ML20127H009
| ML20127H009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1985 |
| From: | Ventura J BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127G995 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8506260177 | |
| Download: ML20127H009 (48) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:5 Bechtel Power Corporation GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWCR PIM UNITS 1 & 2 JOB NLPEER: 11865 RESPONSE TO THE NRC POSITION ON ENERGY BALANCE RELATING TO IE BULLETIN 80-11 l%Y 21,1985 STUDY APPROVED BY: _ r!7/8f G P ISOR DAT6 / j' $ V 5/.11/9s DATE
. C ~ENT3JRA
/PROJECTENGINEER G PDR
f l TABLE OF CONTENTS . 1.0 Introduction 5
2.0 Background
2.1 Description of Walls 2.2 Wall Reclassification 2.3 Construction Details 3.0 Elastic Analysis of Walls k.0 Conservatises in the Analysis 4.1 Seismic Input Loads 4.1.1 Input Time History 4.1.2 Radiation Damping 4.1.3 Structure Embedment Effects 4.2 Blockwall Analysis 4.2.1 Response Spectra Modification 4.2.2 Moment Combination 4.3 As-Built Strength of Walls 5.0 Summary of Results 6.0 Conclusions 7.0 References Tables Fi,gures g- -c-- - , . --,-- -- -
, , y,-., -, ,,%.-, - -..------ - . --- -.- -. - - - - - .
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In respons.e to I&E Bulletin 80-11 for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) (Reference 1) the capacity of 167 masonry walls was re-viewed. All but 22 of these walls were qualified by the working stress - elastic analysis technique. The remaining 22 valls were qualified in-elastically by the energy balance technique. The NRC staff in their Safety Evaluation Report (Reference 2) found the walls evaluated by the working stress method acceptable. However, the staff indicated the use of the energy balance technique is unacceptable without further confirt.ation of the methodology. Three approaches were suggested in the Safety Evaluation Report that could be used to re-evaluate the affected 22 valls. In summary these approaches are as follows:
- 1. Supplement the Energy Balance Technique with a Comprehensive Test Program.
- 2. Re-analyze the walls by linear elastic-working stress methods and repair the walls as needed.
- 3. Use a rigorous non-linear analysis technique, supplemented with confirmatory testing.
The second of these available alternatives - use of linear elastic method-ology - is being adopted for this study. The criteria established for the response to the I8E Bulletin required that all valls be initially evaluated using elastic methods. The evaluation criteria concentrated on a simplified approach which (1) could be utilized for all walls, (2) may be applied by different engineers with uniformity of results assured and (3) minimize the need for separate decision making for individual walls. Such an approach was necessary to expedite the total evaluation effort within specified time limits and simultaneously maintain I
l necessary control and uniformity in the results. This approach was uti- l lized to guarantee that each step of the analysis could be easily demon- ; strated to yield unquestionable conservative results. The methodology and l criteria to accomplish this had several substantial conservatisms beyond those normally imposed on vall design, or necessary to meet minimum licensing requirements. Those walls that did not satisfy the elastic analysis criteria were then evaluated using the energy balance technique. The energy balance technique had been successfully used in seismic design applications for many struc-tures. Since the energy balance technique utilizes the results from the elastic analysis, similar conservatisms exist for both techniques. On the basis that the energy balance technique was a recognized and acceptable evaluai: ion method, the philosophy was to adopt the conservative elastic criteria recognizing such an approach may artificially indicate a portion of the walls exceed allowable stresses. However, those walls which may have high reported stresses could be shown to have adequate reserve strength by the energy balance technique and therefore considered ac-ceptable. Tests have been conducted on masonry walls for another power plant. The walls that were tested would be expected to have response characteristics similar to . those at CCNPP, except that the CCNPP walls in general are stronger and have additional reinforcing steel. Excitation of the tested walls was based on simulated earthquake motion at the top and bottom with "g" levels several times that of the CCNPP design. Although the test walls may have exceeded elastic limits they remained functional, giving a positive indication that the CCNPP walls will remain functional during and after the postulated seismic event. Recognizing that the energy balance technique is not acceptable to the staff without further documentation, the original elastic working stress analysis was reviewed in comparison with current licensing positions. Generic conservatisms which exist in the analysis were identified and in _2_
..,___,,_,_,_..m_m__. , ._m. _., . , , _ _ , _ , . , , _ _ , . . _ . - , , _ _ _ , _ . _ . . . _ . . , , . _ . _ _ . ,
some instances quantified so that a more accurate estimate of actual wall stress could be determined and compared with the original evaluation. This approach is consistent with the intent of the second alternative included in Safety Evaluation Report. Using this approach, the 22 valls originally analyzed using the energy balance technique were re-evaluated using linear elastic-working stress methods. The conclusion is that all of the 22 walls are within allowable stresses in accordance with the acceptable licensing criteria.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Description of Walls A summary of the walls qualified by the energy balance technique is in-cluded in Table 1. Location of walls are highlighted in Figures I,.7 and
- 3. Included in Table 1 is the ratio of the maximum moment (Me) obtained from the elastic analysis considering DBE loading, to the plastic moment (Mp). The plastic moment is controlled by the rebar stress in all cases to assure proper ductile action of the wall, and is calculated assuming the reinforced steel reaches the minimum specified yield strength. The ductil-ity ratio as determined by the energy balance procedure is also provided in Table 1. The fundamental natural frequencies of these walls, assuming cracked section properties range from 1.0 to 5.2 Hz.
2.2 Wall Reclassification Since the final submittal in response to IE Bulletin 80-11 (Reference 1), the masonry wall program has been under continuous engineering review, specifically for installations of equipment and facilities in the vicinity of the safety related walls. Resulting from this review several walls which were originally included in the Blockwall Program have been sub-sequently reclassified. A summary of these walls which were originally qualiffed inelastically follows:
- 1. El. 45' - Wall VV (Unit 2) This is a radiation shield wall, ten feet tall, in the shape of an "L" and composed of two wythes. The wall was partially qualified inelastically. A review of the portion of the wall qualified inelastically shows that there are no safety related Therefore, this equipment attached or in the vicinity (fall zone).
portion of the wall has been reclassified as non-safety related.
- 2. El. 45' - Wall RR (Unit 1) This wall is identical in shape and func-There are no safety related equip-tion as Wall VV described above.
ment or facilities attached to this wall, however, there are two safety related 8" d vertical runs of service water piping in the vicinity of the wall. A review of orientation and structural capacity of the pipes and supporting structure was performed. It was concluded that f ailure of Wall RR during a seismic event would not inpact the function of the service water system. this wall is a
- 3. E1. 45' - Wall V Subsequent review has concluded that fire wall only and it has been reclassified as non-safety related.
- 4. El. 45' - Wall DD Subsequent review has concluded that this wall is a fire wall only and it has been reclassified as non-safety related.
2.3 Construction Details The construction details for the walls in question are shown on drawing A-132, included as Attachment C in the initial submittal (Reference I). j' Vertical reinforcing for eight inch thick walls consist of one number five reinforcing steel bar every sixteen inches. For twelve inch thick walls Only two number five reinforcing steel bars are used every sixteen inches. Horizontal those cells containing vertical reinforcing are grouted. reinforcing for both eight and twelve inch walls consists of durowall joint reinforcing. At wall-floor inter-All reinforcing is anchored at the wall boundaries.
faces vertical bars are lap spliced (15" minimum lap) with dowels sized to match the vertical reinforcing. Reinforcing is anchored to structural steel boundaries, either beams or columns, using flat bars two inches wide and either one half inch or one quarter inch thick. These bars match the locati7n of ei her the horizontal or vertical reinforcing and extend into the ws:.ls a minaum of six inches. At concrete wall intersections dove-tailed clips are specified at the location of horizontal joint reinforce-ment. Material properties are included in Table 2. 3.0 ELASTIC ANALYSIS The structural response, of the masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic inertia loads is based on the elastic behavior of reinforced maso'nry in flexure. A FORTRAN computer code BLOCKWALLS was developed to analyze blockvalls for the effects of external and/or seismic loading. This computer program, which was described in detail in the initial sub-mittal, analyzes walls as simplified three degree of freedom beam models. Use of a three degree of freedom model was verified by comparison of representative results with solutions from a nine degree of freedom model. This comparison shows excellent correlation between results from the three and nine degree of freedom models. Seismic response of the walls are determined by the modal analysis tech-nique used in conjunction with the response spectrum method. Final inertia loads are based on dynamic response of wall section properties (effective moment of inertia) obtained by an iterative solution technique. A con-vergence criteria verifies that the assumed section condition results in the same inertial loading for two successive iterations. The analysis is conducted by selecting the most severe vertical vall strip, no wider than six times the nominal wall thickness (6T). Depending on associated support conditions, the top of the wall is modelled as either free of pinned. A fixed boundary condition is considered at the base of the wall. All external loads within the 6T strip, as well as portions of
wall and their external loads not supported in the vertical direction outside the 6T strip, are imposed on the selected wall strip. However, the contributing stif fness from adjacent wall sections outside this strip is not considered. Stresses are evaluated using the working stress method of analysis. ~ The calculated stresses are checked against established allow-ables based on ACI 531. 4.0 CONSERVATISM IN THE ANALYSIS 4.1 Seismic Input Loads 4.1.1 Input Time Historv Two parameters are necessary to define seismic ground motion for the purpose of exciting a structure such as the CCNPP auxiliary building. One parameter is the magnitude of the earthquake which is conveniently expressed by the maximum peak acceleration, in terms of gravity (g). The second parameter is related to the frequency content of the earthquake and can best be represented by a design spectra. The design spectra, adjusted to a specific peak earthquake acceleration provides the entire definition of the earthquake necessary to proceed with a seismic analysis of both the primary structure (auxiliary building) and secondary system (masonry walls). Based on the methodology selected to conduct the seismic analysis of the masonry walls, it is necessary to obtain floor response spectra at appropriate building locations. At the time the CCNPP seismic analysis was conducted, a necessary intermediate step required an input time history to excite the structure. Since the earthquake motion is . completely described by the design spectra, to assure conservatism, it is necessary to develop a time history having a response spectra which envelopes the design spectra. The 1940 El Centro E-W component time history was employed. The result, shown
'in Figure 4 is an irregular spectrum which exhibits substantial exceedence, particularly between the I to 10Hz range. Except at the 4
i
unimportant 0.6 Hz frequency and at frequencies above 10Hz a margin in excess of 20% is created by the time history. A further con-servatism results from the jagged nature of the spectra developed from the time history. The floor response spectra reflects the irregularity of the time history design spectra but is smoothed by enveloping and broadening for design use. By utilizing this ap-proach the upper bound characteristic of the jagged time history design spectra is included as an additional conservatism in the floor spectra development. This phenomena is particularly obvious in areas of the spectra away from the structure natural frequencies. ' Since the enveloped smooth spectra is used to obtain loads for the masonry walls, these conservatisms are directly reflected in the wall moments.
- 4.1.2 Radiation Damping' 1
During a seismic event foundation motion of structures such as the CCNPP auxiliary building is fed back into the elastic supporting media. This disturbance of the soil is in the form of elastic waves which radiate away from the structure. The result is that a portion of the energy supplied by the earthquake to excite the structure is absorbed instead by the supporting media and therefore not available for action on the structure. Methodology to account for soil structure interaction was reported by Richart and Hall in the early 1970's. Their methodology provided for the determination of two parameters, stiffness and damping, to address these interaction affects. The stiffness parameter primarily affects frequency of response, whereas the damping parameter accounts for the effective , loss of building motion due to radiation of the elastic wave energy away from the building. The original seismic analysis of the CCNPP included the effects of the stif fness parameter but conservatively ' did not include radiation damping. l A study was conducted to evaluate the magnitude of reduction in i i
- ~ , .- --- - -_. _ . - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,___ , _ _ _ _ _
l l 1 response for typical floor response spectra if: (1) a time history were employed that would more realistically meet the design spectro and (2) if radiation damping were considered. The study was ac-complished by obtaining selected floor response spectra using the seismic models from the original analysis, modifying them only to include a soil radiation damping element and exciting it with a modified time history. The study utilized the El Centro N-S time history component, modified by the BSIMQKE computer code, a Bechtel proprietary computer program, so that the resulting time history develops a response spectra which compares more favorably with the design spectra. The result is shown in Figure 5. Radiation damping obtained from the Richart and Hall procedure were in accordance with the rules suggested by the Senior Seismic Review Team (SSRT) (Reference 3) for the SEP Program except that soil material damping was conservatively not considered. Shear wave velocity of the foundation medium is 1600 fps. Modal damping was determined using the Tsai Method. Increased modal damping due to the soil wave radiation effect was primarily concentrated in the first structrual mode, which is responsible for the major portion of the seismic response. Partial results of che study are shown in Figure 6. 4.1.3 Structure Embedment Effects An additional conservatism, not considered in the analysis, is the ef fect of embedment. Shown is Figure 7 is the mathematical model of the auxiliary building. The foundation, and the location of the input motion is a Elevation (-)15 feet. Plant grade is at Elevation 45 feet. Considerable recorded earthquake and test data substantiate the
~ reduced response of embedded structures as compared with those found at grade elevations. Figure 8 shows recorded data for the Humboldt
Bay Reactor Building. Free field surface peak acceleration is approximately 0.29g, whereas the peak acceleration at the bottom of the structure is in the range of 0.14g. Similar reduction trends were recorded in various structures in the Tokyo-Higashi-Matsuyama Earthquake of July 1, 1968, as shown is Figure 9. Note the re-ductions in peak acceleration with increased depth from grade of the recorded data. Other reduction with depth is shown in the data of Figure 10 and 11 for the Bear Valley and the Salinas earthquakes respectively. Unlike the other data, which more closely represents soil conditions at CCNPP, the data included in Figures 10 and 11 was collected at low "g" levels in soft mud. In addition, test data of a model structure excited by a shaker with sinusoidal motion in the superstructure is shown in Figure 12. The structure was excited in an unembedded state. Later the structure was embedded approximately 50% of its height and excited in a similar manner. Response after embedment was approximately one half that of the embedded structure. Embedment ef fects are a real consideration in reducing the overall structural response at CCNPP. However, the large reductions as previously discussed may not be realized because the structures at Calvert Cliffs are not completely embedded. 'In addition to the presence of the containment structures adjacent to the auxiliary building the portions of the structure to the east of the contain-ment is seismically separated from the main core of the auxiliary building. Separate seismic models represent the seismic response of the areas. Although analyses were not conducted to quantify the reduction in response, it can be concluded that a conservatism due to embedment effects exists. 4.2 Blockwall Analysis Additional margins of safety have also been introduced into these walls 9-
. . -= . . . - -. -. - . . .. . . . - . . ._ _- . . . i d
analyzed by'the BLOCKWALLS computer program. 4.2.1 Response Spectra Modification As discussed in Section 3, the vertical strip used for analysis is i selected in a manner that maximizes force (mass) and minimizes available stiffness and strength, thereby producing a lower bound wall natural frequency and capacity. Since the actual wall natural i frequency may be higher than predicted, and to assure that the l seismic loads are conservative, the floor response spectra for a masonry walls were modified as shown in Tigure 13. This modifi-I cation imposes the peak acceleration levels at all frequencies below the peak frequency. It is reasonable to expect that the wall
~
natural frequency may be higher than predicted by the analytical 1 methods selected since the stiffness denoted by the strip ignores contributing stiffness from the horizontal direction in plate ' action. However, accompanying the increased stiffness is increased , strength. Thus the potential for substantial overconservatism exists. If the vertical strip is representative of actual con- - ditions and produces natural frequencies below that of the peak natural frequency, the seismic "g" level force can be substantially overestimated, resulting in a vast underestimation of the wall ability to resist a seismic event. Conversely, in those cases where the actual wall natural frequency i is higher than predicted the modified floor response spectra ac-counts for the higher seismic loads, but the accompanying increase ! in wall strength is not considered. Thus the capacity of the wall may be substantially underpredicted. Since the magnitude of these l two ef fects vary from wall to wall a conservative generic reduction 4 factor to account for this phenomena is not practical. None-the-less, on a case by case condition, additional conservatism exists. I 4
= . _ . - . . - -
l 4.2.2 Moment Combination An additional conservatism occurs in the BLOCKWALL program related to the treatment of external moments. Specifically the combination of external moment and maximum seismic inertial moment are combined as an absolute sum regardless of their location on the wall. Thus I if a peak external moment is applied at the top of a wall and the peak inertial moment occurs at the bottom of the wall, stresses in the wall are evaluated for a bending moment equal to the absolute sum of the two. The application of external moments is further aggravated by the limited 6T width, vertical strip used in the analysis, which conservatively does not account for appropriate load distribution horizontally, which can be demonstrated by plate type analyses. 1
- Since conservatisms associated with external moment applications varies from wall to wall, depending upon the magnitude of external moments imposed, a generic factor cannot conservatively be applied to all walls. Again, on a case by case application this conserva-tism can be demonstrated.
I !
- 4.3 As-Built Strength of Walls
, In accordance with good design practice, the capacity of the masonry walls are controlled in flexure by the strength of the reinforcing steel. In the
- evaluation, the minimum specified strength of the reinforcing steel was used as the basis to establish allowable stresses.
4 A review of all certified material test reports for reinforcing steel sizes
#5 and under in the auxiliary building was conducted. The results are ! shmm in Table 3. Records for the auxiliary building do not isolate the 4
reinforced steel used in the masonry walls with that used in reinforced
! concreEe. However, a large portion of the reinforcing steel in this size range was used in masonry walls. As shown in Table 3, the average strength i
,,.~.-...,-.,.7_.-._.....,,_c,.y, -
..~,,_,._..,._m.,m..--,_%y.._.,y._.,. , _ _ , . _ - . , - _ , . . - . _ _ . - , - _ ,
l 4 l i of this steel is 50.4 ksi, and the minimum reported yield strength is 45.8 ksi. Based on a statistical analysis of the data, a yield strength of 46.1 ksi can be used with a reliability of 95% and a 95% confidence level. 4 5.0
SUMMARY
OF'RESULTS i i Since the energy balance technique has not been accepted by the NRC to 4 qualify masonry walls but substantial margins were known to exist in the elastic analysis, the alternative to use elastic analysis as provided in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report was adopted. Many of the conservatisms identified are generic in nature, in that all the subject walls exhibit the conservatism. A simplified but acceptable approach is to quantify the generic conservatisms in the form of a common reduction factor. These redtiction factors are then directly applied to the maximum elastic moment as determined in the original elastic analysis used to evaluate the walls. If the revised elastic moment is less than 90% of the wall plastic moment, all stress allowables will be met for the Design Basis Earthquake consideration. The Design Basis Earthquake controls the design of these walls. Conservatisms have been identified in the following areas:
. Seismic Loads l
- Input Time History
- Radiation Damping
- Embedment Effects 4
. Blockwall Analysis
- Use of Modified Floor Response Spectra
- Addition of Absolute Sum of External Moments to Wall Moments
'Obtained from Inertia Loads 1 - Use of Vertical Strip Analysis based on 6 Times the Wall Width
4
. Use of Minimum Specified Yield Strength for Reinforcing Steel The use of radiation damping in a manner previously found acceptable to the NRC Staff reduces the peak magnitude of the design response spectra to approximately 40% of that used in design. Combining the radiation damping with a time history produces spectra which more reasonably envelops the design spectra and results in a reduction factor at peak response of approximately 75%. The combination of the two factors, with no other changes to the seismic analysis results in response spectra with peak values of approximately 30% that used in the design. Considering the variation which may occur between floors, seismic directions and seismic models as well as the frequencies between th'e peak acceleration and 5.2 Hz (the highest wall natural frequency) a factor of 40% is a conservative comb'ined representation of these two parameters.
The recorded yield strength of the reinforcing steel was shown to be 115% the minimum specified yield. Wall capacities can be increased propor-tionally. Considering the generic conservatisms associated with radiation damping, an improved time history and actual material strenghs, the controlling elastic analysis stresses are acceptable for all 22 walls except 27A and 69K. Walls 27A and 69X are within 10% of allowable. Additional conservatisms exist from the vertical strip analysis procedure. By accounting for these conservatisms the walls are shown to be within acceptable stress limits. Figure 14 shows the most critical section for wall 27A which includes a support for a large group of conduits of approximately 750 lb directly above a 400 lb electrical box. Since the portion of wall above the conduit support is a grouted area without continuous reinforcing steel, the ver-tical strip was considered to be cantilevered from the floor. In accor-dance with the analysis procedure, no structural resistance was transferred laterally. All other vertical strips were found acceptable, even a strip to the west between the door and duct opening, which includes the mass
/ effect of one half the portion of wall interrupted by the openings. Based on studies done on another plant that considered the plate action of walls with openings, it is clear that the consideration of lateral stiffness will be sufficient to bring the wall within allowable stresses. In this study, it was shown that a plate type analysis reduces the stresses to at least 84% of that obtained from the vertical strip analysis, considering the effect of blockouts and concentrated loads. In most cases the reduction was even greater.
- Wall 69I is shown in Figure 15. The critical vertical section of this wall was taken to the south of the door opening. Due to an interruption at the top of the wall the vert.ical strip is consid'ered as a cantilever from the bottom. One half of the mass of wall over the door is added to the ver-tical strip without considering the accompanying stiffness, creating a severe imposition on the wall through analysis. Consideration of the lateral stif fness would suf ficiently reduce the stress to within allow-ables.
conservatisms discussed thus far, the actual Considering all the controlling stress in each of the walls in terms of the allowable is shown in Figure 16. Stresses in walls 27A and 69X were reduced by an additional factor of 0.84 to account for overconservatism resulting from the use of a vertical strip analysis. As the figure indicates, all 22 walls are within the elastic allowables. This result does not include conservatisms effects. These previously discussed but not quantified such as embedment conservatisms would decrease the actual wall stresses further. 6.0 CONC 1.USION The purpose of this study was to review the original elastic-working stress analysis conducted on the subject 22 valls to identify conservatisms in The excess of those necessary to meet minimum licensing commitments. j intent ~of the study is to investigate the previous evaluation ef fort to provide more realistic estimates of wall stresses. A review was conducted of maximum stress levels in the energy balance walls as shown in Table 1. 4 __.,_,,._._v.___y, , _ _ , _ _ . _ , , , . _ , _ . ,~_,_--.-m.,,__-_ _ _ _
A number of conservatisms were identified and are listed in Section 4.0. For some of these items, a " generic" lower bound level of conservatism can be easily and clearly identified. For other items, a wall-by-wall reanalysis would be necessary to quantify the amount of conservatism. In keeping with the intent of the study, and for clarity in presentation, only those " generic" items were quantified. These include the following items:
. Radiation Damping . Use of an Improved Time History Actual versus Minimum Specified Material Strengths The use of radiation damping, within the guidelines established by the NRC Senior Seismic Review Team, provides a peak response that is approximately 40% of that obtained from the original analysis. In addition, employing a time history that more nearly meets the design spectra requirements results in an additional conservatism. In general, a 25% reduction in response occurs in the f requency range of interest due to the time history effect.
Combining the effects of both the improved time history and radiation damping (with no other changes to the seismic analysis) and allowing some conservatism for variations in response between floor levels and directions of response, the stresses can confidently be reduced to 40% of the original analysis results. Wall capacity is controlled by reinforcing steel stress. Based on load cases associated with the design basis earthquake, the allowable reinforcing steel stress is 90% of the yield stress. However, actual mill test data indicates the yield strength of the reinforcing steel is at least 115% of the minimum specified so that the wall capacity is increased proportionally. Considering the combined effect of radiation damping, an improved time history and actual material strengths, all but two of the walls are shown to be within allowable stress. By utilizing the increased strength availasle from the lateral direction, which was conservatively ignored, the remaining two walls can be shown to be within allowable stresses. The conclusion is that all of the 22 valls in question are within allowable stresses based on an elastic-working stress analysis, in accordance with acceptable licensing criteria. This conclusion was reached without utilizing all available conservatisms, so that actual wall stresses are even lower than predicted. 9 1
/
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. BG8E letter from Mr. A. Lundvall Jr. to NRC - Mr. B. Grier dated March 20, 1981
- 2. NRC letter from Mr. D. Eisenhut to BG&E - Mr. A Lundvall Jr. dated November 21, 1984
- 3. Guidelines for SEP Soil-Structure Interaction NRC letter dated December 15, 1980, LS05 80-12-035 O
O 9 i
~. .. - - - _ .
J-i 1 i
)
4 i TABLES a FIGUES O
, , ,-- - ,,,--e,- - - - - - _ - , . - - ,-.,--,-n--,,__a -- , , ,.n, _ , , - - --, - -- -------a-, , ,- - -
l TEE 1 ;
SUMMARY
OF WALLS QUALIFIED BY ENERGY BALANCE PROCEDURES ME DUCTILITY ELEV WALL HEIGHT THICKNESS MP RATIO (FT) (IN) 27 A 15-3 12 2.81 4.46 27 R 15-3 12 1.39 1.46 45 T 21-6 12 2.16 2.85 45 V SEE SECTION 2.2 45 W 21-6 12 2.41 3,40 45- CC 21-6 12 2.33 3.2 45 DD SEE SECTION 2.2 45 EE 21-6 12 2.52 3.67 45 FF 21-6 12 2.18 2.9 45 QQ 21-6 8 2.50 3.63 45 RR SEE SECTION 2.2 45 SS 21-6 8 2.32 3.2 45 TT 21-6 8 2.38 3.34 45 UU 21-6 8 2.22 2.95 45 W SEE SECTION 2.2 45 A24 21-6 12 1,79 2.11 69 D 22-0 12 2.24 3.0 69 X 16-1 12 2.85 4.55 69 Z 22-0 12 1,69 1.92 69 VV 22-4 12 1,81 2.15
TABl.E 2 PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS MASONRY UNITS: ASTM C-90 GRADE N-1 (MINIMUM SPECIFIED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ON GROSS AREA = 1000 psi) MORTAR: ASTM C-270 TYPE S (MINIMUM SPECIFIED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH = 1800 psi) GROUT: ASTM C-476 (MINIMUH SPECIFIED STRENGTH - 1800 psi) t REINFORCING STEEL: ASTM A615 GRADE 40 (MINIMUM SPECIFIED YIELD STRENGTH = 40000 psi) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: VERTICAL REINFORCING 8" BLOCK 12" BLOCK 1# 5 0 16" 2# 5 0 16" HORIZONTAL REINFORCING: DUR0 WALL ANCHORAGE DETAILS: FLOOR: LAPPED WITH DOWELS WALLS: D0VETAIL CLIPS AT BOND BEAMS CEILINGS: FLAT BARS LAPPED WITH REINFORCING RUNNING BOND s
'f TABLE 3
SUMMARY
OF ACTUAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES i FOR REINFORCING STEEL IN AUXILIARY BUILDING
#5 AND SMALLER Yield Tensile Strength Strength Elongation Size (psi) (psi) (%)
Heat No. 282Y303 5 47400 75200 21.3 5 51000 83500 17.5 284ZO25 5 45800 74500 21.0 247X245 l
> ------- 5 48300 79000 23.5
------- 4 50000 75000 24.0 412Z1651 5 - 46000 77700 20.5 4 50000 76500 20.0 1712524 401Z3271 5 51100 85000 20.0 5 51300 80000 22.0 2072842 4 52500 78700 24.0 422Z9751 5 51300 83500 18.5 282Z138 4 54000 80500 17.0 284Z214 4 49600 73300 22.5 401A0791 401A0941 4 49400 75100 23.0 5 46500 75200 21.0 402A9211 4 49500 75500 23.0 170A061 4 50000 75000 22.0 480A1681 5 50400 79400 20.0 478A2961 5 51600 78100 24.0 282A180 5 51900 81600 19.0 217A089 480A1511 4 48700 76000 3 53600 77600 19.0 421Z2581 5 50600 77700 22.0 208A402 ,
4 50000 74500 24.0 218A051 4 48100 73400 19.0 480A1491 4 53000 82500 21.0 2083073 5 51300 77400 21.0
! 250A227 4 52000 79500 26.0 208A574 5 52900 81300 21.0 217A093 4 52000 80000 20.0 218A055 5 47100 76800 23.0 183B595 4 52000 81500 19.5 1835990 5 50300 81000 21.0 2843126 22.0 4 51000 81500 208B243 4 48000 74000 20.5 402Y6431 4 47500 74000 24.0 480Y0801 4 50000 79000 16.0 2508112 19.0 5 49400 78700 2085706 20.5 172B770 5 47400 77400 4 55000 84500 17.5 2093253 i , _ . . - - .. -- . _ .. _ _ _ _ ,. . ~ . ~ . _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ . _ . - - _ . - . . _ . , . - - . . - . . _ , _ . , . . _ - . _ _ , . _ - . _ . , , . . , . . _ _ , -
L TABLE 3 (Cont.) Yield Tensile Strength Strength Elongation Heat No. Size (psi) (psi) (%) 207B874 5 55800 84800 19.0 1 290B085 5 49700 81300 20.0 284B137 4 51000 77500 21.0 217B008 5 48700 79700 20.0 401X200 4 44000 71000 21.0 286X232 4 50000 75500 21.0 209B496 5 46100 73200 23.0 183B947 5 48100 75800 27.0 1 283B129 4 54500 82500 16.0 172B728 5 48400 77400 23.5 207B966 4 50500 78500 19.5 208B660 4 53000 80000 22.0 173B624 4 51500 81000 18.0 402X7851 4 46200 72500 23.0 219C019 4 54000 86500 17.0 217C045 5 48400 75500 23.0 217C213 5 52900 84500 15.0 217C907 4 53500 83500 15.5 207E193 5 49700 76500 20.5 I W W k
., - - - - . . . , _ , . . . . , . _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ - - , _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _.,..,c... _ , _ . . . . . _ _ . , , . _ - , . . . _ _ . . _ . -
l.
.d.~. = . . :a , Q :.::
- , -- . ..~ . . . - ...'.. - . .- -- J A .
t. (. .t + 5 , e . I NA~2 Q L.** " # ; I um Qt G m
.,- '""k a- -
.. m r
c [-me. se es. mm, . r ," ' g V""" 4
!"C ,
- n :s F$E g d6 \ s M ly i u.a r I 14 Ma as :::::,,b m m 8g i-n 1 (*'/
m ~ ~ . n \ g (d., g a._ " T ,
**~f gom T ,. =ma- Y, "'=
_1 _j N M c1rw t. *- ,,Jr,J#.A - g me
. m.
A, v@ { f'_.
.r 7 - *
,,.. f-
, .D iI st4 TdNrf 1 BBE J-
./ g_=.J F -9 1'
'j .,4) g - i.- , _ . i . - ig-t
> _ MA g_ *
' A k..
~'U_"h, I ~ @= m.MA &l. .-
b . , r. _ y. c. a
, 3 ._
zw j ,, g 1 g _]r-- e::.=2 :.q. \------ i ,
/-
/
L. .- -
. y
.. l c ,
; E ne*EA ~ . bEI1M .C g@~
r nar m- em --- pnN
,y,g w.,
m.~ f d [ . -- >- 11 Lg+; ^ 1 p.
..,tesa.
__ 9y e--- w(. w a33 =a g V
' 7 '""* 4~K[
i
% E' l
l
. .q.
,EZ-" C,',f". . , , , , _ . r .;;- - '--
-y c "
Jr, --- w j
.. t P p==
'e . ,,,___ y -
1 { .\ l Q. $
- $- - r su. I
\'*"'***.*\ .'1 Wu em e
ev s_..- 1 ._ T M ~47 _
*Y~v/ 'r ~~.t*t,'2 l n ':::;r -
l J j 2 2 j 4 s 4 i l l l ._
y-.,.,.. -
- i i W ,^
/ N l l e .
~ _
1 ==mm 1 MfY PLAN es.ee4 wah., 9 __ v,, e__ ti s
- =- - -
e-_ s Em ... .- .. 7
%x % , e.-~......- c
_ g.,,,_ e - .- m ... ] _,-
=. .
e 6 5e
.=
, .-a.a 7 n . . . w -
.cKi^
=WW .
'~~
n . .. . . . . -,
" y A T. 1-p =b Also Available On --m / i.re Aperture Cara .
y4 1s t
. r' il .:V . ...
g .. fa. . 3 /2 1_=t. 9,4' % ;" TI
,. m-~ 7
.. J7 !, APERTURE _
o s . .. _,
- . E.*G.'
i
's -
g CARD
-.c-2 cM. t r- -r L r
1 _2 a r :a..)..x _
... i.;,._, _ _ we r -
=- L _ man ce s a,,m.
, _ _m _
It:^._. ,y . e LL g g-
.w
~~
#m- .-
i ScP.C,Y cuAuf scD ar cneu,r uoaa o k,~', stGTHOD.
/ mw _
[_- _ . . . k,
\. ..
H -
~
Mam/# BALTIMORE GAS A780 ELECTRec COMPANY P CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLE AA POWER PLANT CONCetTE V.Y4uW watt LOCATio% AUXILLARY 8tDG AND CONTAlkutest , f LOOR PLAN AT E L ger4* , d W4Xt, l
, e i a i n I u r i i i
1 .
\ - .\
o- .,' A .
, g . ..
~ ~
g 27 > l Q" ) ;
* ' >RVV Td T lA A Ap- A A
. L #,
PL AN At ft 51 f C q a =: -- yw = . n,., . ..,
; ,_ _~n+ _ , .. n ,.
, n u
- -w
. y*.
A il 9_b m g -1,, y - l39< ==m= --- .m t ,_ ; g
, W;
".5 es .: w -
N.s ar
% 3 A AOA }g a
-p=.=m .. -
- g i i b L ,. ras y}
m
~
W., ? Es
^
}g .
th
'u 2.Wf 1 . u
, A.V
/g %
r; M . TA
.%y\O.. ._ .,Oh)e$$N -- m i
e _.......t. 4.. - TT s k1. g; . g j
-.. ~ ~ .
, , x
; t,--V , fl - .
( __
.,-g.,,,. - e ,, ..g ._ , _ _ ,.
8/ yf y _. . f ..s m ' s , fi._ wd ac _p Qij y [' a --
,- k ,
3 me e:t?--
~
a < . m .,
"6 =........=.-.....m -
. y W %, .. /g, [7.Y, m=== > ~ ;h ~. I i a =
], /,
O 8 CU ; A ' b' v h' x x p / (. e .
'==. 4 3 e.
- e. = . - =a s 3
h I e 'A s , , , , 'rz. j ,
,'~mg'.w p r =u ==s ."'., .f.'Y.,4
, %" .t". P v&_. y H w = =====
,t .
\,
! i 1 2 l 2 1 4 I s i 4 I >
i i 1 l l _ 1 4- A l l ~ l -I . l+ - s a r.r .soeat, <
,,,6.
m s . e..,....-~ e EM
- e -* ~
.: y -
m. 2
^,
. ,mga s ...'. . +*.a m e.e..s e... . -
y g - , . , _ . s ....w . e..
= * = = = = - -
,g$, EE1 -
S g EE .= _ 7 7""__ ~.e mL g e ~ ~
~ .. z---- , 39 ,
D pJ i g__p_. p.,al
? -
E gn wnsm e
~ .
.,.n em.
d as . . , - r. - .... 4 m.- 4i - e _. _ gg g=. ,. y1
,2 p\4-%.
s f ;:- 3s h ' Wyh :fs0 $j i Also Available On Apertare Cari!
- s. m g <r . .
_. g . 2
. .- . :x -, .._ _.
{}. , 2:,7y f s J. & -- ' - T1
' s
._ o APERTURE ,
n.y ' ':= g.g 9- e,.',' N mSARD g .p. :n
* .,,. . _, 16* y sum M -m Eluita
- --m.u _
n
*p= ' p'
- n.m W&L1106431CIL T1004
'3, ....
u , g5 - ct x ;;;]. = o
- 1 Q w4u. sy cuccc,y ouruscowuce L
Av
)r 2 [ kj E JH o,D ,
m p
, ,,,, j ~
,6
"#.'.' H 1'$0/240/'?9-6%
BALTauoRE G AS AND E L ECTRIC COh*PANY CALVERT CLIF FS NUCtt AR POutt R PLANT COsa G T[ usT Ut'v wt.lt (O(t4T O6yy J AUXILLARY 8tDC. AND CONT AshMENT e # F LOOR PLAN AT E L. 45'4-Sil@ ADCED WALL AS(. "" 1 ' I * .I - ' I 'a i a l u I u l
i i 2 I I 4 i s i 4 l W
- _d* _
A
,, .6-
[ ] ee 9 e,- g ]
=
- - 3
_ [ ] f a 8 g h ]
. _ s. .. ,i a- w N
~ _ , , , , ,
\
essme ey
--a -n I /
L4fvtiviCNy u u. ra . I
- p. m4
.nq hg Ed '
LJ E ' '
- M
; n . mm E Y W M y lh - c-o
= - - = = = >
-n _ _R m r7 i , n y g ;J
%sa- rg
_c. 9- *: , (HI a u a a g L
.g,,,- .;. ._ -
.i x l a== _
.= -
_ :. 2 .. ct, 4] e p
/ < ? '$
- a:au. m inn,s 3
-p r ., - -
w g-- , yx $ [Q Q., _ , .,.g y- g.(g t . m.::. - :e.lar s ' 1j
,y ,
a, . _ yy-
. - . .m .-c-- - -
4~-
- g. . .; gg mg
( j
. -- 6
'C. j yL[G *&W ..
p:g. :q .) g /WWA". _
.I rggy[QQ,,}
E
~ ~ -g~x_
~
y w=
- . f p.,(.x 3
, 4 ., 'WP
;r. ---t ,g} % ,.- ..M ]k s.4 g.7"E"~h s a
j ' o el M'. s /. a% / '
,[
,1, 7,,,
l/ '.N g y - f-
/'7 %
.p f g
~.
N m I'\,.l ,/ _ t i ' e> g g ****
/ 's l @{ l_h__
/
M H
==
,,. . . 6 . . . . . 6~ -
- l I ,
I o I o i n i n
.g 4 --
h I
, . i t
yrv.h
~~
f e ..... - . - . - . . % s . . . . ...- . u.- - - c e - _. s . . . . . . . , .
,3 , h__u -
3_--) .<.. . ! wc . , . ~ . . g q.- . s --. .- e e -. -
- g. v w s . . . . . ..- .. ~ -
- t. rM nn- EFr -- - -- m - - ~
S E
'- ee.o '3 " ." 8h* f,
- % m, y -f
- 8 E . . ' "
i
-.6- s _"",...
l c o g-/g ~..@- . '- s
- . , . m s - -
b., . mn ~ . . - f::'.[- e . , ' .. . . 1 ,s. /.. c;w 'W Awo Avallable On L i m .U w) " . " '_-D. _ *
.m w \.
Aperture CarH-I x9 w' fr 5/ " H i ' __. - ]. . j7 ,' . :
- g. .j TI APERTURE
, \
kj = Q'i
=
c
.T CARD ,
- .Y
, , g p
e W 4 [* I -' tgtyn w; . - 't . - nameco.,anov ce siw ano m - kuw s. . W 2E m e w roteu R _ a 2;* . '_ ~~. , D *- __ WALL C'.'Allf C 6Y G gNW)) y ( Lt_ -.
- f .% k I k$
e j C 6*." %'"* l; g =.nr- -
\
r p Q\ l l$-hh SALTiMORE GAS A7u0 ELECTRsC COMPANY CALvt mi CLIf f S WUCLE Am Povrf R PL ANT COMFI15 M."AOt.EV Watt 10( ATICAJc, j AUEILLARY SLDG AhD CO%TAINWLNT f LOO 4 PLA4 At to 2T4" ag4xg 3
- <e
FKtVR.E4: CROUND RESPONSE SPECTRUM OF EL-CENTRO QUAKE, E-V COMPONENT FOR 5.0 7. D u - Pt.RfD too ao ao ao 40 30 to e e a5 4 3 2 80 hjiulijlli ljilill,il ilyl IJil II (I l 1 I g hiujBilhlil Jyil I,Il IQll- )I i(ll(Il{lQ 80 _ .- j\ s/ f \ s \ ,, x > y< 7,ys ,
,e fg p g 's sp,p s g \:
s s v . x, / ,s. s - m
->G
- r /'s
'v7<' X/ i s ,. SPEC.TRA ARE FOR A MAXl
-w s . /A/ /
X n x< \ s' s ,<'s. -sACCELERATION 3 N ' 2,'[ /
- >j / (s/ /
As / N ,< O 5
=- >'/ s'\'_ s
/'/ / - s N s \ss w / ,- s Ex \,X s N,sy? '. y,s / ,< <,N A,'. xyNs d'/ // A r/%
s to ,-7--g r
-\r ,K'c s\ A s \ /j
/ / ('
C \/ \ ePj' /
/ ,
Cs /N \ \ / / \ g 'vf[N s es '< ( ,
~~
/ \ 'h / ' ,
,/ 'g \ V
,j, y 'x ',x: / /
O% 8 - N //// ,x
' v, ?'x A
. A-~X N N's,Veg i
N ,'kh< s/// v ' /'v'N /sV ,. 'N' Y 4 * ,7x / ,- >: /,./~, ',c c zeg / vj / . ,< / v ' . x m,I se m a gg_ j,f,4j j ,v,, , 4 ,\ y, q , j, jff,s j j ,f (,3 (,gy 4 e
- Elil/%
/
Jh / % . ' /\
' ? '
lN$//, ,' / s' y' [
.! ' . Y 41 g 6- /,'/ 'x' / N '/- ,s s, Q ' M (l' R4-,/'AX ht lO g* =ym ,i ,6 ,/ N ',g$gq,j)^y/7y% ,.
=b!^
en N x u 3
%@X , s
-/
=s 'hy\ ('/gN y
%f G A
/(,/j XM\'Mi x 4
/ \
N '/ ' ')r'Q sg 's
/' . *l,
'\
x
/ Y,/.
'M
.X N.
/
,V ' \/ N\ j/ '/.
~* \,
- s\ < /, /, 't
)(
g U)
,, m g
a ,<N s KsN\'{;m{Q,'S 8 v9 i - ,
, (<X[N.'j')
< . :. n
'/ '
g o N/N ' ' / - e .. s:/
/7'*//..x / XDy,'O a
gh d
>g
~N M/rN A2y'i'
/ s >E s Ms,(' R 2N A h_
x t _dI4
~~
- Q -I 'f' >~ ?P' ' {hi a, '*',"' ?' h,Nf~
' sf'^5 v '
~\
f ~ ,'Y N;
^ ' ~ '
I G7 ^
^
A's.s.' - % ' /z ' . N, -%.-
s "-
re p ,, = 56" '. / A y\
/'
/
s. s s
/_(_.y s.
s x 7% g. ' -
/s y ,,
,xt A ,v+ s 4<
s, g'.i' ,
==c/
\& / /
g3 .
A A > / \ s / .. sf
/ s N '.
/ .'t .
- y'/
g - f s - N s' f
,, M g- ,
/
's ., .N.ty/s,j
's y , '
s
-c. O)r/s'/),
-\ > 't s' /
3
/
A 'v
- ^ /s ,c',
, e
/ s - v x s s /
g) l l l l' (( . !! f l ,I Il II!I !!!! !_lll l .l l*II ll fl p}el ll llll llll llll M ll!! ll3 l I 5 0 04 G02 a05 C04 c5.06 .06 0.1 a2 a3 a4 GS as G8 FREQUENCY IN
" "' as _
l
puse a secomes 08* 088 "' "'
** 9 4 88 Y 9 "
oJ ,4 , 4 gigijipaupu pi(iip i tipi iui ill,il y gynin.ninjui ijiyii,J Iil i Z' M ,' /' s/ 'x 's XR&y'/
^
x/\ '* inylip(il(;[J
'\
MUM HORIZONTAL GROUND p' [y K'[s'y .
/ s PERCENT OF GRAVITY ~y$,k /, ,s y j 's I',yyRh , /
m < ' s A ^A
', ?>
YX' N'yR ,'
+ w ,/,'
th , y { ' 't m, p s y ;s vs;,. s e/ t 7 , v, , 2 N , v , y / x yN g, / x ' 'N > ,' ,, 'y ,C ?' h,A ,
- 's, xx :, :> s /
-n.m,- ,. ,~ ,w n
[ _[/ /
- . '#\ / . ,I 'N 5. )) _\Wk' , )\ [ s /\, A h's
' jN ./\ sSe/,N./ / A, s /s s_ ,(' N s ,', .
,% ,% \.%NXN',',..l'o'/ ,l,(
L /, ', ' W'/ h _ _ e,',
/ % %,~'
s./ * ? q l ,~s NAk s, / /b N,
, \_ w /f
/N/ \x s s ' . b
fx 2 s ,s hx;c,,N'
/ /
' </ \ NL. A pI, O ./ / N. \ '
v 6 e
\
v s' Ls / / 'N / ' - - [ WA s'fC)&g$'.'M Ms O'jMsfg\s s M,' ,XJs ' NX U s K
' V ' -
4' ' > v'-
) A ,,o Avallahte Om
', ,s< .\/ 4 s A(s\
s .
\perture Gerd x
g
- q ',s s, N, q\ NNr s / ,s -
/s s N q%.-
- - ,s f s ,
/
e,
^ *
- A N
X % 's 7,(- / Y
.
- s s. N N y ,
- s, ,. X ,^ <
s, / g s /y .N (Y' N ,, / ' y
,(. ex , s'<% TI f ' e' M' t . 1 s, , ,
i . , WERTURN
.Je.f%}4. Vc{Ud, 'v;(,,'^,. <;'Ni, .dTM M@,
. - ZC,,M,d ,
Li , , $.i.: .
,/, -"f: , ,,
M.Qs1
. . ,, s
?
,' , zi,y ;
o',', n > ,./,
,\
s
, .s CARD
/ *
',N -
'% '6 , s l, s
~.
,,/ , , .
# \
.nNN +[/ ' A .,/
' N
/
/ .5 f y '* x.m,
/N x -
N 'gh o
/ / ., -
O \ / , _/ N \ K' ,
, g,gA. .rs s @ y ,y.
s >$ ,c :,,q
- s. . g ,
/.s m o v./A u s 3 7 j s, ' ' ' .[,. '% 3 h, s'N's ' k f g[.,-
^:
>' < s k.< / N. s - 3., w.u n.. ,,, .
< - - 8 z # ,- . - - m- ,
' N <', s- N - s. . -,. s, ,
', y'.
N ' ., s,. ,'# M ..
,s s, s ws 5 e r5 x ,s 1 ' ',*
Nr Ar g g., . %'S / g s
,y/ \ ,e ,5\ '\./A > (g /
j N % /\, :(g ( - > ,
- \
la lIIIlhif 1 HHili1 S1[N[lita1.I'ilIillU[-[111lh [1110 in 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 10 0 Hini lI CYCt.ES/SECOND
9 5% DAMPING LEGEND: ........ DESIGN SPECTRUM IMPROVED TIME HISTORY 60 o Y Q" T o ,. O z S E a: e d. OC n a- -
/ Adk, k '
~
-\..
.. ,x _ . . . . ._=2
- /
O~ j -,
, s O
10' 10' 10' 10' FREQUENC) CPS Comparison of Spectrum Obtained from Improved Time History with Design Spectrum FIGURE 5 IMPROVED TIME HISTORY
FLOOR RESPONCE SPECTRt. Aux. BLDO.-East-WEST DIRECTION MAX F.186.866
'l ll C CiI
( 7% DA> 'IM E
. ANaLisIs I
I i L
,39% of origin:i1 -
980ta"'.DN DA>P:NO Peak Acceleration ,A RR L IDN 04.*1h 0 [ i, 29% of Original Peak Acceleration 8 -
\/(
( ' IP?hECTIPdHf5T@ 7 i l l I ( J f' f% ' a ru , .. ,:-fY 18 ts.a see.e 8~ FREQUENCY (CPS) FIGURE 6 CALVERT CLIFFS - FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA
g, EL .117. 5' g, EL. 91 ' ,, y, EL . fo9 ' q, EL. 45' g, GECUMD ELEV. y ,
,, E L. 27' y ,
EL.E'
- -- -- & - .? E L . (-) 15,
, z; gg l t
k" ' DAW ERS INCLUDED FOR THIS STUDY ONLY (NOT IN ORIGINAL ANALYSIS) FIGURE 7
O , l
- l l
m .- p 7 . m. as . . . Il . Sn . l , W . @_' , , . . . __ -_ ,
.__ _ f .
. _m' m .i'.
b .. , L
- qi.,m- -..-.-
_.p' . . . - , - g, ,, ,. . .
,.g
. J g . . . , , . . . .
i e e e e e a g! e e B
=; . .
u . u m lll '
. )
m i g -
._ k -
._i..Il t. ! t .t t ' -.r-
> u. . m._
. i 0 -, q q, y . ei . ;
. .es .
. . .n.. . . . .' .
.gg .
. -=e* =43
. . . . e e . F
-e . ........
- n. ;
l
. 1 0
e 7 4 s pu. ..__.... . l
~
c ._i. ... . ... l -- Maoe to eff sier ! a *
^* Medes defuge wad
^*
Deries seres 00 ~ ___.C War, .eif f came I I n - w , a. , o es . c. . . . I _
-- u .
. I
)
co - Da . a a 1 am _
. - _ . .Jil' .
3 q .
. t o-
. a e !
e a e e e
- g. .
U = m' . g19 en . as - p , m __ Wr Y
-'Y"'
di - 3E5- en - e 9 R . e a a e oe ea mass a a a l *e. am amme 9- - a w Fig. 8 GROUND MOTION RECORDS AT HUMBOLOT BAY POWER
*1 up w =2 + r.w3- ;E*, 4 ~L.
-c 2.2 _ ___ --
.z.m-n .w www.
\
. i Mozimum Acce' .non - g , O C O.02 C.M _ hqs OM O.IO_ O.12 I P e 1 l Siity sond and sitty cloy ,e e , te . O to 15 ** 50 Silty cicy and send 8
.Ee N = 2O **
80 - IOO . Great imd sa% povel ' , i 'g e Earthquote esog.= 6.4 4 5 Epicentraf Dist. = 2B miles
's I Focot Depet: m 30 miles
% ,\
d %%-
, 200 _
is 5 .
$s
*t Growty so W ond
,, sandy stoy ,6
., = 6000 tt. .g
\
i e t I e i 1 .0
~8 I 4 E
i
; 300 1 f stimated i 1 VARIATION OF RECORDED MAXIMUM ' ACCELERATION WITH DEPTH FDR BUILDING
, IN TOKYO-HIGASHI-MATSUYAMA EARTHQUAKE JULY 1.1968
,O EnkUfC k n . . - - , - , . - - . , . - - _ . .
l
* ** '~= .. .. .. . ,
j 1 l l I l' .
'I ! l !
} lli I I
= - wdve..wic".4WpkydlfW#w w.w, l
N #1,- : T Lt;l} '_ l%Qf;ne*yq),", ;-_- ,- -n ;._ ::__ - -- x-
- ^ 2: ':-
l t , t I i e 7) 30 40 50 60 L 10 20 I Time . Seconds l I VARI ATION OF GROUND MOTIONS WITH DEPTH IN U.S.G.S. ARRAY DURING BEAR EARTHQUAKE OF APRIL 9, 1972 ; k I i t h !y - . . FshuRE 10 r - - _ . _ _ - . _ . . . . -
I
- . . -. . . ~ . . . .
,i .
j . _ _ kkWh$!!{IN** . fg ( )g l nUNNsV'f*l*W& s
~
1
- :=
- ?h' j.1:.R 4lw: -i: v=== = :- I2 M- -
1 dyyggnm-: AOm- - t t e i I t 0 10 to 30 40 50 Time - Seconds
. VARIATION OF GROUND ETIONS WITH DEm IN U.S.G.S. ARRAY OURING SALT #LS (CALIFORNIA) EARTHQUAE OF MARCH 10. 1972 f
l Y -- _ _ . . Fiqua II , .
o . I_
= -
S
. i
= 0 _ shaker g .- -[* _,
il150 l' 283 Il 150 ll WI I E IE 15 15 15 15 m , 1500 Model Building and Outline of Tests
** =
a w., s.ae
, ,G f p4
- u .g-T[b ," WU
h
'4% _
i ( se =
- y %. -
^
3 m a sx m a m ee ar er '
, _ A ,
, ) N , # #
" r\ sk "
f~ k
- i v Je A-l ., ,, . >> u . . .e Results of Vibration Tests before and after BackfiR l
- JAPANESE SHAKER TEST l Ficocs r /2
.- _ == ~
1 LEGEND: FRS
- --- FRS MODiplED BY BLOCEWAl_LS PROGPAA i
K.CELEPATION s (9) _ _ _ _ _ _ FREQUEMCY Flace.s to: REPRESENTATIVE FLCOR RESPOMSE SPECTRA f m ,-w -
,e --,
a n- - - >
, si . _ . _ - . . - .
- g. - --
m e # 1 /1 + cowouiT - - l ~;n t - - % p' yr. , t 'A MM " c2eur gi_ts.> us ' ' A -
'e'
*g V - 2 8.g"d "=l ( ,
pf. 7,f6 - J W/ CodOOIT PEUTS. e - r+ . =i ce ~){
. . e,,; 4 % gi.,'
f;h h5*+ pay .. '&W '
.=e $i cn_sTI , $
K C <-v n se.'i %= y.,x -; !jAA!? ,' , s x
._~e
" Ti, , x '\'"x NN \ N N'N
_ _4'4 i2. -_ 4 -re -
'e'\"3 s \
-3.,
7 x x gh. x v s a ,, ,, mu.
~
4N N \ \ N !(EEE
' ~
/
,I.,n vi
$~[l ug, o e; N N N N N i etooo =
a T \ N x\ x=x\ 1 '"/ " "' 9 o. Htw
'o,+F +--
- = := 1- n l'- 2 = r .;
N p LD. - N
=,g g N
\ \g N
6 4p N.*.xtu. p \ \ \ _ _ tIEE essco_L l , g CONDUlT $ \ \ \ \ \ ' f=
, f !
SUPT. E \ N \ x \ \ = ~= I r ? rtar s @ 2'd
. 3 . cr- i. seu r N
\ \. \.\ \ \ \
s s
~ ' ' ~
( II g W t
>t.
MORTAR
~ * " '
=
, _N
J ,
f aciur m g) ,
,, ..
- msn.--
= ELEC. BOX a ~,7 srmieu IJ COSA\
Ed Y g , b N - 13 7 -
- f c'. .-
l.
%, [_; ',.;
J. l
' \ _. . .
- - N cp - - =j-- i / ;
l'-9" _ 7,-9,
. g ._ [ , 3,, , ,
4 - I e =' 4 '- 5' _
\ _
5 O" _ 2 5( ge ii
. a
\ _Oe; s
=!
Oi T: ' _~ j N; El.7 -O y h 30' - 3" LCRITICAL S~=CTON
* ~ ~
. 1 wut. ro_ w .u- ._ WALL . ELEVATION. (.LOOKlb WALE 2.7A
-- ~ _
FIGURE I4 -
#8,9i 2" MASS ADDED TO . - . . - - _- . _.
l1 l CRITICAL SECTioW-) % ,
-k j-2*+ cowo r /a3 ~O N 0000
^
'l '-
--Y ,
-~
~ C/ dI s ," ' 38/2_ (A p' c i I / ' </ 4 g i 1 11 I h- _qLosuE L~ ~ "~ ~ f
*# 46R t.ocut04S oi:CouD.oo o'l L ' DU CT, cP5MIMQf b!. \ 4 cABt.E TRWS IN.THis A2sh.
T-3 x'2'-fi " . . _ g N.3t Aocit s.sv. wAt.L*A* _1 _ 3 3 y._ i'i ,& i .cp.i i '. e- i'.o l*] i '4"_ I I X E I'/ " ditt
'~ )
~
2 T,",+
.__ 4 coemen-n _ _ . _ __
, , - . - P3300 % l'/g.Lfa Tu fSE f
Wl'I.z't sot.T - ~~-'
~ -
t'- B" J !- unTAL't~ F2 ave '. usTucc. t r,ws r-cz ap an. ,.es - r0 ~ 1 ci;yt c m) roir. .6 . j$vytiddi) -!(%"* [ l \ ki+ car"= 'uS5a h ,,,C ,, 'g *y'.j"[- L# j
~
1 . x . . . _, du y 4
=
M'A's co'egee 6se l ' 4% cou s e d ;.3-
~ '
' ^
i = . r e . o i x a . J. rgU
, i was i e S
g SEAca . 7- ;. dec.. L ( n u e 2) y ,, #
,i g ,,
Se ; L u u i m u T e i w ., - t' . '
-pawc rame 8
~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ '
I"o Q. 4V ** {n catP itt. T%i55 . (2 's + us:s) ; g' -. n g
- i
^W Available on I, . _ __. g.3a, 4 4 .h Aperture Card
\ _ =_yg,pg . cgu.q__/
f 4 m
! r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - '
I 1:
= Tl x a
.j a
_i APERTURE .; N. . .____ . ___ ..
.g .
6
.. . _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ . . _ . .....)
1 l l f. v !' \ 1 e y ___i! 8h,i CRITICAL S ' *- E SOUTH) . - . . . .
~ ~ 55cnou ----
- Loc ATio4 Y5
%@u/77 d5
o
- I' Nsiit...cAuE'.*l i N ST P.. c a ne ' D_ mSR.'PANEt.
I-SV .,t- T_E. I-5V- E.: 7.3 f. SV-54 27. I-TC 6577 l-TC-G578 . E-TC-G5 77
=* ..~ ;. .
R 4 i .c., .,
.r *..
, N, : .. .
, oucT 4 l I'
! FACE. CF S~E E*, C' . 'G3548 -l l i p
/ / ,*q 2
J I a i:
!-[w);'.3.2-i /2 .
a:t.Ts.
. i
- r. t . .-
m . , .., m e ..o
. i,c\
u I 's > v
!- !, -fE- - i
. . \
CAEl.E N - , \W[/j LiIc5 , , Il,;
~
- l. ;
~
l}c e l b'\@g%22ad y %> 7 y gr ,o .:. i' '
#7 th4ce2A1774 Q g K ?[*h g///j l
i
;, l 'm ;
= 3j'dC AIA7.7Go q .
,y o u N ,- rfg,g , ,Ag t
. r. No h - ,
33:i i
. a ,3
%((/ b!a!
2 ! , 93 o k , o d 2 r gaj;li :ge .9 t- --
%"5.pq 'b ! h 'i' E g h"
w _; e !. , ,
- O.f h._ li ,
3 O o o-,\,+. . t.c cee_ / 8 a. p-y; 5 [i'-8 M-7K
,.c
\ -
345
/
/ Ssh.. !
PAntt. o - i . . . M<
- i* --
F 0 Qt S afd +
- g. ,- ,v . t a a _.
3,
~~ ~ l I
w W : # \M t , . 1 3 > e o .. . i; eo -y re::bi k__ , " /
- 1 I
- l =:
po e. - h) X y- / .r:! - 4V , A x. g sv. p j, . .. . I X.,_ .
\
m ., h-Md-
-{y ,- f- - --
I p $)g, -
- - - ,- r 6,
T r.c/
~
3 -5' s'- 1" _6
@ MASS ADDED TO ~'__ ._~~
CRITICAL SEC. TION CELTIC.AL = F^ l C= \
' g=c- , a y -- _.
t 3
.. I 7
- A I C O N C. 8 M . _- ___ . _ ..__ .... .._. . _ . . . .
f 3 . . *. . .*,, .. TUM CASN4 . . . .__ .-.e* . ' *
- ...*.. = 'd l es .
T M.J.J ,
.i.. d. , . . . _ _ _ . 4,
_._ _ - . _ _.= o g . 4 1 @ g ... 10 s -- er l2 w: i l i i J l $_ ;- y ,co,, a
= - , : s t-1" V
~ r 1 . . . .
,4 _.
.E
- 1 ._ .
. . . - - ..g
- 5-- -Q- ...-.-.-g
... ~*' m estAc isc, Fost h TUBE L-CAS IMO.
=.t'.
.M ~
LAME HVAC *O i
- g -y '
l buPPOR.T ,', 2 -
+., ._ . _ __z_._ t- 9- i I
.g , . . . __
e ;.+ t ,;. t L , , g-
+'* ,t, .t. N ._,
y ERCO #0E 5 'l,' ~.$
- m. (
[.9 l . m: T .* I , o m "7- , T USIN Cf , A N1 4 s
- e
.c= . - + -
l- . =a . _.c
. . . . - s _
g:- l i .Il b- k. . . . . 71 c..
~F 'C' e; x? , ~
':. aJ 'i _ _'
z.e.
,_ = r =- ensTR .
l P A N E.L C_' + .:.% ' t -
++
~ g mz+
+d I
,.7 e , ;
- l " . !.
s,. s.: . i l i se = o a ., 8 . 1 -l i ~ g .e# - -- ch. .- s . U & ;2 N E g
.- - n
.e c. .
v - O G 'm 2 _ .
'--- I _. w
'N Wu .h digg y
._ ..._ - ...-.-.--_ -_. - . - . - . . --- -~-
gperture M - - -- - - : :
.~M J. j o o e m,_. . . . . .. _ . _. ._ _ ..- _. ... . .. .
.r ,I . <c~~ i
-- - E LEVATIO Wr WAT ~E 7J9T< APERTURE gg gang . . _ _
JRE 15 . . . . . . .. 0b5h '
- i. .
s
- l. . . -. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ - . . . . . . . _ . , _
q . . - . _ . . - . i _ , 3 l 0 . l
.. . i .
N 2 u I 1 M.J. d _ l ll i .. . _ _ l ll V~ l'k_C.. . (E~c30. l,l) ( ;
- F i
..,,f-di--g s TUBE CAS!wG ... rTl l
. , i < , .\ s si s
( . .6. ** - --- . I'.9 g g
. . . . _. _ . _ .. . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ z . l g l _.
-. ( - , 3'-v To - --~ -- - - ;
l'-
$~
.. + -ll l
_'4 INSTR. PANEL -
- O *2 . i+,. + + , +1 - a l **t i
.. .a . , o ,
..t,
. e e o . i+ .-( .. . .
l r+ N
* =
\ s.^.
I I .w-c ..-i. __ i T I
- 3o=
o -
' bd ausT R. -
y g . n .
. p4y =. { .
g_ , o . . . ! t9 + 1; ,
- --- 4
, 4 " I _1
} %. . '.s g li,, l s a
. . .. o ,
.._.__., 1 .i i
ci b.._ o
.m.
__.,.\,y m 9
. l ,f .
l /i l
,i v.a. Il i
- t ,
e i ,I . v i N i e- o'4' 8" _ - 3'- 7 ' . .. _ E_ L E. VA T I O ld - LooMMG EAST
, , FIGURE 15 (cc
~ - -
4'-7" __ 3-Sh , l'- fo/ ; _ .__ ._. _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _
+ s
[ O
- u. k, e
i 6' ! I r i l I".",h p . i
.3 , .
(. t/) o s Duc.T , #' . . . _ . _ j f - [ . ... .. . .. .__._ . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _
"o .$ . 1 7 FACE OF STEEL COL. . ...
;- a y N c
._ l l
/ j a A !
, s .
_~.
, o?
EL
/ , ...
- . i
- < - i Q-
.. g_w i .nhi,_"
=.
s
~
93 . c 7 4 l,
.J, _
...., l ,1 .O: ,
.g.. . . . . .
n , . , . .- i, h... ... - - - - -- l
@ F,= 8'/ic c'/I- 3or ,!(s' l _- PIOOl WELDED To A P4100, l
-l' ,
l ;
-s I
WELD _D TO COL. (TYP.) l v '
. . ? -
*g D E N E.T C. AT E.S Ov.U WA L L p
/ ,
o g-i
,/ .-
- 1. _ .
_a ,
. . . s . . - . . . - - . . . _ - . - .
\ L q y.. . . . _ _ ....... - 1 e u.a. s -
.y . . . . . .. . . . . . . _ . . . _ i i
m i t i :
-9 i
*pu kv&nds'O"
~
ug 6 .x ; a g ,- o ~ ~^ - ~~ '~~
'f l
.i .' 3 c m cc r x s u . o ce _. ,I,I
'g.f
==
e.
~ ~ ~4.-
t .
*PER'i'URR WALL 69X . .. .. . _ ..
i (ccwr.)
, ?: - -i , t a 4 s
E= C R I A T S S A L L L E A N W I E 0 1 E 5 Q 4 0 5 4 E W R 5 A C I 4 c c x T 5 S T T 4 9 6 L S . Ds4 s 5 A 7 T L A 2 I A 4L 9s 64r M WE 0s t 9 I L 0 4 5 4 T CI 5 4 T S A 8 L E F O _ 4W 1 A 5 9 6 O I 4 7 T A R _ E _ 9 - 6 : _ 6 1 (o E
. R R 0 _}}