFETY-RELATED MASCSRY WALLS SUBJECT TO PIPE BREAK OUTSIDE ;
CONTAINMENT LOADING [R'J l Wall Location Peak Equivalent l No. UTFferential Static Pressure Pressure (PSIJ (PSI) 188.13 R.B. Aux Bay 0.50 0.55 El. 23'-0" 196.0 Radwaste Bldg. 0.76 0.91 El. 31'-0" 209.0 T.B. El 23'-0" 0.68 0.82 209.1 '.B. El 23'-0" - 0.70 0.84 209.2 T.B. El 23'-0" 0.33 0.36 209.3 T.B. El 23'-0" 0.33 0.36 209.6 T.B. El 23'-0" 0.33 0.47 209.7 T.B. El 23'-0" 0.33 0.36 209.8 T.B. El 23'-0" 1.98 2.24 210.0 T.B. El 37'-0" 0.65 0.75 210.1 T.B. El 3~'-0" 0.33 0.36 210.2 T.B. El 37'-0" 0.33 0.36 210.3 T.B. El 37'-0" 0.33 0.36 212.1 T.B. El 51'-0" 0.76 0.91 212.2 T.B. El 51'-0" 0.76 '0.91 (1) Values for 30 ft2 pipe being closed, PB0C break 2A (2) Values for 30 ft pipe being open, PB0C break 2T M3 PROJECT MEMO NO. 4 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION .
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!="'""!!I BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 7 of 7 meno
- -.- ~.., - -.
Mamsrcndum k A Project M:mo #24 lilll!Illlill!!!!!!!!!!!n'8'l ; To: Froject Personnel Dam: February 2, 1982 4 From: J. D. McWilliam Job Ne: 80034
%D P WM P. Bauchman B. Gang
Subject:
Allowable Block Pullout copes: J. Spitulnik H. Reeser Loads P. DiDonato M. DeGuzmal Project File Central Filt P = Allowable Pullout Load (1b) Reinforced Wall Masonry Thickness Wall Cases (in) M M' 8" 9735 14691 A6B 12" 14850 22410 8" 4895 7387 C6D O 12" 6545 9877
- Design values are based on one block unit, for size less than one unit, allowable loads shall be reduced.
1-#5 1-#5
/ /
_/ / AWAUW / L M 7/ /
/ / '
P[ P/ Case A Case C
,2-#5 ,2-#5
/ /
! l l l
O / / P/. P/ Case B Case D l
i 4 s Job No. foo 3[ hie No. 2 I CALCULATION COVER SHEET g C Sen 6FOOO No. of Sheets d PROJECT f/4$8/M ' UNI T #/ CLIENT S0570# EP/SoAl SUBJECT HAsoN27 fog. A A C 76 ButLEDO Po-II WALL ANALffU STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
' fQoyIDE fgg f C.LC LJ h Gla6 (h LL.049" L.oA DJ Foe E/k' d 5LoclC a utT O F .7dF S/Wr& r W)'rdE- RGINF. MAsocy WALL DUE To COUCEN7tATyp rnGenA t 0hDluqS IMfosv0 Sy ATTAc.pv c0MyonEWS, SOURCES OF DATA O
O # O EES PNP 6106944 GeiTEalA - 1, L'W O g ReinFcRco tesoucj Pc4 4 J Gy fosET R. ScH 9siDFC ( W A'Tec t. . pscxy
@ EfC PMP5 c A L'.5 SET IJo 4 looo P(r f f FA SOURCES OF FORMULAE I REFERENCES
(!) 6E'T p4P5 # 1 DEWrd CCinfl4 -1, kE/ d i
@ RGifJFetcep Huoupf OGst're 91 RoorcT R. scdor PEc- $
W A t.TEW- L.mcley REMARKS SEE Pats (., foe ALLotu GLE Po L' oat LOAM ORIGINATORS CHECKERS DISTRIBUTION REVISION NO. O
- d. TL/M /[\. W fir 4(L SUPERSEDES CALCULATION
/b/p / C IITITI l
SET NO. APPROVED BY: d DATE: d EB24484Rev.0
^
l CALCULATION SHEET "'"^[ g CHECKED GY
" , g DA E fj UAltr #l IQlb9tk Gl(gfqf 4
S PROJECT SUBJECT P/LVR/M MA SDA/O'/ AldLL /^/4LIf/f< MN. h* 3 # OF FILE NO. SYSTEu Atted. Rwit pul@ T 13Ao S ANALYSIS NO. OOO REV. NO. O SHEET NO
$( _
INTAoDUCTtc/) T+/E fattowiat Ca t.'t Ane uSED To ESTA GL ISd Allow / OLE Stol'K Putt cut LCADs PR. 7t/E D 6 s vrN C RIT W A Cf ftL Ql'/M c(htf Al /4ASo!Jh/ NALL AlNAlf /1. 4 CA SE5 cl= RE/Nfcf(EffwT FfASa*J2 y W A L L ARE STup/Ep AS DEFINED Ey C 4 se A , .5, C. 4D Foon P & .1/5- of EKtit %rT D , PESWra CCITE*'^ 1. A"a , 54 wH 4^1, fino DiffcMNT WALL MitdcNSsSg$ $ " g i 2, ' ARE Fbe- 7WE Siskr LC Wypfg GAL.v, ( &CV stDER EO ggSogg,y SLoo/4 S / MEA /6 /#7J.5 r I ppg .g ,s i" r*J 7g" 4 70
- ma /
,s +f, i);"7 gg.y P E4/(rt>
w,, FAtt MS' 7 p ey 'esq Sf Rc5MT R, St&EttlR 'l ( wA17(L A h k L i 01(L'} 7f f' N P e 9 A W A VIO b*CU f g g2 g n(p 6 L 0C l<-
=_ _ _ .
PREPARED BY CALCULATION SHEET C/7/p/ I'- S e yud CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT P/dR/M (JA/!T N / M. V356 Gltglgt JOO NO. FILE NO. SUBJECT MMN& /AIALL MA/A L4///.g SYSTEM ki W
- 0U4/4 fu L LCO 7 lMDL ANALYSIS NO. @OOO REV.ND O SHEET NO
~
~
l AsstMPrioW.6 ;
@. Effec 7WE SfE'AL. 4REAS ,c4 piaLouT ARE f3MED o!)
CRMkED WALL $6Cf/CAJ /REA' tutren cF futl- . Al?EA . C&& PAq& 3 + 9' . , @ hou/ABLE S//v82 STA'essn of fu.q, HotAR AtiD MASDUCy' ARE NsuNeD 7Ve SAH& AND (rtyEW 8 DESM T U U lI W A 5 n!'B'T f, Puff I/1 l @ f SSt//fG- klett r loAb kcT/h'f GN 74l2 . C Erd 7ER 'P OL*ML-unir suerAce A@ .ZffpeG TfE ADDwavt .RoMENf pd5 70 Eccc+rawrf Eri-w. cc
@ Au""M& PultonT loa DS ARE rshssp on 'ONE StuttV U/Hf Of 2 X P X/(p OfL Pf/2 Ylfs 6t oct , RC. Blo ce.
SibE &&$3 T1 h' ) DAIE s/Altf, ALLoslASLE Putt car S$n t - SE ATDtu2D e f 8
PPEPARED BY UAlb CALCULATION SHEET c, .7. g ,a CHECKED BY gg DATE Ell 6R/M (JAIITD M. 'bim kW/tI l S FROJECT SUBJECT mas oM't tana. Anst stsis l
'o* "o-h7t t$
v'Le no-Of SYSTEu All.M. Bl.ceK r>utt ro * / CAD ' ANALYSIS NO. F6CO R EV. NO. O SHEEThu DF. Cast A46 (gypcpits Si/gge. A n g) QME h
- G Higuo W4uL , Fuut-y qpouT&p C ELLC QlTd 'l- 5 VtKfic4 ResAs FoR- EAcH stoct< um7-CASE 6 : 6HiELD WAt L , fact.y (tr2eaTED e ts.t-5 wit 4 2. 85 '
45RT' ' W t s% ^M, fot1. Ervi &ccsc aanf snynvE wuorn oF l ,7 SHgAR Apt y a a // / / // i aj y
, /// / '// / / ,
g ,
's kb h?l.l+' / 7 f/kf/ .
$' E '
j.<. .. f* .... - - 1 1 6A6E A CASE S u $ ..
/ /
~
. Ai,
-A ;
H f
/ /
[f' : T;TAL effec n'E ofcn AneA Foe. Pui.uur N = (4,+ Az) X1 = ( fry 4 ef x y) x'2. = 14 ( 1 + H) 8*?/IGStocK A = 1.ssret i.t-ier+ 7,6 zr) = l 7 7 '!" ' g m T 2xV2.ilb5t.oeg..A= II.cs s ( i e s ,r-1 7 k r) = 27 o Ie
CALCULATION SHEET g 7 ffy g, 7,,p CHECKED EY DATE PROJECT P/ W /M (14// 7" Y / [.' * * " Mr& Gll2'fg< l SUBJECT MA SOflf2'l (?) A LL- NMWilS SYSTEu Attns. BNee' Pauluf LOAD ANALYSIS NO. 9OOO REV.NO, O SHEET NO
~
_ CASE c 4D - ( EffEcTiUE Sy'rpi. AREA) . CASE C: I'A RTiTto d WA'L , 6* OUTED It3 ALWCMAR GGLL 5 wN - 1 - T6 V6pcet - R56Asts Tor.- ear.+f 6Lo u'- d4
@e p : PAR 7i red W ML , 6neouTED in ALTERDATE Cct.tA win 2 'T Yk n cat REGAR5 Fort 9ed rnooc. u mT. :
t I "r /-EfficfWE SN' EAR < q _ g5-AgeA As $#sd^r
/ .
g///%g////syy/,27/; 61 CCoSS-H"c40 Syf/ /yggo,ggy - o
- s. , .
h ., f} g . e. - ; .s. '? e 2
'a i
) l
= 0 : i CASE C l ww q l cASF 9 W AW/
/: ; . // /
/ s L
( y ; u , /
/
TOTA L EnrEc/7m grM A@A ML PauvaT ; A = ( A !+ Az + A 5.)x z = [f v t 4 ($- b)* b + ht] X 2
=
2t(L -b + H) + tub i1 P X? KIG f5L*LL , b - lpy', b = L.ot " , v0 = 7.611~$ d = 76:Y, l=lt.U: A = 1 x l.tr ( t c.61r- 6.ofo + 7.62 Y) + 9. G '*Ts' b.o b
=
77 ta'- ; 9 X I1- A l b 6LotK. % = IS; b = 5.7,$~ ',' 2 = ( f.62.[?, H = 7.62l, f = 154 2l A :- 2. x 1, r C ii,62r- f.7T 4 7,623-) + I a. 6ti' y r.73~ .
$ !' =
8 //f/P C , i
PREPARED 8Y , bA
- CALCULATION SHEET d. r 4 /ed Md6 ATE I:
CHECKED BY N,LU dA SflYTI S PHOJECT ?llfrflM M4som Matt NsAwm th]/7 w Mc "o-O SUBJECT SYSTEu ALLO *CLE Essev- pittoctY LOADS ~f l AN ALYSIS NO. NN REV. NO. O SHEET N
// // // s ],1 [ / ( S $ E,) I L R G e8 ro sque cocar p pung m gg,,a ,a g,g,,,
/ oF 7 , oc -l .) l
.', k = 55 (Si --M Ym = f B fSi -
M' CAs& A 4.6. 0 ?" vacu P, = sr x 177 = 9 7 51' Y ' M
/2." w4cc p = fr x no 8
= g fro # l; 8 " wAcu Pg=nxn7' 'Y'fl p!
It, w4m 4, = rs xz7o = 324/ o I ,
. 1 cme c $ D l l
2 WALL h = $3 x 2 7 =. //?ff f 12." wAcu $ = w
- tr7 = SkUK P W4 )%':. P.3 x P/ = 7377 i , l M i IY Wkk h' = ?3 x (t f ::. f 277
- O e i
i k ; 8 . r l c + I I
CALCULATION SHEET ""["' 7,, g/,^ g CH ECKED BY DATE h/ISWIN IN/I #l $]- \tO6NK S PROJECT SUBJECT N4SS W Id4LL 4//ALVII4 MB NO. G15ff71 FILE NO.
~
SYSTEM ActowA bt-E 6Lpcg py h y-[og] ANALYSIS NO. WOO REV. NO. O l SHEET NO-
~
EXHIBIT .t : AwABLE 6Logg pattoar LOADS l#5
/ / g Mg
_ / /
'E ' - .
/ /
e/ / P CASE A CASE G ( ,2 #g ,i t *5 l
/ / /
/4/% W l ' MO /
/
1
/
J / P / P case S case D _ kl',"f;,y wacu. P = AmAu euLLMT U@ Qd WAL. L- W 80483 cases on> M H' 2" 775S' M67/ A4s l2" /4 Ef# z 2. y 10 g ?" # # ff- 7:3P/ i a n 2 l 2- t sW 7277 . l + oesw vmss as esseo ou ave wex unir ,a sne isa reui on *l } . UN17 .A LLC'wstGL 7 iCADS 4WAL L. BE REDUCED .
J Mamrzrcndum ( L a Project Memo #5 lll11lll11'!!Il11111ll1111llll Revision #1 To: Project Personnel Date: October 13, 1981 From: W. J. Duffy Job No: 80034 subject: Tornado Depressurization Loads copies: P. Baughman B. Gang j C. DiNunzio H. Reeser ! Project File P. DiDonatt ' Central File M. DeGuzmar Attache ' are the tornado depressurizatrion loads that shall be used in the an lysis of masonry walls at Pilgrim I. Picase refer to DC-1 and WI-2 and AI-3 for further instruction in the application of these loads. h W. J6._ Tdffy y AssiW; ant Pr ett neer JDM/jp attachment o
ATTACHMENT 1 Maximum Tornado Pressures O Building: Diesel Generator Building Wall Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. (psi) DLF* x DLF (psi) 198.0 0.859 1.0 0.859 198.1 0.859 1.0 0.859 198.2 0.859 1.0 0.859 198.3 0.859 1.0 0.859 198.4 0.0004 1.095 0.0005 Building: Radwaste Building Wall Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. (psi) DLF* x DLF (psi) 196.0 0.412 1.95 0.804 196.1 1.29 1.0 1.29 196.1 0.869 1.0 0.869 196.3 0.869 1.1 0.955 196.4 0.673 1.0 0.673 196.4 1.29 1.0 1.29 (' ; 196.6 196.7 0.084 0.084 1.21 1.21 0.102 0.102 196.8 0.863 1.0 0.863 196.11 0.023 1.90 .043 196.14 1.47 1.0 1.47 196.15 1.47 1.0 1.47 196.16 1.47 1.0 1.47 196.17 1.47 1.0 1.47 196.18 1.47 1.0 1.47 196.19 0.00035 1.21 0.00042 195.4 1.55 1.095 1.69 195.4 1.54 1.10 1.69 195.10 1.56 1.0 1.56 195.10 0.00 0.0 0.0 195.10 0.869 1.12 0.973 195.14 0.924 1.12 1.03 195.17 1.32 1.0 1.32 : 195.18 0.194 1.12 0.218 195.19 0.259 1.0 0.259 l 195.20 0.806 1.21 0.975 l 195.23 0.43 1.0 0.43 O V
=_ PROJECT MEMO NO. 5 80034 d(d ) fAl PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 11111111llllll111111111ll1Ill1 BOSTON EDISON COMPANf Page 1 of 7 iom m
l l ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) Building: Radwaste Building (con't)
} ,
Wall Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. (psi) DLF* x DLF (psi) 195.23 0.19 1.0 0.19 195.26 0.182 1.99 0.362 194.20 1.47 1.21 1.78 194.21 1.02 1.12 1.15 194.21 1.49 1.21 1.81 194.21 1.06 1.21 1.28 194.22 1.49 1.095 1.63 194.22 0.697 1.095 0.763 194.23 0.724 1.0 0.724 194.24 0.0413 1.21 0.05 191.24 1.50 1.10 1.65 191.24 1.54 1.0 1.54 191.25 1.098 1.095 1.2 191.25 0.107 1.6 0.171 191.26 0.03 1.0 0.03 191.26 0.08 1.15 0.0915 191.28 0.814 1.0 0.814 191.29 1.47 1.0 1.47 191.29 1.46 1.10 1.60 191.29 0.68 1.10 0.75 191.34 0.814 1.0 0.814 191.35 0.166 1.5 0.249 ('>T 191.36 0.166 1.12 0.187 191.37 1.47 1.0 1.47 191.39 0.065 1.9 0.124 191.40 0.065 1.21 0.079 191.41 0.083 1.21 0.101 191.42 0.083 1.88 0.157 191.43 0.083 1.21 0.101 191.44 0.095 1.2 0.114 191.45 0.066 1.65 0.109 191.46 0.10 1.0 0.10 191.46 0.13 1.0 0.13 191.46 0.18 1.0 0.18 191.46 0.255 1.21 0.308 191.46 0.16 1.0 0.16 < l 191.48 0.681 1.0 0.681 ! 191.49 0.826 1.0 0.826 l 191.50 0.824 1.0 0.824 l l 191.51 1.56 1.21 1.89 191.51 0.10 1.0 0.10 l l l l I~) V g gg PROJECT MEMO NO. 5 80034 [e[(flfil PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l1111ll1111111111!!Ill11lll111 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 7 some
4 l ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) (} Building: Wall Radwaste Building (con't) Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. (psi) DLF* x DLF (psi) 191.53 1.56 1.0 1.56 191.54 1.56 1.0 1.56 ' 191.57 0.096 1.2 0.115 191.55 0.04 1.87 0.069 191.56 0.04 1.9 0.075 191.59 0.0959 1.95 0.187 Building: Reactor Auxiliary Bay Building l Wall Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. (psi) DLF* x DLF (psi) , 184.0 0.361 1.0 0.405 184.2 0.644 1.0 0.644 184.3 0.644 1.095 0.706 . 184.4 0.63 1.0 0.63 , 184.7 0.631 1.0 0.631 184.8 0.631 1.0 0.631 184.9 0.415 1.8 0.747 188.1 0.68 1.1 0.75 () 188.2 188.3 0.68 0.644 1.1 1.095 0.75 0.706 188.4 0.644 1.0 0.644 188.6 1.57 1.0 1.57 i 188.7 1.06 1.0 1.06 i 188.8 0.361 1.12 0.405 188.9 0.51 1.99 1.02 ' 188.10 0.20 1.16 0.232 188.10 0.20 1.21 0.243 188.11 0.00035 1.21 0.00042 188.12 0.154 1.12 0.186 188.13 0.171 1.21 0.207 185.1 0.644 1.0 0.644 185.2 0.788 1.12 0.883 185.3 0.616 1.0 0.616 l 185.4 0.616 1.0 0.616 185.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 185.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 185.7 1.03 1.0 1.03 ' 185.9 1.03 1.0 1.03 O V
& PROJECT MEMO NO. 5 ,
80034 d (d )fd PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION llll111111lllll11111llI11lll11 B0STON EDISON COMPANY Page 3 of 7 , I
&& & J
l l ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) 1 Building: Reactor Auxiliary Bay Building (con't) Wall - No. Max. Ptorn (psi) Max Ptorn DLF* 185.10 x DLF (psi) ; 185.11 1.03 ; 2.16 1.0 185.12 1.0 1.03 185.13 1.61 2.16 1.61 1.0 185.14 1.0 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.0 1.61 ' Building: Reactor Wall No. Max. Ptorn _ (psi) Max Ptorn DLF* 62.2 x DLF (psi) 62.4 0.069 0.313 1.00 , 62.5 1.12 0.069 ! 62.7 0.313 0.351 0.706 1.21 ) 62.8 1.12 0.379 ' 62.9 0.706 0.791 0.005 1.0 62.10 1.21 0.706 62.10 1.170 0.006 0.005 1.0 62.11 1.0 1.170 1.29 0.005 () 62.13 63.1 63.4 1.170 0.049 1.0 1.0 1.21 1.29 1.170 63.5 0.055 0.059 0.204 1.0 63.7 1.0 0.055 63.8 0.204 0.204 0.342 1.0 63.9 1.0 0.204 o3.10 0.342 0.342 0.218 1.0 63.11 1.0 0.342 63.12 0.218 0.218 0.218 1.0 64.4 1.0 0.218 64.4 1.18 0.218 1.210 1.10 64.5 1.7 1.30 64,5 1.98 2.057 0.10 1.095 64.A 1.0 0.217 64.7 0.037 0.10 0.037 1.21 64.8 1.12 0.045 64.13 0.098 0.041 2.0 1.0 65.0 1.0 0.098 65.1 0.037 2.0 0.099 1.12 4 1.0 0.041 " 0.099 b ba m MR PROJECT MEMO NO. 5 80034 Li R g A PILGRIM 1111111!!!I1111111111111111lll NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY someo Page 4 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) (} Building: Reactor (con't) Wall Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. (psi) DLF* x DLF (psi) 65.2 0.085 1.12 0.0975 ' 65.2 0.00 1.0 0.00 65.4 0.073 1.21 0.088 65.5 0.061 1.12 0.068 65.6 0.061 1.21 0.074 65.7 0.096 1.0 0.096 65.8 1.24 1.7 2.11 65.8 1.14 1.10 1.25 65.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 65.10 2.0 1.0 2.0 4 65.18 0.903 1.21 1.09 65.19 0.903 1.12 1.01 65.19 0.59 1.0 0.59 65.19 0.756 1.12 0.847 65.19 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.17 1.56 1.0 1.56 65.13 1.56 1.10 1.72 65.13 1.56 1.0 1.56 65.12 1.56 1.0 1.56 65.14 1.51 1.0 1.51 65.20 0.631 1.0 0.631 O 65.21 66.0 1.14 0.57 1.09 1.10 1.24 0.63 66.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 66.0 1.54 1.0 1.54 66.1 1.33 1.0 1.33 66.2 0.57 1.10 0.63 66.2 1.33 1.0 1.33 66.3 1.33 1.0 1.33 66.4 0.00 1.0 0.00 66.5 0.67 1.10 0.74 66.5 1.29 1.0 1.29 66.6 1.55 1.0 1.55 66.6 0.674 1.0 0.674 66.7 0.017 1.88 0.032 66.10 1.20 1.21 0.46 66.10 0.07 1.0 0.07 66.11 0.68 1.0 0.68 66.11 0.68 1.10 0.75 66.12 0.693 1.0 0.693 66.18 0.693 1.0 0.693 b) s-g m ECT MEMO NO. 5 [k (d 2fAl PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION llllllI1111lll111111llllll1lll B0STON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 7
== oo
ATTACHMENT 1 (con't) I'T Building: Reactor (con't) U Wall Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. (psi) DLF* x_DLF (psi)
. 66.21 0.674 1.0 0.674 66.22 3.0 1.0 3.0 !
66.23 3.0 1.0 3.0 55.24 3.0 1.0 3.0 67.1 0.705 1.095 0.771 i 67.2 0.705 1.12 0.789 68.0 1.58 1.0 1.58 , 68.1 1.56 1.0 1.56 68.2 1.92 1.0 1.92 68.3 2.97 1.0 2.97 68.4 1.45 1.0 1.45 i 68.5 0.074 1.21 0.09 68.8 1.0 0.00 0.00 68.9 0.00 1.0 0.00 68.10 0.28 1.05 0.297 70.0 0.837 1.0 0.837 70.1 0.837 1.35 1.13 + 77.0 0.514 1.0 0.514 77.1 0.514 1.0 0.514 111.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 111.1 0.00 1.1 0.00 () 111.2 111.3 0.00 2.95 1.0 1.12 0.00 3.3 111.4 2.95 1.0 2.95 111.5 2.95 1.0 2.95 . 111.6 2.95 1.12 3.3 111.7 2.95 1.0 2.95 111.8 2.95 1.0 2.95 111.P 2.95 1.0 2.95 111.11 2.97 1.12 3.3 111.12 2.97 1.12 3.3 111.13 2.97 1.0 2.97 111.14 2.97 1.0 2.97 111.15 2.98 1.0 2.98 111.16 2.96 1.0 2.96 111.17 2.96 1.0 2.96 111.18 2.96 1.0 2.96 L d (~)h u w EE_ PROJECT MEMO NO.5 80034 r
' '[ L fA1' i
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION llI1ll1111lll111llll111111lll1 Page 6 of 7 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY mon
ATTACHMENT 1 Building: Turbine Building D'# Wall . Max. Ptorn Max Ptorn No. __ (psi) DLF* x DLF (psi) 212.1 0.748 1.09 0.816 212.2 0.748 1.0 0.748 210.0 0.25 1.12 0.28 210.1 0.954 1.0 0.954 210.2 0.954 1.0 0.954 210.3 1.00 1.0 1.00 209.0 0.248 1.21 0.30 209.1 0.586 1.12 0.66 209.2 0.586 1.095 0.642 209.3 0.586 1.21 0.709 209.6 0.586 1.75 1.026 209.7 0.602 1.0 0.602 209.8 0.534 1.0 0.534 NOTE: For walls with more than one tornado pressure, check to see which compartments the wall separates. o ^'- PROJECT MEMO NO. 5 80034 bdI(k i Al PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 11111llllll11111111ll1lll11111 B0STON EDISON COMPANY Page 7 of 1000 00
l r l l l
- 10. Provide results of analysis for tornado, pipe break outside containment (PBOC) loadings, and thermal effects.
Differential pressure loads on rafety-related concrete block walls are tabulated in CYGNA project memoranda 4 and 5 for PBOC and tornado depressurization respectively. These loads have been derived from the pressure curves and flow models provided by Bechtel. The wall analyses have not yet been finalized. A summary of these results will be provided in the final report. The thermal loadings on the safety-related concrete block walls at Pilgrim result from the PBOC loading condition. The ther-mal loads are transient in nature and must be derived from the pressure and temperature curves calculated by the pipe break analysis. Two time regimes are of interest: (1) the short term thermal effects which must be combined with the pressure load; and (2) the long term effects after the pressure load has passed.
/~
(_j} An evaluation of the short term effects (Rll) has shown that . wall moments due to heat transfer from the pipe break environ-men *. are very small compared to allowables and may be neglected
~
in the pressure analysis. For the long term effects, since there is no applied pressure load, any overstress is self-relieving (secondary) and need not be evaluated. Also, since the Pilgrim walls are reinforced, tension cracking from ther-mal moments will not affect the load carrying capacity. Y I (_/ j i
,--- +r - , - - - - -w-- ., . - , , . - - , ,e-- - - -
l
) 11. Provide a report of the final re-evaluation.
NRC Bulletin 80-11 requires the licensee to submit a written , Y 1 l report upon completion of the re-evaluation program. This [ report must include the following: l t
- 1. description of the masonry walls, .
- 2. description of the construction practices employed in the construction of .e walls,
- 3. re-evaluation criteria and a detailed justification.
t t Items 2 and 3 are addressed in response to questions 6 and 4, ; i respectively, of this submittal. A description of the masonry ; walls and associated system as well as the results of the re- ! evaluation (required in the 60 day response) program will be l provided under separate cover. Although the re-evaluation is ; essentially complete, the calculations require finalizing to , reflect as-built conditions. A schedule for close-out activi-() ties is being developed. i i i P P h f
l
- 12. Provide'information on both the method and schedule of any planned
' O) modifications. Upon completion of any masonry wall re-evaluation, the need for modification to restore appropriate design safety factc/s was determined by the design limits given in the CYGNA Design Criteria, Revision 1 (See Question #1). )
- l. Fifteen (15) modifications were required by the re-evaluation program. A l list of these modifications is attached. All construction except that l required for Wall 64.4 has been completed. This wall is slightly over-stressed but has been determined to result in deflections less than those considered unstable in a design base event. The schedule will be determined as part of an integrated replanning of all major modifications now in prog-ress for Pilgrim Station. l Note that some modifications are labeled as structural and others as venting.
If the wall was overstressed due to pipe break or tornado depressurization pressures, the feasibility of relieving the pressure was investigated, By testing the possible vent options in the building flow models for the particular event, potential pressure relief pathways were identified. The vents were designed using a diaphram arrangement, door latch, or door closing-system which allow pressures to flow as analyzed in the event required, thus alleviating the need to strengthen the wall. O
( U L L E E L % % 4 W w J J J J J J J J J J s n w, m E W Z u 4 4
^
m *t 2 C
" 3 4
u
=
k M M o * *
> M O Em E E WO Z m E4 MW J M J m EN QE J >
- 4 e O g mW 3 4 m u O WM a 6 h M W 3 G 36 J W W f
.-'* W Z 24
*J
- Em w A Z Z
J W u z (w
> OM Wu
=> Zo > c WN & ME >
- 4 u W D mW WW M Z 8 % b W 3G E 26 m > E N & WD C 6 W k m m 4 gW M W> W m W m% J 4 > J4 E W &
MND J *m p 4 AE 4 > 4 m J 4EM E
- K M W
- 3WW W2 E W >J M u 4
>>> uq Q A JJ u M Z
>dl W M'M "ai V3 WW 2 M WQ 34 G A
G E & MOE W) MJ Oh J E3 u E Q 3; O u M id J> M O J 2 >E WW CJ 4 > W
- O M EJ4 m O2 CM>
KAJ uM
=4 a
36 E W m 2
& mlJ Cl3 >
C
- ED Os M WQJ A 4 WG 0
WQ w M 4 N J M 4 W Z J >j 6- W WJ 4 QWu JZ Wm A
- m 3 >
J ZW N Zm OM Z2 2 4 MQ4 >2 N >4m MM >Q W *
- J >
m W TJM Q3 4 >M Z4 e q 4 3 9 m2 W 3> >4 Z w J,aWam cO => M 4 4 s um a a * * - > u GeO Wga m mO a Jl}6 kC 2 W4 12 0 l M WO JA WM QM W G w w m ua J ** me g G c O S 2 W NQg 3W =4 > M W > '3 2 W W4 m Ek Zw
- Q >
>>h Wu k OM 3s JD 4 m2 km M 4 2 m we M WE J M jG e h N MW
- me e m u W Q J3 M mk 4 g 3 3 > m E W 4 Mf m-QW m
e MlQ Q lO
- C'W W WW Z mW E E M G E O M Wh > G'3 eh Im m WM wk 2 2 ** 4 E =
m &jp 4 W M Wi& W WJ J h m 3E E m 4 sma rw m mJ-c 4mmu u= um 4 m zM Om ZQ 2 0 W K M 2 M a mm OG e m W
=
Q 4J3 m M M4 4M K m o mb M WO m W m,W m > > c 2 = u MWW wJE I gmum Km m um
- WW G E M (t m 3D4 '4 W'u W WW 3 3e W MZ C W 4 4 WOM 043 3uQ g4 4> Z W M
> J ZJ im uiE W WU Z WE a M N Z 4 MmJ WmJ W 4'm E X4 M MQ 2 mk W 3 > Q QJa m m A Zu O EQ C W M E kJ3 m3 Q 8 0 0 0 0 1 Ow m W E K 2 O W4 O2 u u > mm u 23k wok = 4 20 QW 6 k W Em > E e W E M u m m 6= 3 3 k W W M Q Q >lE W W om s EK W W m M *A W m!4 > W O m W k m u a Zww 2WE O u WA m Em 4 m kuM OD E u kE Z WE m m A u W mO O 4 >O Q G3 4 %
9m> > wu u AE 4 Z 4 m OM 3A * * *
- j MZ 4EE *
- m A> W4Q w N M 4 4 l
1 i l 1 l i
.~ .
'1 T
T
. r. r. T y .
T. c T' T c T. t C r- C c T
- e C c - C u u A c M T u N u W a 4 M 4 8 R
/ g O u 4 4 g 4 4 4 r T 4
T E T G T T u g T S E V T S 5-t
<j 5' M S V S V S S 6
0 0 R 4
- _ 55 1 1 O
H R
" C C N R CC W W B
R R B A P 3,3, 22 T 4 0 0 e e 1 22 2 8 C U R 4 4 55 1 1 4 4 2 2 !. 1 1 1 t.l. 5 D. l. D D C 5 5 66 1 1 4 4 BB B B B p D D
/ R B 5 D D R R [t R 7 T D G C C C CC E E 5B T T RR R R RM FF D U W W 1T T 1 11 S P F F A A A A A A W W
/ RR RR 3
F W W O M M WU W W W W EE T W W W U W W W W M M GT E S W W W W W W W W u W S S M M SS MN MM WI.e WW W W SS S S dS S 5 AO P N MM MM S 5 5 S S S PD Y O T C C N U F ) 4 L ( L e A W C N U F) 3 L( L A W T I C D D U U N T T L L 0 U U J U DO E E EE - - F) C' 0 LL EE EE EE tE E E RR K K
- - EI E L EE RT hR R R I I L L 2
R N hR RR RR II I I H H II B B L( KK II I I II II S S FF L LL HH I I I I FF FF FF FT FF F F h BB SS F F W C DD DD D D N TT R R LL L L DD U0 DD LL EE E E TT T T U LL I T T T EE A A RR R R F) LL 00 EE T T TT TT EE II I I
- - T T KR R R I I HH H H AA A A 1 EE I I A K RR I I R R RR AA R
Al K. AA AA HH HH SS S 5 PP P P L( AA HH A A FP F P 5S SS L HH L( 5S P P PP P P A SS P B P F W 77 8 8 C 33 88 33 5 5 88 1 1 58 7 /. 22 55 5 3 O 4 4 99 0 0 /7 7 7 11 1 1 L 33 33 4 4 4 4 11 2 2 11 1 1 55 5 5 // / / 77 55
) 1 1 11 4 4
// / / // / / 99 3 3 11 1 1
/ / / / / // / / /7 4 4 11 11
// / /
L4 / 55 5 5 99 9 9 // / / 4 4 33 6 6 GG K K NN N N L( A J J GG G G UC B B GG L L K K LL H H JJ 6 6 W 11 7 7 6 6 88 88 5 5 C 33 4 4 3 3 44 99 4 4 55 8 8 66 7 7 1I 1 1 O 88 99 11 1 1 55 1 1 44 44 / / L 33 22 2 2 11 1 1
/ / // // / / 6
) 11 4 4 // / / // 99 1 1 11 6
/ / 44 33 L3 L(
/ /
22 33 11
//
3
/ /
J.
//
55 5 5 66 9 9 G 5
/.7 EC 8 8 A A
//
6G K K 6G K K
//
NN L L A H H JJ J J EE W K K LL C O 33 3 3 S L 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 - - N ) 0 0 00 0 0 00 - - - - - - - - 0 0 99 0 0 00 - - - - - - - - - - 1 11 1 1 O L2 - - - - - - - - 43 3 J 1 1 1 1 11 1 9 9 L( - - 7 7 33 1 1 5 5 55 5 5 99 I T - A 55 11 7 / 33 3 22 5 5 22 2 2 55 66 66 3 J 22 3 A W CD EE EE EE C TT TT LE E E IE S5 NN N H NN T TT T T FT O SS II II T T TT T C C JA L AA AK ]I C C CC CC CC bB BB BB AA A A
) TT TT WW AA AA DL OE L1 CC AA CC AA X I XX X X DD AA WW D
AA h R UU R R U U RR UU AA EE EE RR EE RR EE RR EE RR L( EE EE U U UU U U R R IT T I IT R R M_R A RR ER AA AA A A RR LE W CG RA S A UT S e A A TU EE AA B B AA A D AA CO CD A A AA A A AA A A d CO 9 C BC A A AA k - AC i
/
5 06 S 3 09 5 5 1, 21 N 5 5 48 3 UU DH 50 U U 7 7 RR
- C 79 RR 1, H H K T 5 H H 3 3, 5, 2 TT L E 5, T T e J 5 1 73 67 9 8 A K 4 9 0 4 59 8 8 4, e 9 9 0 22 2 2 90 01 0 1 35 6 4 / 6 - 11 1 1 WS 6 6 6 6 7 8 5 5 J 3 3 7 11 2 67 55 3 5 J3 3 J
- - - 44 44 4 4 7
2 2
~
11 1 11 R 1 11 Y G 1 I 1R 2 2 R R R R R R R 2 2 11 1 1 I1 ES X X 5 R R R - SS S S T N 1 1 R R RR R R R R S S N S S S SS S F T R R R E 5S SS SS S 5 SN S R S - S - S S E C NS E W A W N S N S N S N 5 N 5 NS E F R EW E W N S 5~ EJ E EW ~ LB L M A U M N 1 2 1 9 R 0 2 0 1 1 1 4 1 2 3 6 3 8 E 9 9 2 7 L B 8 4 4 6 1 5 5 5 7 L M 1 1 4 9 0 0 4 6 6 6 8 8 8 9 2 2 2 6 A U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W N 1 1 0 D R 0 O O L E N N E L T 5 S / / S 5 C U 0 C C U U E E O 0 1I R R A II I I 0 O S S 1I CC E E R I I 1I I I R R R C C R h T II C C C C C C LC C G h R R C c RR MM CC R R R R R R C C C C N R R R R R R O C D D D D 0
) ) ) D D ) D
) ) ) ) ) ) D
l l . l l. l \l l L r J A c. 9 EM V R 0 O H R 8 8 CC N D B B A P R R T( 2 C B UR
/ RC 8 8 7 TD 1 1 SP 8B
/ RR 2
F O EE T GT ES A A PN WW F D Y O S S ~ TC C N U F) 4 L( L ' A W C N U , F) 3 L( L A W C N U F) 2 E E L( R R L A I F F I W C N U D D F) L L 1 EE L( I I L H H A S S W C O L
)
L4 L( 7 7 A / /
/ W P P C
O L
)
L3 L( 7 7 S A / / N W L L O I C T O A L ) C I L2 0 0 F L( - - I A 1 1 D W 5 5 O - M C E O LG L T AA ) T RT L1 C C UU L( AA T D A EE C W R R UT RS S T O S SP EE CD R - CO A A O AC F G N N I DH 4 N - C 1 N KT 8 8 A LE 1 1 L AK - - F WS 9 2 7 8 1 1 YG 1 TN 1 FT R R SR S S E C A FR E E W LB L M A U WN R E LB 4 LM A U 4
^ ~ WN 6 R
O T C A R T 11 N C C O R R C
) . > m
) ) T ) 4 ' , ' ,
e 3 ) ) t 3 4}}