ML18046B281

to Design Codes,Design Criteria & Loading Combinations, Draft Technical Evaluation Rept

ML18046B281
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	01/20/1982
From:	DARWISH M, STILWELL T, WALLO E M FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	PERSINKO D NRC
Shared Package
ML18046B279	List: ML18046B281 ML18046B282
References
CON-NRC-03-79-118, CON-NRC-3-79-118, TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR TER-C5257-324, TER-C5257-324-R03, TER-C5257-324-R3, NUDOCS 8202190306
Download: ML18046B281 (191)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- t i, ; I CD RAFT) TECHNICAL EVALUATJON REPORT DESIGN CODES,.DESIG*N*CRITE-RIA, . AND LOADING COMBINATIONS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-255 NRCTACNO. 41502 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-79-118 Prepared by Franklin Research Canter The Parkway at Twentieth Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Prepared fa; i f.Juclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 FRC PROJECT C5257 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11 FRCTASK 324, SEP Topic III-7 .B T. Stilwell, M. Darwish, Author: E *. M. Wallo, R. Koliner, P. Noell, R. H. Hollinger FRC Group Leader: T. c. St:i.lwell Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko January 20, 1982 (Rev. 3) This report was prepared as an account of wor'.c: sponsored by an agency of the Unitad States Government. Neither the United States q.,:>varnmant nor any agel"r.y thereof, or a!"y of their employees, makes any warranty, i;irESSed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for anv third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information. apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report,. or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. DO.CKET fllE COPY R.esearch Center A Division of The FrankJin Institute 0202190306 820212 . PDR ADOCK 05000255 *p ,. .. PDR The Beniamin Fninldin Paricway, Phila .. ?a. I S103 (2151448-1000

-t *. 'l ::* *,1 . *:*, j ' ' *-** '**{ .. ,; ; ' .:,.. .-.. ' .. ' **.i . ':] j ;--*j *-:-* *.j ' :..* 1 -. ._: i . -CD RAFT) TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, .AND *LOADING COMBINATIONS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-255 NRC TAC NO. 41502 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC--03-79-118 . Prepared by Franklin Research Center The Parkway at Twentieth Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 FRC PROJECT C5257 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11 FRCTASK 324, SEP Topic III-7.B T. Stilwell, M. Darwish, Author: E. M. Wallo, R. Koliner, P. Noell, R. H. Hollinger FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko Jantlary 20, 1982 (Rev. 3) This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, pressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report,. or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. -ftnklin R.esearch Center A Division of The FrankJin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parilway, Phila., Pii. I 9103 (215) 448-I 000

• l ;:]
• .*.j * .j ::J ,:1 *-. j :'R1 ;:. * ::cc;i :c* ...

'if 1 ... <d * .. _

.1 . . *' .-. ., <*l * .. ;.{ : ;:;;

• • • >)t

.*:*A * ... ., :::.:. .. **.; **-.. * ";,j .:*;) **., . ..;*.;* .. * .... --1 -'<J . :--.. .l '.":l :5 .. e Section l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CONTENTS Title INTRODUCTION

• BACKGROUND REVIEW OBJECTIVES.

SCOPE. MARGINS OF SAFETY. CHOICE OF REVIEW APPROACH. METHOD 7.1 Information Retrieval

• 7.2.

of Information Content. 7.3 Code Comparison Reviews

• 7.4 Assessment of the Potential Impact of Code Changes * ._ *.. -: m-cs2s7-324 Page l 2 3 4 7 9 11 11 12 12 15 7. 4.1 Classification of Code Changes * * * * *
• 16 7.4.l.l General and Conditional Classifications of Code Change Impacts * * * * *
• 17 7.4.l.2 Cade Impacts on Structural Margins *
• 18 7.5 Plant-Specific Code Changes * . * * * * *
• 20 PALISADES SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES
• * * * *
• 21 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA 10.l Description of Tables of Loads and Load Combinations iii . -...,_ ..... .. 22 24 24 Research Center I\ OMsion ol The Franldfn lnslilule

.*-* -' , *_:; . ' .. -.*.-... . ,.; .-1 J . i . '* ... > .

• ' . -.. --.*.; . **': TER-C5257-324 CONTENTS (Cont.) Section 11 10.2 Load Definitions 10.3 Design Load Tables, "Comparison of Design Basis Loads" 10.4 Load Combination Tables, "Comparison of Load Combination Criteria" REVIEW FINDINGS 11.l Major Findings of AISC-1963 vs. AISC-1980 Code Comparison.

11.2 Major Findings of ACI 318-63 vs. ACI 349-76 Code Comparison

• 11.3 Major Findings of ACI 301-63 vs. ACI 301-72 (Revised 197_5) Comparison . . 11.4 Major Findings of ACI. 318-63 vs. ASME B&:PV Code, Section III, Division 2, 1980 Code Comparison . 12

SUMMARY

13 RECOMMENDATIONS 14 REFERENCES APPENDIX A -SCALE A AND Ax CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO PALISADES PLANT APPENDIX B -APPENDIX C -APPENDIX D -APPENDIX I -SUMMARIES OF CODE FINDINGS -COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES ACI CODE,PHILOSOPHIES CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF TECHNICAL DESIGN .BASIS DOCUMENTS DEFINING CURRENT LICENSING FOR SEP TOPIC III-7 .B (SEPARATELY BOUND) ' Center. iv A Olvtsion of The Franklin lnsUtute Page 27 30 38 47 49 52 . 56, 57 61 63 67 e l -I . . !:."-:.')

• . . '* .. * * .* ****>j -

-'*J . ' . ' -__ ,.__, ___ : ___ ...

• _,_.:...........

.........

---

*-*--. _,,_,_,___

___ ----. *-. _, TER-C5257-324 CONTENTS (Cont.) Section Title APPENDIX II -CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF AISC SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS FOR THE* YEARS 1980 VS. 1963 (SEPARATELY BOUND) APPENDIX III -NOT APPLICABLE TO PALISADES PLANT APPENDIX IV -CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED CONCRETE STRUCTURES ACI 349-76 VS. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR FORCED CONCRETE ACI 318-63 (SEPARATELY BPUND) APPENDIX V -COMPARISON REVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX VI FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS, ACI 301-72 (1975 REVISION) VS. ACI 301-63 (SEPARATELY BOUND) CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF CODE REQUIREMENTS.FOR ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE ACI 318-63 (SEPARATELY BOUND) enklin Research Center A Olvlslon ol The Franklin lftllilllle v I I ., . ' I I l j l j .j l 1 l *1 j 1 ' . . -r *\ TER-C5257-324 .. FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC. Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute vii * .l *,,I **': . -: ** . *. .****.: ' ' . . ; '*, ' . l .. * .. *. 1* PALISADES SER ADDENDA -SEP TOPIC III-7.B To be inserted before Section 10.2 in FRC report: Current criteria require consideration during plant design of thirteen load combinations for most structures, as shown in the load combination tables. These specific requirements were not in effect at the time when SEP plants were designed. Consequently, other sets of load-combinations were used. In comparing actual and current criteria, an attempt was made to match each of the load combination? actually considered to its nearest counterpart under present requirements. For example, consider a plant where the SSE was addressed in combination with other loads, but not in combination with the effects of a LGCA (load combination 13). The load combination tables would reflect this by showing that load case 9 was addressed, but that load case 13 was not. If six load cases were considered, only six (nearest counterpart) load cases are indicated in the table---not partial fulfillment of all 13. The scale rankings assigned to loads and load combinations in tables are intended as an aporaisal of plant status, with respect to demonstration of compliance 1 t1ith current design criteria, based on infonnation available to the NRC prior to the inception of the SEP review. A number of structurally related SEP topics review some loads and load combinations in detail based upon current calculational methods. In order that a consistant basis for the tables be maintained,. they are based upon load combination considered in. the original design of-the facility, or in the case of they are upon the combinations used in the design of the modification. Loads which were not inciuded in the original design or have increased in magnitude and have not been specifically addressed in another SEP topic should be addressed by the licensee.

• • • TER-CS257-324

l. INTRODUCTION For the Seismic Category I buildings and structures at the Palisades Nuclear Power Station, this report provides a comparison of (a) the structural design codes and loading criteria used in the design with (b) the corresponding codes and criteria used for current licensing of new plants. The objective of the code comparison review is to identify deviations in design criteria from current criteria, and to assess the effect of these deviations on margins of safety, as they were originally perceived and as they would be perceived today. The work was conducted as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) and provides technical assistance for Topic III-7.B, "Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load Combinations." The report was prepared at the Franklin Research Center unaer NRC Contract No. NRC-03-79-118

• enklin Research Center A OMsion cf The Franklln lnsdtute r.*.* . ... J TER-C5257-324

2. BACKGROUND With the development of nuclear power, provisions addressing facilities for nuclear applications were progressively introduced into the codes and standards to which plant building and structures are designed.

_ Because of this evolutionary development, older nuclear power plants conform to a number of different versions of these codes, some of which have since undergone considerable revision. There has likewise been a corresponding development of other licensing criteria, resulting in similar non-uniformity in many of the requirements to '-which plants have been licensed. With this in mind, the NRC undertook an extensive program to evaluate the safety of 11 older plants (and eventually all plants) to a conunon set of criteria. The program, entitled the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), employs current licensing criteria (as defined by NRC's Standard Review Plan) as the conunon basis for these evaluations.

• To* make the necessary determinations,.

the NRC is investigating, under the SEP, 137 topics spanning a broad spectrum of safety-related issues. The work reported herein constitutes the results of part* of the investigation of one of these topics, Topic III-7.B, "Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load Combinations." This topic is charged with the compar-ison of structural design criteria_ in effect in the late 1950's to the late 1960's (when the SEP plants were constructed) with those in effect today. Other SEP topics also address other aspects of the integrity of plant structures. All these-structurally oriented tasks, taken together, will be used to assess the structural-adequacy of the SEP plants with_ regard to current requirements. The determinations with respect to structural safety will then be integrated into an overall SEP evaluation encompassing the entire spectrum of safety-related topics * *The report addresses only the_Palisades plant. Research Center, A Division of The Franklin lnldtute . '. *. : -.-.*: ... *:-.. . ***"*.:; : .:**. **.* .J TER-C5257-324

3. REVIEW OBJECTIVES The broad objective of the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is to reassess the safety of 11 older nuclear power plants in accordance with the intent of the requirements governing the licensing of current plants, and to provide assurance, possibly requiring backfitting, that operation of these plants conforms to the general level of safety required of modern plants. Task III-7.B of the SEP effort seeks to compare actual and current structural design criteria for the major civil engineering structures at each SEP plant site, i.e., those important to shutdown, containment, or both, and therefore designated Seismic Category I The broad safety objective of SEP Task III-7.B is (when integrated with several other interfacing SEP topics) to assess the capability of all Seismic Category I structures to withstand all design conditions stipulated by the NRC, at least to a degree sufficient to assure that the nuclear power plant can be safely shut down under.all circumstances.

The objective of FRC's present effort under Task III-7.B is to provide, through code comparisons, a rational basis for making the required technical assessments, and a tool which will assist in the. structural review. Finally, the objective of the present report is to present the results of FRC's Task III-7.B work as they relate to the Palisades Nuclear Power Station. Research Center A OMsion cl The FranJcUn Institute . ** ... i .. .... _,. . :___*--***--'----'* TER-C5257-324 .e 4. SCOPE FRC was asked to review the provisions of the structural codes and dards used for design of SEP plant Seismic Category I civil engineering tures* and compare them with the corresponding provisions governing current licensing practice. The review includes the containment and all Category I structures within and exterior to it. Explicit among the criteria to be reviewed are loads and loading combinations postulated for these structures. To carry out the review, FRC was assigned the following tasks: l. Identify current design requirements, based on a review of NRC Regulations; lOCFRSO.SSa, "Codes and Standard"; and the NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP). -2. Review the structural design codes-, design criteria, design and analysis procedures, and load combinations (including combinations involving seismic loads) used in the design of all Category I structures as defined in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for each SEP plant. 3. Based upon the plant-specific design codes and standards identified in Task 2 and current licensing codes and standards from Task 1, identify plant-specific deviations from current licensing criteria for design codes and.criteria.

4. Assess the significance of the identified deviations, performing (where necessary) comparative analyses to quantify significant deviations.

Such analyses may be made on elements (beams, columns, frames, and the like) and should be explored over a range of parameters representative of plant structures.

5. Prepare a Technical Eval)lation Report for each SEP plant including:

---

a. comparisons of plant design codes and criteria to those currently accepted for licensing

b. assessment of _the significance of the deviations

c. results of any comparative stress analyses performed in order to . make an assessment of the significance of the**code changes upon safety_margi 0 s *in general, these are the structures normally examined.in licensing reviews under Section 3.8 of the SRP. (but note the list at the end* of this section of structures specifically excluded from FRC's scope).

Research Center A Oivtsion of The Franklin lnstitule .... "' .. _; TER-C5257-324

d. overall evaluation of the acceptability of structural codes used at each SEP plant. A number of SEP topics examine aspects of the integrity of the structures composing SEP facilities.

Several of these interface with the Task III-7.B effort as shown below: III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-7 .A. III-7.C III-7 .D Designation Classification of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems (Seismic and Quality) Wind and Tornado Loading Hydrodynamic Loads Missile Generation and Protection Evaluation of Pipe Breaks Supports Inservice.Inspection of Structures Delamination of Prestressed Concrete Structures . Structural Integrity Tests Because they are covered either elsewhere within the SEP review or within other NRC programs, the following matters are explicitly excluded from the FRC scope: Mark I torus shell, supports, vents, local region of drywell at vent penetrations Reactor pressure vessel supports, steam generator supports, pump supports Equipment supports*in SRP 3.8.3 Research Center A Olvtslon ot The FranklJn lnstilute Reviewed in Generic Task A-7. Reviewed in Generic Task A-2, A-12. Reviewed generally in Topic III-6, Generic Task A-12.

' ..... ** .. :* .. : .,

• Other component supports (steel and concrete)

Testing of containment Inservice quality control/assurance Determination of structures that* should be classified Seismic Category I Shield walls and subcompartments inside containment Masonry walls Seismic analysis Research Center A Division ol The Frenldln lnllltute

• Specific supports have been analyzed in detail in Topic III-6. (Component supports may be included later if items of concern applicable to component supports are found as a result of reviewing the structural codes.) Reviewed in Topic III-7.D. Shoqld be considered in FRC review only to the extent that it affects design criteria, design allowables.

Aspects of inservice inspection are being reviewed in Topics III-7.A and III-3.C Not in FRC scope. Reviewed in Generic Task A-2. Reviewed generically in .IE Bulletin.* Being reviewed by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

.

• -*****-.. -**-. *.' . j l ij . : ! *.*.*; .. ...

}il *. *. *:*:.l ;**-:] ' j .

-:1 ;, _ _. :.,. ' .':.. .*; , .. *: .*.: . . . , ... * .. .; . i TER-C5257-324 S. MARGINS OF SAFETY, There are several bases upon which margins of safety* may be defined and discussed

• The most often used is the margin of safety based on yield strength.

This is a particularly useful concept when discussing the behavior of steels, and became ingrained into the engineering vocabulary at the time when steel was the principal metal of engineering structures. In this usage, the margin of safety reflects the reserve capacity of a structure to withstand extra loading without experiencing an incipient permanent change of shape anywhere throughout the structure. Simultaneously, it reflects the reserve load carrying capacity existing before the structure is brought to the limit for which an engineer could be certain the computations (based on elastic behavior of the metal) applied. This is the cQnventional use of the term and the meaning which engineers take as intended,. unless the tem is.further qualified to show something else is meant. Thus, if a structure is stated to have a margin of safety of 1.0 under a given set of loads, then it will be generally understood that every load on the structure may be sim1,1ltaneously doubled without encountering (anywhere) inelastic stresses or deflections. On the other hand, if (under load) a structure has no margin of safety, any increment to any load will cause the structure to experience, in a least one (and possibly.more than one) location, some permanent distortion (however small) of its original shape. However, because the yield strengths of common structural steels are . generally well below their ultimate strengths, the engineer knows that in most (but not in all) the structure possesses substantial reserve beyond his computed margin--to carry additional load. There are other useful ways, however, to speak of safety margins and these (not the conventional one) are particularly relevant to the aims of the SEP program. *Factors of safety (FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the relation MS = FS -l. Research Center A Division of The Fninklln lnsdtute ;-

• .* .. ,, " 'i, ______ , __ .. ___ <<**.__ ___ _ TER-CS257-324 One may speak of margins of safety with respect to code allowable limits. This margin reflects the reserve capacity of a structure to withstand extra loading while still conforming to all criteria governing its design. One may also speak (if it is made clear in advance that this is the intended meaning) of margins of safety against actual failure. Both steel and concrete structures exhibit much higher nmargins of safety* on this second basis than is shown by computation of margins of safety based on code allowables.

These latter concepts of "margin of safetyn are very significant to the SEP review. Indeed the basic review concept, at least as it relates to structural integrity, cannot be easily defined in any quantitative manner without considering both. The SEP review concept is predicated on the assumption that it is unrealistic to expect that plants which were built to, and were in compliance with, older codes will still conform to current criteria in all respects. The SEP review seeks to assess whether or not meet the "intent" of lic1msing cr,iteria as defined by the Standard Review Plan (SRP). The objective is not to require that older plants be brought into conformance with all SRP requirements,to the letter, but rather to assess whether or not their design is sufficient to provide the general level of safety that current licensing requirements With respect to aspects of the SEP' program that involve the integrity of structures, the SEP review concept can be rephrased in a somewhat more fashion in terms of these two "margins of safety." Thus, it is not expected or demanded that all structures show positive margins of safety based upon code allowables in meeting all current SRP requirements; but it is demanded that margins of safety based upon ultimate strength are not only positive, but ample. In fact, the critical judgments to be made (for SEP plants) are: ,,.__**"==>.

1.

• to what extent may current code margins be infringed upon. 2. what minimum margin of safety based on ultimate strength must be assured. The choice of method for Topic III-7.B review can be discussed in terms of these two key considerations.*

Research Center * *. -a-A Olvi5ion cf The Franldln lnslilute 1 *

• ,*' ]--*

.. . :1 *>* ' -. .:.,;: 1 . . . . ') '. Yi . * -: .. : *.** TER-C5257-324

6. CHOICE OF REVIEW APPROACH The approach taken in the review process depends, to a large degree, upon which of the two previously stated key questions one chooses to emphasize and address first. One could give primary consideration to the second. If this approach is chosen, one first sets up a minimum margin of safety (based on failure) that will be acceptable.for SEP plants. This margin is to be computed in accordance with current criteria.

Then, one investigates structures designed in accordance with earlier code provisions, and to different loading combinations, to see if they meet the chosen SEP margin when challenged by current loading combinations and evaluated to current criteria. This gives the appearance of being efficient. The review proceeds from the general ' (the chosen minimum margin of safety) to the particular (the ability of°a previously designed structure to meet the chosen margin). Moreover, issues are immediately resolved on a "g_or n0"".'9C?" basis. Hc;:>wever, the initial step is* not easy; neither are the necessary evaluations. One is dealing with highly loaded structures in regions where materials behave inelastically. making in such areas is sure to be difficult, and likely to be highly controversial. The alternative approach is taken in this review. It proceeds from the particular to the general, and places initial emphasis upon seeking .to answer (for SEP plants) questions as to what, how many, and of what magnitude are the infringements on current criteria. No new rulemaking is involved (at least .at the outset). All initial assessments are based on existing criteria. Current and older codes are compared paragraph-by-paragraph to see the effects that code changes may have on the load carrying ability of individual elements (beams, columns, frames, and the like). It should be noted that this process, although involving judgments, is basically fact-finding --not decisionmaking

• This kind of review is painstaking, and there is no assurance in advance that it in itself will be decisive.

Research Center A Division of The FnmkUn lrwltute It may turn out, after examination of the ,; **".i . : * *. ,1 .. " *. :.-.. -' -TER-CS257-324 facts, that designs predicated upon the older criteria infringe upon current design allowables in many cases and to extensive depths. If so, such information will certainly be of value to the final safety assessment, but many open questions will remain. On the other hand, it may turn out that infringements upon current criteria are infrequent and not of great magnitude. If this is the case, many issues will have been resolved, and questions of structural integrity sharply focused upon a few remaining key Center A Division ol The Franlclln lnllflule * ---

• • -** ... * .... ... -.. : .... -:.r .. . . ... r * **

TER-CS257-324

7. METHOD A brief description of the approach used to carry out SEP Topic follows. For discussion of the work, it is convenient to divide it into six areas: 1. information retrieval assembly .2. appraisal of information content 3. code comparison reviews 4. code change impact assessment

s. plant-specific review of the relevancy of code change impacts 6. summarizing plant status vis-a-vis design criteria changes. 7.1 INFORMATION RETRIEVAL The initial step (and to a lesser extent an ongoing task of the review) was to collect and organize necessary informationo At the beginning of FRC's _work assignment, NRC forwarded files relevant to the work. These submittals.

included pertinent sections of plant FSARs, Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8, response to questions on Topic III-7.B previously requested of licensees by the NRC, and other relevant data and reports

• FRC organized these submittals into Topic files on a plant basis. The files also house additional information, subsequently received, and other documents developed for the plant review. A number of channels were used to gather additional information.

These included information requests to NRC; letter requests for additional mation sent to licensees; plant site visits; and retrieval of representat.ive structural drawings, design calculations, and design specifications. In addition, a separate file was set up to maintain past and present structural codes, NRC Regulatory Guides, Staff Position Papers, and other relevant documents (including, where available, reports from SEP tasks interfacing with the III-7.B effort). Research Center A. OMslon of The FranlcJln lnstitule __ .. _____ . ...........!..----* '-**--*:.*: --. -. TER-C5257-324

• 7.2 APPRAISAL OF INFORMATION CONTENT Most of the information sources were originally written for purposes other than those of the Task III-7.B review. Consequently, much of the information sought was embedded piecemeal in the documents furnished.

These sources were searched for the relevant information that they did contain. Generally it was found that information gaps remained (i.e., some needed items were not referenced at all*or, when they were found, often not specific enough for Task III-7.B purposes). The information found was assembled and the gaps were filled through the information retrieval efforts mentioned earlier. 7.3 CODE COMPARISON REVIEWS The codes and standards used to represent current licensing practice were selected as described in Appendix I of this report. Briefly summarized, the criteria selection corresponds to NUREG-800, of NRC's SRP, the operative document providing guidanc:e to NRC reviewers on licensing mat;ters (see

• Reference l). Next, the Seismic Category I structures at the Palisades Nuclear Power. Station were identified (see Section 8). For these, on a structure basis, the codes and standards which were used for actual design were likewise identified (see Section 9). Each code was then paired with its counterpart that would govern design were the structure to be licensed today. Workbooks were prepared for each code pair. The workbook format consisted of paragraph-by-corresponding paragraph photocopies of the older and the current versions laid out side-by-side on 11 by 17-inch pages. A central column between the codes was left' open to provide space for reviewer comments.

The code versions were initially screened to discover areas where the text either remained identical in both versions or had been reei:Hted without changing technical content. Code paragraphs which were found to be essentially the same in both versions were so marked in the comments column. Research Center A Division of The Franklin llUdtule --- .. *.

• ... *l . -. . . .. :*/: i -** . . . , . -**-* .. =-*-** ........ : . TER-CS257-324 The review then focused on the remaining portions of the codes where textual disparities existed. Pertinent conunents regarding such changes were entered. Typical comments address either the reason the change had been introduced, or the intent of the change, or its impact upon safety margins, or a combination of such considerations.

As can be readily appreciated, many different circumstances arise in such evaluations--some simple, some complex. A few examples are cited and briefly discussed below. Provisions were found where code changes liberalized requirements, i.e., less stringent criteria are in force today than were formerly required. Such changes are introduced from time to time as new information becomes available regarding the provision in question. Not infrequently code committees are called upon to protect against failure modes where the effects are well known; but too little is yet clear concerning the actual failure mechanism and the relative importance of the contr.ibuting factors. The committee often cannot defer action until* a full investigation has been completed.,. but 'must *act on behalf of safety. Issues such as these are usually resolved with prudence and caution--sometimes by the adoption of a rule (based upon experience and judgment) known to be conservative enough to assure safety. Subsequent tigation may produce evidence showing the adopted rule to be over-cautious, and provide grounds for its relaxation. On the other hand, some changes which on first view may appear to reflect a relaxation of code requirements do not in fact actually do so. Structural codes tend to be documents with interactive provisions. Sometimes apparent liberalization of a code paragraph may really reflect a general tightening of criteria, because the change is associated with stiffening of requirements elsewhere. To cite a simple example, a newly introduced code provision may be found making it unnecessary to check thin flanged, box section beams of relatively small depth-to-width ratio for buckling. This might appear to be a relaxation of requirements. However, elsewhere the code has also introduced a require-Research Center A Division of The Franklln lnslilule . -.,, --*' TER-C5257-324 ment that the designer must space end supports closely enough to preclude buckling. Thus, code requirements have been tightened, not relaxed. In the code comparison review, wherever it was found that code ments had truly been relaxed, this was noted in the reviewer's comments. Because liberalization of code criteria clearly cannot give rise to safety issues concerning structures built to more stringent requirements, such matters were not considered further. On the other hand, whenever it was clear that a code change introduced more stringent criteria, the potential impact of the change on margins of safety shown for the structure was assessed. When it was felt that the change (although more restrictive) would not significantly affect safety margins, this judgment was entered in the commentary. When it was clear that the code change had the potential to significantly affect the perc.eived margin of safety, this was noted in the comments and the paragraph was. flagged for further consideration. Sometimes. the* effects of a code change are not e-asily seen.* Indeed, depending upon a number of factors,* the change may reflect a tightening of requirements for some structures and a liberalization for others. When doubtful or ambiguous situations were encountered, the effect of the code change was explored analytically using simple models. A variety of analytical techniques were used, depending on the situation at hand. One general approach was to select a basic structural element (a beam, a column, a frame, a slab, or the like) and analytically test it, under both the older and the current criteria. For example, selecting a typical structural element and a simple loading, the element was designed to the older code requirements. The load carrying capacity of this structure was then reexamined, this time using current code criteria. Finally, the load carrying capacity of the element, as.shown by the older criteria and determined by the *Geometry, material properties, magnitude or type. of loading, type of to name a few. Research Center A Division al The Franklin lnslitute l . : . . ... =. *:: * *l -*. . ***, ... -: * -------*---***** --*-----------* --- --** .. ..,.:.,__.;.,.:.... .. : ... -' .. TER-CS257-324 current criteria, was compared. Examples of investigations performed to assess code change impacts are found in Appendix B. In making these studies, an attempt.was made to use structural elements, model dimensions, and load magnitudes that were representative of actual structures. For studies that were parametized, an attempt was made to span the parametric range encountered in nuclear structures. Although one must be cautious about*claiming that results from simplified models may be totally applicable to the more complex situations occurring in real structures, it was felt that such examples provided reasonable guidance for making rational judgments concerning the impact of changed code provisions on perceived margins of safety. 7.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CODE CHANGES As the scope of the Task III-7.B assignment makes clear, a limited objective is sought (for the present) :with respect to assessment of the effects of code changes on Seismic Category I structures. The scope of review is not set at the level of appraisal of individual, as-built structures on plant sites. Correspondingly, the review does not attempt. to make quantitative assessments as to. the structural adequacy under current NRC criteria of specific structures at particular SEP plants

• To the contrary, the scope of the review is confined.to the comparison of former structural codes and criteria with counterpart current requirements.

Correspondingly, the assessment of the impact of changes in codes and criteria is confined to what can be deduced solely from the provisions of the codes and criteria. Although the review is therefore car.ried out with minimal reference to actual structures in the field, th.e assessments of code change. impacts that can be made at the code comparison level hold considerable significance for actual structures

• Research Center A Division of The Franldln lnslltute
• _-._ .. -: TER-C5257-324 In this respect, two important points should be noted: 1. The review brings sharply into focus the changes in code provisions that may give rise to concern with respect to structural margins of safety as perceived from the standpoint of the requirements that NRC now imposes upon plants currently being licensed.

The review simultaneously culls away a number of code changes that do not give rise to such concerns, but which (because they are there) would otherwise have to be addressed, on a structure-by-structure basis. 2. The effects of code'changes that can be determined from the of code review are confined to potential or possible impacts on actual structures. Review, conducted at the code comparison level, cannot determine whether or not potentially adverse impacts are actually realized in a given structure. The review may only that this may be the case. For example, current criteria may require demonstration of integrity of a structure under a loading combination that includes an additional load not specified in the corresponding loading combination. to which the structure was designed. If the non""consider.ed load is large .A (i.e., in the of or larger than* other major loads that were \W" . included) , . then i.t. is quite possible that some members in* the structure would appear overloaded as viewed by current criteria. Thus a potential concern exists. However, no determination as to actual overstress in any member can be made by code review alone. Actual margins of safety in the controlling member (and several others*) must certainly be examined before even a tentative judgment of this kind may be attempted. In order to carry out the code review objec.tive of identifying criteria chariges that had the potentia*l to give rise to concern about* possible impairment of perceived margins of safety, the following scheme classifying code change impacts was adopted. 7.4.1 Classification of Code Chanqes Where code changes involve technical content (as opposed to those which are editorial, organizational, administrative, and the like), the changes are classified according to the following scheme. *The addition-of a new load can change the location of the_point of highest stress. Research. Center . A Division of The Franklin lnslitute

• _;,16-
• -k****-----***-*****-****-*-
  • • • • -

<{j

.,};j ...*. , , ... * .. .. :.: .. *: . .-.) . . : ._; \'::{ :-*1 ' .. *. *.":l **.* 1 l *.!. ..... *

• TER-CS257-324 Each such code change is classified according to its potential to alter perceived margins of safety* in structural elements to which it applies. categories are established:

.. Four Scale A Change -The new criteria have the potential to substantially impair margins of safety as perceived under the former criteria. Scale Ax Change -The impact of the code change on margins of safety is not immediately apparent. Scale Ax code changes require analytical studies of model structures to. assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon marg_ins of safety. Scale B Change -The new criteria operate to impair margins of safety but not enough 'to cause engineering concern about the adequacy of any structural element. Scale C Change -The new cr.iteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited under the former criteria. 7.4.l.l* General and Conditional Classifications of Code Change Impacts Scale ratings of code changes are found in* two different forms in .this .. report. For example, some may be designated as "Scale A," and others as "Scale C." Others may have dual designation, such as "Scale A if ---[a condition statement] or Scale C if --[a second condition statement]." In assigning scale classifications, an efficient design to original criteria is assumed. That is, it is postulated that (a) the provision in question controls design and (b) the structural member to which the code provision applies was proportioned to be at (or close to) the allowable limit. The impact scale rating is assigned accordingly. If the code change is Scale A, and it applies (in a particular structure) to a member which is not highly stressed, then this may afford excellent grounds for asserting that this particular member is but it does not *That is, if (all other considerations remaining the same) safety margins as computed by the older code rules were to be recomputed for an as-built structure in accordance with current code provisions, would there be a difference due only to the code change under consideration? Research Center A Division ot The Franklin lnslllllte

• • : .. J * .. ; . 4,--* .... TER-C5257-324 thereby downgrade the ranking to, say, a Scale B change for that member. The scale ranking is not a function of member stress* nor a ranking of member adequacy.

The scale system ranks code change impact, not individual members. However, a number of code provisions are framed so that the allowable limit is made a function of member proportion. When this kind of a code provision is changed, the change may affect members of certain proportions one way and members of other proportions differently. For example, assume a change in column design.requirements is introduced .in the code and this is framed in terms of radius of gyration.

• The new rule acts to tighten design requirements for slender columns, but liberalizes former requirements for columns that are not slender. This change may be rated Scale A for slender columns, and simultaneously, Scale C for non-slender ones. Although some columns now appear to be Scale A columns while others appear to be Scale C columns, the distinction between them resides in the code, and.is not a reflection of.member adequacy *. Clearly, it is still code changes that are ranked; but, in this case, the code change does not happen to affect all columns in a unilateral way. 7.4.1.2 Code Impacts on Structural Margins This classification of code changes identifies both (a) changes that have the potential to significantly impair perceived margins of safety (Scale A changes) and (b) changes that have the potential to enhance perceived margins of safety (Scale C changes).

Emphasis is subsequently placed on Scale A changes, not on Scale c* changes. The purpose of the code comparison review is to narrow down and bring into sharper focus the areas where structures shown adequate under former criteria may not fully comply with current criteria. Once such criteria changes have been identified, actual structures may be checked to see if the potential concern. is applicable to the structure. Depending upon a number of structure-specific circumstances, this may or may not. be.so. * * *.There. are* exceptions, but* these. are code-related, not adequacy-related

• .

Center A Division of The Franlclln lnalltute .

• ' **-.'i ' . '.

._ ; *. __ *-.,; ***** *:; . : "* _.; ... **. d .l l TER-C5257-324 The same thing is true of Scale C changes, i.e., those that may enhance perceived structural margins. Specific structures must be examined to see if the potential benefit is actually applicable to the structure. If it is applicable, credit may be taken for it. However, this step cari only be taken at the structural level, not at the code level. A simple example may help clarify this point. Assume a steel beam exists in a structure designed by AISC 1963 rules for the then-specified loading combination. Current criteria require inclusion of an additional load in the loading combination (Scale A change), but the current structural code permits a higher allowable load if the beam design conforms to certain stipulated proportions (Scale C change). Several circumstances are possible for beams in actual structures, as shown below. New Load Maximum stress in beam under original loading conditions*was low with ample margin for tiOnal load Maximum stress in beam under original loading condition was near former allowable limit Maximum stress in beam under original loading condition was near former allowabie limit Higher Stress Limit Applicability immaterial Beam qualifies for higher stress limit Beam does not qualify for increased stress limit Results Beam adequate under current criteria Beam may be adequate under current criteria Beam unlikely to be adequate under current criteria It. is clear from this example that the function of the code review is to point out code changes that might impair perceived margins of safety, and that assessment of the applicability of the results of the review is best accomplished at the level. Research Center A Dlvi!ion of The Franklln Institute ... * *'" * .. _ .. : .*.* . !-",. ., TER-C5257-324 7.5 PLANT-SPECIFIC CODE CHANGF.S There is substantial ov.erlap among the SEP plants in the codes and standards used for structural design. For example, several plants followed the provisions of ACI-318, 1963 edition, in designing major concrete structures. Thus, the initial work (comparing older and current criteria) is not plant-specific. However, when reviewed codes are packaged in sets containing only those code comparisons relevant to design of Seismic Category I structures in a particular SE!> plant, the results begin to take on specific character. The code changes potentially applicable to particular structures at a

• particular SEP plant have then been identified.

However, this list is almost surely overly long because the list has been prepared without reference to actual plant structures. For example, the code change list might include an item relating to recently introduced provisions for the design of slender columns, and none -actually exii;t in any in that particular plant. In-depth examination of design drawings, audit of structural analyses, and review of plant specifications were beyond the scope of _the III-7.B task. Accordingly, FRC did not attempt such activities. However, occasional reference to such documents was necessary to the review work. Consequently, FRC was able to cull from the list some items that were obviously inappropriate to the plant structures. Wherever this was the reason for removal was documented, but no attempt was made to remove every such item. ----Code changes that, for structures in general,.may be significant but did not appear applicable to any of the Category I structures at Palisades were relegated to Appendix A *. The Scale A or Scale A changes that remained are x . listed on a code-by-code basis in Sectfon 11 * . Research Center A Olvision al The Franklin lnslitute . . *: *.: .

• . :*.
• TER-CS257-324

8. PALISADES SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURF.s SEP Topic III-1 has for its objectives the classification of components, structures, and systems with respect to both quality group and seismic designation.

The task force charged with this responsibility has presented its findings in Reference S, and the following structures have been determined to be Seismic Category I: A. Containment Includes: Cylindrical wall, dome, and slab Liner (no credit for structural strength under mechanical loads) Equipment hatch Personnel locks B. Internal Structures Reactor cavity Steam generator compartments (reviewed in Generic Task A-2) Biological shield (reviewed in Generic Task A-2) C. EXternal Structures

l. Auxiliary building (entire building except for administrative and access control areas) Includes:

Control room Diesel generator compartments Switchgear room (The above three items are in a common enclosure with three floor levels) Spent fuel pool New fuel storage area Radwaste area Pump rooms (for ECCS and

2. Turbine building (only the basement area which houses auxiliary feedwater pumps is Seismic Category I) 3. Intake/discharge structures including pump house for service water pumps

• Research Center A Division of The Franldln lnsli!Ute

... . . -':! .i *' .*.; TER-C5257-324

9. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA The structural codes governing design of the major Seismic Category I ., structures for the Palisades Nuclear Power Generating Station are in the following table. Structure A. Containment

1. Concrete (including shell, dome, and slab)

• 2*. Liner 3. Personnel locks and equipment hatches B. . Internal Structures Design Criteria ACI 318-63 ACI 301-63 (specifications for concrete)

ASME B&PV Section III, 1965 . (Provisions of Article* 4*) ASME B&PV Section VIII (undated), (Fabrication tices for Welded Vessels Only) ASME B&PV Section IX (undated), (welding procedure and welders qualifications only) ACI 318-63 for Concrete ASME B&PV Section III, 1965, for steel ACI 318-63 AISC 1963 *The two si3nificant applications of this article

1. determination of thermal stresses in the liner 2. analysis of pipe penetration attached .to the liner.

Research Center A DMsJon of The Franklin Institute Current Criteria ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 2, 1980 (subtitled ACI 359-80) ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 2, 1980 (Subtitled ACI 359-80) ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 2, 1980 (subtitled ACI 359-80) ACI 349-80 ... :* .. :*; :* --**: .*.-... , ... -.. . -.-.) * .* l. c. Structure External Structures

l. Auxiliary building Control room Fuel pool Diesel generator room Radwaste facility

• 2. Service water, intake, pump house, and discharge structures

3. Turbine building auxiliary feedwater pump enclosure Design Criteria AISC 1963 ACI 318-63 AISC 1963* ACI 318-63 AISC 1963 ACI 318-63 TER-C5257-324 Current Criteria AISC 1980 ACI 349-76 AISC 1980 ACI 349-76 AISC 1980 ACI 349-76

REFERENCES:

Identification of the Original Design.Codes:

1. Palisades FSAR Section 5 and Appendix B (Identifies codes for Items A and B) 2. Seismic Review of Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Unit I, Phase I Report -

Subject:

Review and documentation of existing seismic analysis and design (identifies codes for Items A through c above) Research Center A qlvisicn ol The Franklin Institute .. -. .; .. : .. 1* _*Jj .. , .

• .j . " .-,! j i ., , ... TER-C5257-324

10. LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA ------------10 .1 DESCRIPTION OF TABLES OF I.DADS AND I.DAD COMBINATIONS The requirements governing loads and load combinations to be considered in the design of civil engineering structures for nuclear service have been revised since the older nuclear power plants were constructed and licensed.

Such changes constitute a major aspect of the general pattern of evolving design requirements; consequently, they are singled out for special tion in the present section of this report. The NRC Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans provide guidance regarding what loads and load combinations must be considered. In some cases, the required loads and load combinations are also specified within the ing structural design code; other structural codes have no such provisions and take loads and load combinations as given a priori. In this report, loads and load combinations are treated within the present section whether or not the structural design codes .also include them. Later sections of this report address, paragraph by paragraph, changes in text between design codes current at the time the plant was constructed and those governing design today; however, to avoid repetition, code changes related to loads and load combinations will not be again although they may appear as provisions of the structural design codes.* To provide a compact and systematic comparison of previous and present requirements, the facts are marshalled in tabular form. Two sets of tables are used: 1. load tables 2. load combination tables. Both sets of tables'are constructed in a9cordance with current requirements for Seismic Category I structures, i.e., the load tables list all loads that must be considered in today's design of these structures, and the load combination tables list all combinations of these loadings for which current licensing procedures require demonstration of structural integrity. Research Center A Division cf Tha Franklin Institute

• *. *=.::." ..

.. ; . -.'! ..... :i . ' .. 1 **: .. -*.1 '.._-:/: . -*_! ***.': :.*"i . i ..... *. :._.::::.1 .. ! =: *.:1 TER-C5257-324 In general, the loads and load combinations to be considered are determined by the structure under discussion. The design loads for the structure housing the emergency power _diesel generator, for example, are quite different than those for the design of the containment vessel. Consequently, structures must be considered individually. Each structure usually requires a load table and load combination table appropriate to its specific design requirements. The design requirements for the various civil engineering structures within a nuclear power plant are echoed in applicable sections of NRC's Standard Review Plan (SRP) The tables in the present report correspond to, and sununarize, these requirements for each structure. A note at the bottom of each table provides the reference to the applicable section of the Standard Review Plan1 Section 10.2 of this report lists, for reference, the load symbols used in the charts together with their definitions. The loads actually used for design are considered, structure by structure,_ and the load tables are filled in according to the following scheme: 1. The list of potentially loads (according to current requirements) is examined to eliminate loads which either do not occur on, or are not significant for, the structure under consideration.

2. The loads included in the actual design basis are then checked against the reduced list to see if all applicable loads (according to current requirements) were actually considered during design. 3. Each load that was considered during design is next screened to see if it appears to correspond to current requirements.

Questions such as the following are addressed: Were all the individual loads encompassed by the load category definition represented in the applied loading? Do all loads appear to match present requirements (1) in magnitude? (2) in method of application?

4. An annotation is made as to whether deviations from present requirements exist, either because of load omissions or because the loads do not correspond in magnitude or in other particulars.

5. If a deviation is found, a judgment (in the form of a scale ranking) is made as to the potential impact of the deviation on perceived margins of safety. 6. Relevant notes or comments are recorded.

Research Center A OMslon ol The Franklln Institute TER-C5257-324 Of particular importance to the Topic III-7.B review are comments ing that the effec_ts of certain loadings (tornado and seismic loads, in particular) are being-examined under-other SEP -topics. -rn all such cases, the findings of these special SEP topics (where review in depth of the indicated loading conditions will be undertaken) will be definitive for the overall SEP effort.

• Consequently, no licensee investigation of such issues is required under Topic III-7.B nor is such effort within the scope of Topic III-7.B (see Section 4). Licensee participation in the resolution of such issues may, however, be requested under the scope of other SEP topics devoted to such issues. . After the load tables have been filled out, the load combination tables are compiled.

Like the load tables, the load combination are up to current requirements and the load combinations actually used in the design basis are matched against these requirements. For ease of comparison, the load combinations actually used are imposed on-the load combinations currently required. This -.is accomplished in two steps: 1. Currently specified combinations include loads sufficient for the most general cases. In particular applications, some of these are either inappropriate or insignificant. Therefore, the first step is to strike all loads that are not applicable to the structure under consideration from all load combinations in which they appear. 2. Next, loads actually combined are indicated by encircling (in the appropriate load combinations) each load contributing to the summation considered for design. Thus, the comparison between what was actually done and what is required today is readily apparent. If the load combinations used are in complete accord with current requirements, each load symbol on the sheet appears as either struck or encircled. Load combinations not considered and loads omitted from the load combinations stand out as unencircled items. A scale ranking is next assigned to the load combinations; _however (unlike the corresponding ranking of loads), a .scale ranking is not necessarily assigned *to each one. When the load_combinations used for design correspond ---*closely to current requirements, scale ratings may be assigned to all combina-e Center A Oivtsion of The Franldln lnslilUle '...;26- . : * .. =-. .,,. . ------* ---** ****---*** .. ... , . "** ______ ,_ _____ _ TER-CS257-324 tions. However, when the number of load combinations considered in design was substantially fewer than current criteria prescribe, it did not appear to serve any engineering purpose to rank the structure for each currently required load combination. Instead, a limited number of loading cases (usually two) were ranked. The following considerations guided the selection of these cases: 1. For purposes of the SEP review, it was not believed necessary to require an extensive reanalysis of structures under all load combinations currenfly specified.

2. SEP plants have been in full power operation for a number of years. During this time, they have experienced a wide spectrum of operating and upset conditions.

There is no evidence that major Seismic Category I structures lack integrity under these operating conditions.

3. The most severe load occur under emergency and accident conditions.

These are also the conditions associated with the ** greatest consequences to public health and safety. 4. If demonstration of structural adequacy under the most .severe load combinations c'urrently spec.ified for emergency and accident conditions is provided, a reasonable can be drawn that the structure is also adequate to sustain the less severe loadings associated with less severe consequences. 10.2 LOAD DEFINITIONS D Dead loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as permanent equipinent loads). E or E 0 Loads generated by the operating basis earthquake. E' or Ess Loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake. F Loads resulting from the of pre-stress. H Hydrostatic loads under operating conditions. Ha Hydrostatic loads generated under accident conditions, such as post-accident internal flooding. (FL is sometimes used by others* to designate post-!.OCA internal flooding.)

• See, for example, SRP 3.8.2.

Research Center A Division cf The Fnmlclln IMlltutc .. ': > *. ... *. . . * .' . .". *-.. -i ; ... . . ----*-i* -* TER-C5257-324 L Live loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as movable equipment P 0 or Pv Loads resulting from pressure due to normal operating conditions

• Pa Pressure load generated by accident conditions (such as those generated by the postulated pipe break accident).

Ps All pressure loads which are caused by the actuation of safety relief valve discharge including pool swell and subsequent hydrodynamic loads. Ro Pipe reactions during startup, normal operating, or shutdown conditions, based on the critical transient or steady-state condition. Ry or Ra Pipe reactions under accident conditions (such as those generated by thermal transients associated with an accident). Rs All pipe reaction loads which are generated by the discharge of safety relief valves. Ta Thermal loads under accident conditions (such as those generated by a postulated pipe break accident). T 0 Thermal effects and *1oads during startup, normal operating, or shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition. Ts All thermal loads which are generated by the discharge of safety relief valves. W Loads generated by the design wind specified for the plant. W' or Wt

• Loads generated by the design tornado specified for the plant. Y* ] Tornado loads include loads due to tornado wind pressure, created differential pressure, and tornado-generated missiles.

Equivalent static load on the structure generated by the reaction on the broken pipe during the design bas1s Equivalent static load on the structure .generated by the ment of the fluid jet from the broken pipe during the design basis accident. Ym . Missile impact equivalent static. load on the structure generated by or during the design basis accident, such as pipe whipping. Research Center A OMsion of The Franklin Institute

* .:*l ***; TER-C5257-324 The load combination charts correspond to loading cases and load tions as specified in the appropriate SRP. Each chart is associated with a specific SRP as identified in the notes accompanying the chart. Guidance with respect to the specific loads which must be considered in forming each load combination is provided by the referenced SRP. All SRPs are prepared to a standard format; consequently, subsection 3 of each plan always contains the appropriate load definitions and load combination guidance.

Center A Oivlolcn cf The Franklin lnsdtute TER-C5257-324

10. 3 DESIGN LOAD TABLES "COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS" e.** Research Center A OMsion of The F111nklln IMllllllE

..

' .*. ** :: . .*. "'* "' *=*** .... .. . ..*j .**.* f *.*:*J -*: .i : <1 .. _ .. :*.J .. ' ** .. 1 ' .. :: ' . -. ': .... *._ .. -* . ***-.. : -.. TER-C5257-324 eo1Jn:-*1JP1iil.Jr COMPARISON OF GESIGN BASIS LOADS -. *srR0cruR£*: s -re_;.;c.t.;u. PLANT: PALI .SAP6.S C=mt Is Load Is Load Does* Load Dou Code Design Applicable Included Magnitude Deviation Impact Buis To 'Ibis In Pl.sat Correspond E:z:Lst Sc:ale Comm en a:. Laada Stnc:ture7 Design To Present In Load Ranking Bas:l.ll? Criteria? Buis? >-lSS '#5 rJO -... D .... > " L "\6.S 1f:C":a ,Jc B-.t 3.) F '{es 'ic> i.JC -II ;e:5 'fES --6x ::z.) . QI p ,.Jo 7.) lo = 0 ----Ill .4.) :;eP *r.,p1,;

• Ill* p 'fE.S. 'iE-S> 'i cs. -QI >-JC :m:-1e lo a !loo i..IO s ----"'4 T

'feS °'f.SS i..IO -a 0 T *1es 'tSS NO YES -4,) >eP 'it-<. Jit-cB QI a TS !Jc ----ll 'i6S. tJO 0 -QI .= ll . 't&.S I -te; tJO -ca. .. IJ a i .. QI Qo z I Is tJO i l ----"'4 '\6';) }l'"" i;.*kiil-* " E' . "'\E'> IWO ... = QI E ia "'f&s lo&Q '\e-; a -g lo W' "'\ES '1,t;;S "1ES NO ,,....,. 1.),?'.J seP .... > w "f"OPlC a . ""tGS "16!) ---. 1Ii.-2 T 'f6S i6S 'iE:S -roPrc. i!l.:J, A QI r Ill -roflc. °1/I.-7.A "'4 yj "'\es t.Jc '1E5 p;.. "'f = Clo a ... y A-,.: '*) $eP "1'o'1c. "JJI,-'i.11 ID,. ;es '(ES --Conaenta-.- 1.) nu. load 1s bemg r.viewed as a separate SEP Topic oF Sou .. p12essu.e.e tJol 1>6S<l21t3ED 1,J ,4c."7'Hou<.tf Pf!o"Vis1au -ro r t=ae. 1r uuoee. t.oA-0 \r:I S.TA"JeD. . 3) IZooP '-DADsnAVE 11Jc:l2EJ'SED Pee. St;PToPfc "'4la"Al1TuDE .QtJll IMPAC.i d,4Se,9 oiJ ot= SEP "'Toft<: lZL -2. 0 .* 5.) sTAiC'5 IHA1"s'E1SMIC. IJJA{)IAJ{i CdNTi2ol. -n+AT 3'9o. "'1PH CQIJStDe12ED;' aur .:iFFEI( /Jc SPECIFIC '""8TAM1i.A7ioAI. fO FSA-2.. STATES Pl pe l.UHIP teESTeA11JT o/Z. CQAIC.ee-ns CJ.4LC... oil. Sl.AtS f"'l?ol/.tDS:.C,

• 7.) TeCH.

ST"ATliS 714& R.itAC.TU,(. ,.Joi C.CI 1:_acM.. IF' C:01JTA*Nl"'fei1Jr. !NTe/?.uAL exc:ee1:15 Research Center A Division of The Frenldfn lnsdlule -.,, .-* *I* . . , '.* .. : ::1* *-* . TER-C5257-324 COrtPARISOrt OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS Pt.ANT.: PALISAO.a:.s Currmc l:s* I.Oaci

• Is Load Does Load Desip Applicabl1 Included Magnitud.e Buia To 'Ihis ID Pl.Ant Co=espcmd Loads Stncturel Design To Present: Ba81s7* Crlt:eria?

=--"\6) '\ES ... 'tt:S ... D > Ill .. L '16$ "!es 'tliS 0 Ill F !JC --.. = .. I! -;es "\es -.. Ill .. p "" -* --a T 'iSS '\ES '\E., e 0 Ill T eS a -* --" B. "te7. ":1ES . G .= o* ',Cl.' u a .. ..... QI -"" :c a --g* I 'f SS "ilS7 )JO I c: I :z I "\ec;, "1eS I Ill -Ii = w* 'iES YES Q .. ... > 'll '1&S "'{es c: -Ill y ---r Ill yj 'le? 'iE5 -.. = Cl. ? a 'tSS ... Ill --. Coniullts Does Deviaticm *ID Load :Basis? /.JO /Jc ---t.JO -""'o - I I I -f\Jo-----AVXIUM'! T a1J<..w;

• TRUCTURE Fc..e: Cot.i T.e<.1. R""H l>ICS&l..

if S..:1Tc:.HlfreA,e Code Impacc * .. . . .Scale Comumcs l!anld.Dg -A.,:. 5'.) -3.),4.) A,..,, -AJ -I A. y. I lj SEiP ToPl.C. iJJ"-(Q ' I

• I -1.)2JSEF" -' "t"oPIC :!II-2. -Aj... f..' iEP -rot'lc. 111-7.'5.

"1-se:P' -r--c. rrr-7 .13 A.y.. . ' Sff"' "foP" liL-5.6 This load 111* being reviewed as a sepante SEP Topic *'2.)TORA.IA-Oo llJ Y\1 1 Sou.;.. ?ReS)IJRIS /JCT 1:)E'ScR.1t3e1' j JJ FSA-e. ( E XC.EPT iltAT PAL.ISAJ;>E'S e>E'5i&.iJ St:ISIS .Foil. IT5 \JM,0C£. L..:iAP "D') * * . ** * .A.) H uJ F'Al..t.sA-Oes.' LdAD .... aawA-T&otJS I'S> YEFD r-.:.e F'1P*0 P> . t.lc2MAL oPeeA-r,o..A. ..ises li?.e. TH1S. 5.) fZooF . . U.A-116 ?ee. Sep 10P1c. JI .;,,.:z Gi ... SeP ToPJC JI£,-'7.D wn .. I.. 11-' . EJ<,.ISTS ,a.wt> *,t= 15 Fc::n..11JD ACC:ES.S ITS s I l=I (;AtJCG Research Center. A OMslon ol The Franklin Institute

.. .. ---*-** *-** --* ----*-*--- ..... *;:;*.* ; ., . **:..:. -: *-;*::_:*.) ..* ' .. ':*-.: ,, -' ; **_*j

• 1 ! * . CONPARISOfl OF BASIS LOADS
• PLANT: PA'-15"-Des Current: Is.Load Is Load Dou Load Does ApplicablE Included Magnj.cude Deviaciou Buis To This In Plane Correspoud Exist: Loads Scruccura?

Duign To In Load Buia'l Criteria? Basis? >o. .. D "'fSS '{SS "!es IJQ ... > al ... t:l L 'fE-5 'te-5 'te5i iJo Ill F --... i-Jo --= al !I .. iE$ '\E;S 1-)0 Ill ... P,, l2o i.lo ---... T "'ee4l. * ---0 ... T Ill tS a ie-S '"\6'5 r.Jo a "'*'° ---Ill ..: 0 Co u ll ... '4 Cl ;Jo. l2o ::c a ---... Cll !' "i&S "\6.S. tJ-o 'tes. .... "16S ,..,.a -tes I = ! z .. ii 'll' 'tes3.) 167 4-, ves = o* ... ... > 'll t-l Q ---= Cll y -* ---r Ill ID yj ----... = Q, y a ... m ----. I..} This load is 'baing revi*ed u. a separaca SEP Topic: 2.) MtjStLE ltJC.WD&-.D IN TER-CS257-324 '6i_C" CTURE* T i'QC Ci::o..ic.12eTe) .Coda . Impac:c Sc:ala Cammmcs llanking --*--*- Dr.$ -* --"-)-1-rD* Cl'TT':"SB --15 I -Ax. . I -r'oPIC. -m-z t } P1Pe am<. SX T'e'2-MP\\. To C:-0 loi'T'i'UUMErJ -,, Ax IN seP TaPlC:. 'ut.-5'.S . .3..) OIJl..Y SltJc.E .R.ooP ove/2. SP&AlT Fuel. Pe101-1S NcT To.eAIADo ,, 4.) F5Ae... STA-TWS Poot.. fti/E IU5SISTIM7 lo '7b.e.uA-Qc:S A&J.O -,, 'T"WS-ASSot:1A'Tte-.D ciet>*Sl.C-MISSll..E:S '5.) "ioPIC '2It-2. 'llllLL ;:>ETet2MlfJS: uJUElT"4ee. oil llGT 'Fbol.. -C-;i.Posu/Zc -rC) PoSs1a1..e E=i=Fec:Ts l!I AAi SPewT. Fuel.. Poot.. l.aA-0. FSM-.THAT ?PfilJT Pl)EL Pool_ /$ ])E;";.IGIJ6D "'IO W\\"<:.TA "TEMP. <:AVSC-.P SY t=bol. TC:MA' To /';'o° F <..JJJ{)6tf!. AS,.,o.e.MAL C'Ot.JOIT10 tJ.

• Research Center A OMslon of The Franklln Institute

  -_ --.... -COHPARISOfl OF DESIGH BASIS LOADS PLANT: p,q l.i SP, 015-S Current Is Load Is Load Does Load Desigll ApplicablE Included Magnitude Bui8 Ta Thia In Plant Correspond Load9 Structure2 Design Ta Present Basu? Criteria?

>. 'les 'le-s ... D *-tes ... :> ., ... "'fES "'1ES "'1.ES 0 L QI F ... f\JC --= OI II UQ -.. --QI ... P,. .Jo c:i. --... T "t&S

-a 0 ... T

• QI Ne-* .c: a ---B. JJ<> --Ill -= a g. u B. No ... QI -c:i. :c a -... E' "\9S I -iS> NO . ., I .. E c 'tes 'f &c; ! -'!! .. .. i6S c NO -o--... ... w :> '16$ "ie:s a -y !'JO --r GI yj !II . ,.;o --... = c:i. y I! I-JO ... Ill ---ea-en.cs Does Deviation Exist In Load Basis? NO . iJa -------*1es -'fE5 ----lJ 'rbU load 1s bmng revimred as a separate SEP Topic .

-* *-* -----TER-C5257-324 "TRUCTURE 5Pe<rJT t=.i et... Poo.__ (R.a.aF -ST.e:e1.-) Code Impact Scale CDllllllClt* Banld.ng -Ax 3 .. ) . ---I -m:-6JI.> --1)°\i'.PIL

---

I Ay. .* lj S.;t_r,cl'IC.

-/J> * ..,. . ***> **'.r .... -' ToPlC. '![t.-2. --*-. -'l.) o"GC"C. SFE\.lT F\JeL. PooL uc\ l:)f:-S i'IJi?O A\ laCi.JA1>o \..oAi')S HA-"* 1iJC.tli:EMEC., SEP.TciF'ic, "'IC-:t

• Research Center /\ OMsion ol The Franklin lnslilllte

. -. . ,, *. 'l j *; * .. _, ., ... j ... ; . ' e >-.. ... > Ill "" .. "" = Ill .. Cll "" ... .... a .. tS .. ... COffPARISOfl OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS PLANT: Current Is Load Is Load Does Load Daip ApplicablE Included Magnitude Buis To 'this In Plant Correspond Loads Desip To Buis?* Criteria? D ies 'il:'S 'ie.5 L 'tes 'f6S 't&S p ,.;a --II ie'S "1ES ----T *1es. '1.S5 alc%LI Ci,; BIE 0 T a -*--B.

"16S 0 .=. u .... Cl R ... :c a ---.... I "g* 't&S

,.Jc llS I I I .. ! = '\eiS "iES -I .. Ii = W' "'ieS ;es 1es Q "" ... 'll > 't6S lCS-S a -y '\es '\es -l:' Ill yj. .. 1'&-5 'tc-5 --.... = ... T a '16-S ... Ill --. TER-C5257-324 Does Code. Impact Eld.st Scale Comments In Load Ranlcing Basis? -iJo A-,.. 4.) .. ' -----Av ---'* -A'{. . sEP \)"""'i*"i"IT'- .. .::;.e, \ IJc -Ax . -"tGS -* c:. I --,JO -I. ),'2.} r;:P. . -.Jit-2 -- .. -A.,. -. 7.6 A--. 1.) ,3.) . -Colline ts *-* -*-*-* ---.* * .. * --*-**--* *-* -* *--* **-1.) This load is being reviaed u a separate SEP Topic . ___ . I ' 'l.)-r.oR.iJA-Co Ml!ISll.e 1tJcc..1JDel:> IN -w ( ..iew-Fue\.. AR.EA te:.aof" ,s. tJoT . 3 .) rJo <Des c.e 'Fr*o tJ f o"t=" \.oA.P 's. .,.eeATeo, 1 s F-o" i.l1) 1 ..i

• P2o"UlatJ Foe. LT IU 'PA1...1!.As::>es aASIS. 4 .)

l..oA.'DS -sep Ta ?tc 'It._ "J. A. j Research Center A Oivlsion of The Franklin Institute .---

.; *, -',; ' .* ... COf1PARISOn OF OESIGH BASIS LOADS* PLANT: FA\..\ SA De S Current Is Load Is Load Does* Load Deaip ApplicablE Included MagJU.tude Buis To 'Ih1s In Plant Car:es11011d "!Loads Structural Design To Present Basis? Criteria? >-.. D "16S '\"GS. .... > Ill .. L 'ie-s '\&!> i::i Ill l NC --.. = .. II ,es "'\eS 'tES .. Ill .. "" ,JO --... To IJE"li"4GI --e Ill T tJc . ....;._ ES a -B.o "\6'=' -Ill . -= c:i. ... B. .. .a Ill tJO "" :: a --. E' 'i.,;S '(e'> i.J 0 *= I I .. '\eS = .E I* ""\es I I -Ill ii = w* ""\eS "1e> ieS *o . ... .... w "\ES '(ES > a -y r tJO --Ill yj !JO 1--:.:-Ill -... -= Clo y s m --Cama.mts Does Deviation Exist In Load Basis? tJC "1 c -/IJ c:. -----'ie) -iJo ---1.) This load is being reviewed u a separate SEP Topic Research Center A OMsion ol The Franklin Institute I TER-C5257-324 uJTAIC:6 (It.le.&.. CTURE i..;Ali Cade Impact Scale Comments Ranking -Ax. l.) ---l)SE.\> ibPl\.1Jl'.::S1 ? --1\st$T11f ii. ---.. A.y.. l:J SwP TQPIG,

• 111:-6 .. -I I . ! -"Tof'\C. . 1-4 -*-* . --

- --- -*.; '.i .. :J j '] * * .. I COHPARISO?I OF DESI GH BASIS LOADS PLANT: Current Is Load Is Load Does Load Dellign ApplicablE Included Magni.Cude Buill To '!his In Plane Correspond Ito.a scrw:cuei Design To hesenc Bu;Ls? Criteria?

... ... D '\e.S '\ES "'les .. = .. tES --ies '\ES a L GI F NO --.. = CD II '\cS CD Ill .. i:i. p ---" ... T "1*.S 1Jec.u,1eu; a 0 Ill T ti a ---B. '\E-5 '\ES "\CS GI .c: a c:i,; u .B. .... Ill i:i. ::c a ---... g*

I '\eS i.la OI ... I = ! "'\GS "teS -! 'I! .. = W' '\es 'tes "'\e-5 Cl .. .. > w '\es '{es -= Dll y ies -tes -r. GI yj Ill '\E'S "tt:-S -... :I Clio s y ies "'\ES ... la -Coaiml:s Does Deviation Exist In Load* Basis? 11.J 0 l'Jc ----r.JC --tes -i.lc ----TER-C5257-324 AIJ'/... u.:p; CTURE P.J MP IS-iJC.LaS.J Cot..14-'t Code. Impact Scale Comments la:aldng --4.) *-B')( ;l.). 3.) -Ax* 1"\S\::.?Trr:, II. l.!J. -A.)<. 1)5Ef'rt.p;l. TIJ-: IB -A;><* .. ,A--r-lj SC? ToPtc. .:-<o . I ! -. \,)JseP .. -lII.-Z -

• • )} ) \0P1c:. A ilf (. .W.-5 13 ... 1.) A.,-. Thia load baiDg revimred aa a separal:*

SEP Topic 2.) Sou .. Pe.ess"a..e MetJT !Joi iu (e)Ccli-PT -T-H1'r'T

• '------* --... i=>AL."iSJ'OES

'DSSlG#J SP.SIS roe \'TS

• ui.J.l)eE.,
• Loi'rD

'Ti I . 3.) '"' . IN l.011.'D DES -'""ATES PtF't:-laet.C..Tlo ti ..: C4'1'D*"T,oiJfa. l.lSES -4.) Lo,0..0S. i4A"E SEiP Tc Pl C 1I.-2.A \Cth) Center . A Dtvtsion of The Franldln IMll!ute . , __ * 'I ::-£;_1 TER-C5257-324 10.4 LOAD COMBINATION TABLES "COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA" ..... Research Center * .. . A Division af The Franldln Institute .* . , . .. . * .. j . j -*1 1 :".i :... - ..... __ ,___;** TER-C5257-324 STRUCTllRE CONCRETE CC/ff A Hil'.E!IT PA Li SA.DES Cocllined Gravity Prescresa Severa Nacul'al Sea.le Loading Dead, wad Presaura '!herul Environment Phenomena

• Mechanical Rankinr Cues Live !lonial l D + L F .I\ T I! a 0 2 D+L F *'--T !a I a a l D+L F "-,. T II ll a a Severe (II (1J En'11ronmental
• 1.1-g (Factored)

1. "l. 5 D + L.JL F \. T -1.sv R 0 a Extrema 6 IE} UJ \ ISl {g Emrimn,_,.Ul 7 tE!J crJ III lie 4. a !]EJ IJJ 11.j p .I I Air. a Abaarul 9 D+L F p T !.25 I a a

• Ahnarul/ LO [ml (!l
• 11.2s Sev*re. EnvirOftlllelltal 11 D+L F 1.25 p T l.25V II. .. * .. 12 D+L ., H T !a .. 0 13 D+L ., H T II a a Abnormal/

m 12;] [&j Ax. Excre* 14 la &i R* +II. ---. a r Raf.: 1. Sll.P Saccian J.8.1 Concreu Concaln1""nt 2 * .ISM! Saccioa UI, Div. 2 Article CC-JOIK' 1. Encircled loads are those considered in the design. When load factors different from those curi-ently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.

2. The FSAR states that; forces or pressure on structure due to rupture of one pipe, is considered.

no specific details are found

• 3. l"or purpcses of the SEP Review, demnstracion th:i.c ini::egrity is for load *:asa 14 J 6 (per current c:riceria}

m.ay be . cauaiaered as providing assurance that .:.his strucrure ceecs tha izlceut of current. design .:riteria. Research Center A OMsion of The Franklin lnslitute CZ.) . . ;.:.::] ..

.. :

._, ; __ . ___..;___,_.,____,__ .. ,*.*1. ,. . *.*', , **. TER-C5257-324

• COMPARISON OF LOADI:;G COX5INATION CRITERIA.

Combined Cravicy Pnsci-e** SeVt!!r* LillER ?facural Scale . Cace1ory Laadio& Load Pres*ura Thermal Phenomena Mechanical Rankinr. ea ... Liv* \. Sormal 1 D + L p T ll CJ 0 2 D + l. F *\ T "Z *11 a* 0 a 3 D+L r \ 'l v

• a 0 Sev*re Li!:U @ 'Ty'.

S51 Env1EODmental 4 (Factored) 5 D.+.L F \ T v II a a EXtreme 6 IE ITi rn l!:l Enviroicunencal 7 !ill m GJ* ,, t a !El 11] l1El II Ab.normal

• 9 D+L F p T r.
• a
• Abnormal/

10 [fil 0 I t" l.2,, Severe Environ11eutal 11 D+L r p T II R . -* .. .. 12 D+l. F Ra *T E I 0 0 13 D+L F H T II ** CJ Abnomal/ F.xtreme 14 [El [!] 13:1 [!J cg R + R .. . i --------t

• r Ref.: 1. SRP Section J. 8.1 Concrete

2. ASME S<!ctian III, D1v. 2 Artl.-11!

CC-"JOO!I l. Encircled loads are those* considered in the design.

• When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled. A.'Xo Ax "2. The FSAR states that; forces or pressure on structure due to rupture of one pipe, is considered.

However no specific details are found. 3. P'or purposes of the SEP Review, de=nst-ra.tion tha.t .integrity is maintained for load case 14. -B (per current crite:r:l.a) may be c:onsiderad as providing

his structure c::?.eCS*

!:ha illteat of design cri:aria. -'!f: <: C-3120 of: SGC.Tior.J TIL. 'D\'/, 2 $TA7'=':) lt¥-T

• 114E L.1ue:R... l..OA-D FAc..T.,.es Al..L CA-S.E>S. ei; TA>K.Gr.l \ . .:i >

IM*" l=Ac..Toes Ai3o./E iAl ,4rJ.4LfSiS, Research Center

• A Division cf The Franklin Institute

... :* -.* .. "} **:** _:_*_ -:* TER-C5257-324 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: '8:.o CONCRETE STRUCTURES 3-:::.Tcii?1 PLANT: 'PAL\ CONT'Ra._ v GQ.. ij, Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive lscale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading !Ranking* Cases Live l l.4D + l.7L 2 l.4D + l. 7L l.9E 3 1. 4D + 1. 7L 1. 7W 4 .75 (l.4D + .75 x l.7 T

• 75 x l.7 R 1 7L 0 0
• 75 (l.4D +
• 75 x l.7 T .75 x l. 7 1r
• 75 x l. ( :E 5 1 7 T \ *O 0 '*t* I\.

T">

• • J:* _,_, 6
• 75 (l.4D + .75 x l.7 T
• 75 x l. 7 R
• 75 x 1. 1.1.')/l\,J..1l.

7L) 0 '.9..: * .c. 7 l.2D l.9E .... 8 l.2D 1. 7W 9 ID+ LI T C!:I 0 fnl+ L I \wJ 10 T R,.. 'X. 0 ll D+L To. 1.5? a 12 ) Ta. l .. "Z.5P R9-11.2sEj Yr. +11:11+ y'lll ---* 13 i D +LI Ta. Po.. hr +(5]+ 'V J .ii Ax. Ref; SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures -0 Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) *Method used in design{wolrkimaing stress h _ .-. u t te strengt ....-*_!.cads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.

• Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors . different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
• The FSAR states that; forces or pressure on structure due to rupture of one pipe, is considered.

However no specific details are found. ** Wind velocity used is _mph as. referenced the FSAR\ 360 is

• \ \ by the Reg. Guide 1. 76J 1\0

\\\le oc:;J.:;, OWef 'OfP-"t' G\o,fle l!'o'I:' purposes of the SEP RJ!*Tiew-, eemanstra._ cion .. *ha .. scructur.:U. integrity is fat: load cases io <i....i 1'3 (per cu:ren: crtceria) e1ay be as pi:oviding reasonable assura:ic3 chac chis struc:ure meecs Che incent or current: design criceria. . Research Center A OMsion of The Fianklln lnslitute

--, . . ' j ,.*, * ..* __ ,_

__________

.:.__,_. ______________ . *-----.. TER-C5257-324 . COMPARISOtl OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA . STRUCTURE: CONCRETE STRUCTURES A\.,;X.l&...1Ae*t A::;o._ PLANT: P \ E'S c u.;;..;c.:..£?e:'Te) Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive !Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Live Mechanical Phenomena Loading !Ranking Cases l l.4D + l. 7L ... *-** I * . l. .. 1.i;-I -.. 2 .I.. '+U "1"' .Lo I!.. 3 l. 4D + l. 7L 1. 7W .75 (l.4D + * ;z; :. ;i 'i' * +:S le :. ;z R: 4 1. 7L 0 0 .75 (l. 4D + . ;is '!:

• 7§ u :1:. 7 &. .75 x 5 , 7 T) 0 0 :i.<.; I I * =;t t:>-o-1.-'\I

' ,; . 75 (l.4D +

• 75 :1::3 'i' * ;is x l.,7 a . 75 x l.tT-6 t1.2'i/n.LJIL.

7L) 0 0 .l'j 7 l.2D l.9E 8 l.2D l. 7W 9 *, ID+ Ll ' !TI 10 D+L \ \. Wt-i.) 11 D+L Ta

• 5 a " -***-***-*

-* . -*-a . 12 Ta . * :ZS "!\ 11.25E I a In+ LI ' '-@:] 13 T a -Ref; SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Cacegory I structures (concrete) Notes -*Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) *Method used in desi stress

• gn ultimate strength./
• -* ... --* -Yr+ 'f.3 + Yr +Ii + Y.n **-* *-.

deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. Ax .*. e Encircled loads are *those considered in the des.ign. When load factors . different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled. . *'* Wind velocity used is 360 mph as referenced in the FSAR, 360 mph is required by the Reg. Guide l.76. For purpcses SE?

• . de:ioustrjtion thac st::-:..:c:urnJ.

is . tulint:i.ined for lo.:id c::.:;us 10 Q.nQ C\\rl:'C:lt c::i.::eti_;;). -=sidered c:s prov1ciin"'.

• • rn.:ison,-:bl;,..

"' * *

• the :'} i.:. ---.... _ ** .:i.e. .

of currenc dcsi bU crita=i.::..

• L. oul.1 ,..;-\1.ssiLc:

< LoAo APPltcA'BLi?'

• A Division of The Franlclln lnSIHute * -**

. * .. * .. *' . ,,_ .. ,_ ; *: .* ,. .,.*.;, .:* .. . * ......... . .... -.. *-:.<* . .. **. . *: *. **, i TER-C5257-324 . COMPARISON OF LOADING CRITERIA STEEL STRUCTURES (Plastic Analysis) STRUCTURE:AUX!Lir,RY' i3LD9. PLANT: L..i5i\ OE:S SPENT F"lJEL PooL ( Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading Cases 1 1.7 (D + L) **-2 l.7 (D + L) . 1. 7E --* -\ **-. -3 1. 7 (D + L) 1. 7t-1 4 1.3 (D + L) l 3 a. 0 0 5 l. 31 <n1 .+,.J->j l. :3 R i. 0 o* 6 1" 3 -l. 3 0 l-l-R.. 0 l.bl 1.:i...,. 7 In+ t] [!:] 8 D+L '\;.. "' v"* A'*) _: 9 D .+ L ' a ., ' 11.25! 1 *

• -10 ' l.2s* Pa 15" ... **--***--. -----

--**---------11 B '\ ' .. 0 '+"+\i, .. Ref; SRP (1981) SECT. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. 1. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors are different from those currently required were used. the factor used is. also encircled.

2. 360 mph is required by the Reg. Guide 1.76 P'or ;;ur,ioses of the SEP Review, demonscrat:ion tllac scructural integrity is mai.nttined for load cases 8 "'nd ll (per current. criteria}

t:1ay be c:oaaide:r:?d as providing reasonable assurance thac c!lis struct:ura ceets the :incect oi. curre:1.c criteria. Research Center A DMsion of The Frankiln lnslilUte .... * .. .{ .J *.* i *--r------TER-CS257-324 -A -.. ,.-COMPARISQrl OF LOADING COMB INATI !3N CRITERIA STRUCTURE:A'vx'iL1A"R.y N/E:W 'FVEL CONCRETE STRUCTURES PU<vlf'

• PLANT:

.. fi<EATMe-1\J\ Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechani:cal Phenomena Loading Ranking _Cases Live .. .... ----l l.4D + l. 7L . ***--* ..* l.9E .. . --* *---2 l.4D + l.7L ... *--... -3 l. 4D + l. 7L l. 7W

• 75 (l. 40 +
• 7_§ II ;!,, 7 ; .75 x 1. 7 R 4 ? 7T 0 0 .75 (l.40 +
• il:5 :le :i:.;i :: .75 x 1. 7 R
• 75 x 5 ... L) 0 f,2.g.

II 1 * .2.'iC;::,-:-11 6 . 75 (l.4D + * -ZS ;ii; J :z :c

• 75 x .75

... ;a. 7L) 0 ,, .z.s" *2'5' 7 l.2D . 1.9E 8 l.2D l.7W In+ LI fR:1 [!] ***-----9 "\. *--10 ml+ L rw:1 11 D+L TQ. 1 .. 5.P Rq_ ---. *-* ... . a ! 1.2SE I ... ---12 ,.Q.. j.,?..5P. Ro.. . a 5 --_ .. *-

---

B ....... 13 .Ta.. R"' .m A'f. -... . -** ****-** _______ ,_ ... ---. -*-* . **----Ref; SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) -Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) Method used in desi {working stress

• gn ultimate strength.,...,

deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the des.ign. When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled. FSAR states that; forces or pressure *on structure due to rupture of one

• pipe, is considered.

However no specific* details are found. **Wind velocity used is 3&0 mph '°;\51 referenct;!.j in tl,le FSAR., 360 is requifed.\ _ by the Rag. Guida l. 76; fSA\Ct,.sk;te..S n<> \\-t*. \O"..O.S . !'or of. ::!".e SE? R.eviev, c:!<?=s_t:r;t:io::i

h.::?.t: is r.ot" .l.::'.:d

\() anc4 \3 (per c==-::e::-ia)

..w

.::.5 r.rs:LSan::ble

.ilii scru.

:tu=c

ect

s ':he o.t currl!nC.

Research Center A Division ol The Franklin Institute . :*.*.: . *.

--*

r.:; .. ;.: TER-C5257-324 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE:

11.JTA"-.Z: CONCRETE STRUCTURES F'P..L \ 'S A.t::.E$ WAT.::.£. ?.: OW\?:.) PLANT: :01::>c.H*Aet:C Combined Gravity Natural Imp.ulsive Scale Loading Dead, Thermal. Pressure Mechanical Phenomenr*

• Load::!:ng

-* ***!Ranking Cases Live *----. *----*. l l.4D + 1. 7L 2 l.4D + l. 7L l. 9E 3 1. 4D + 1. 7L 1. 7W

• 75 (l.4D +
• 75 x 1. 7 T
• 75 x 1. 7 R 4 1 71 0 0 .75 (l.4D + .75 l. 7 'f .75 x l.7 lt
• 75 x* x 5 1 7 T.) *o 0 1.2* *"--7 \i:)
• 75 (l.4D + .7§ ll lc7 T
• 75 x 1. 7 R . 75 x 6

7L) 0 0 7 l.2D l.9E .. 8 l.2D l. 7W 9 ID+ ti *\. "" fEJ. .. 10 IDJ+ L '-lD '\ -.--*-* .... -*-. . ... -11 D+L l.S p a 12

i. as p 11.25Ej ., a

+ \ ----* ID+ ti "\ \ " \+\+\ 13 ----*--*-*-* -* --*-* **-** -*- Ref; SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) -Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) {working stress

• Method used in design ultimate strength ..,.--Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.

Encircled loads are these actually considered in the design. load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.

• "Wind velocity used is 3&0 mph as. referenced in the FSAR,\ 360 mph is required \ by the Reg. Guide 1. 76.jR:AR.

s\eJes oo h..ie.

ct\.c:;rThCt:no*ru1e., \c.oAS for purposes of the SEP Review, demoustradcn cb.ac sc:W:cural integricy u aaintained for lead case* l 0 -' \3 (per current criteria) may be c:m.sidered as proV1.ding rnasonable assurance tb.ac this scructure meecs che :i:t:ent cf current design c:ntenz. enklin Research Center /\ Division of The Franldln Institute ' .. :*! . _:.; .. : -: :; .. __ . __ ._:;: ,;:*. "! :; ... --* ' . . .J *; .. ' *.-_.:; ! .*. . .. , --------------****-. ****-----*

---

TER-C5257-324 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: i ;.J E. CONCRETE STRUCTURES AUX.. r.eec w;...l'G;e., PLANT: 'PAL IS ?.JM? Combined Gravity Natura1 Impulsive Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Cases Live 1 l.4D + l.7L 2 l.4D + 1. 7L l. 9E 3 l.4D + 1. 7L 1. 7W .75 (l.4D + * ;!§ It ;e,;z:;;

• 75 x 1. 7 R 4 1 7l 0 0
• 75 (1. 4D + 3 ;z; !f ii:. jl ii
• 75 x 1. 7 R-* 75 x 5 1 7 T \ 0 0

\. ?' l. 'Z.1; . 75 (l.4D + * ;z3 ii ;i, ;z;

• 75 x 1. 7 R-* 75 x l. r*] 6 Q '11."2."ill'I

-"* 7L) 0 . ,).! 7 l.2D l.9E 8 l.2D 1. 7W 9 ID+ ti rm --fiil+ L !l' 10 ,, 11 D+L 'Ta.. l .. 5f a -.. -*---**-. j 1.25E I (\0.. 12 To.. . l .. 26fa 13 ID+ t] To. to-Ro.:. -Ref; SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) -.Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) * {working stress * *Method used in design ultimate strength 1" Loading ---** ------!Yr + Yj +Y m Fr+ yj + yml * !-oads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. !Ranking . A . ::t. . A* x

• Encircled loads are those cons_idered in the des.ign. load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also. encircled.
• The* FSAR states that; forces or pressure on structure due to rupture of one pipe, is consiaered.

However no specific* details are found * -* ** Wind velocity used is %0 mph as referenced in the FSAR, 360 mph is required \ by the *. Guide 1. (\0 c-cc..nc:.. \a:0s loz of the SEP Rev1eu-, stri.tct:ur.tl !:n:egrit:y u u:l.:t:ained ror load c.:ises IQ .md 13 (per current: c:ti.r.eria) l!l.aY be CCDsidered as prpvtciing reasonable. assurancP-thac scrucr.ure meets the mtent: of currauc design criteria * "ftnklin Research Center A Division of The Franlclln lnstitule . . . ** .. *: . ;* .. : . ***. *! *. *.** 1 : TER-C5257-324

11. REVIEW FINDINGS The most important findings of the review are summarized in this section in tabular form. The major structural codes used for design of Seismic category I buildings and structures for the Palisades Nuclear Power Station were: l. AISC, "Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 1963 2e ACI 318-63, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," 1963 3. ACI 301-63, "Suggested Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings," 1963

• Each of these design codes has been compared with the corresponding structural code governing current licensing criteria.

Tables follow, in.;c,the order listed above, summarizing important results of these-comparisons-for* -------* each code. These tables provide: l. identification by paragraph number (both of the orginal code and of its current counterpart) of code provisions whe.t*e--s--ca!e -Kor* 5"caiiff *------------ Ax deviations exist. 2. identification of structural elements to which each such may apply. Some listed provisions may apply only to elements __________________ _ the Palisades structures. When FRC could determine that this was the case, such provisions were struck from the list. Any provisions_ that appeared to be inapplicable for other reasons also were eliminated. Items so removed are listed in Appendix A to this report. Access to further information concerning code provision changes is provided by additional appendixes. Each pair of codes (the design and the current ones) has a tabular summary within the report (Appendix B) which lists all code changes by scale ranking. Research Center /\ OMslon of The Franl<lln lllllltute .. *.*: .. *-.. : . : ---' TER-C5257-324 In addition, a separately bound appendix exists for each code pair. This provides:

1. full texts of each revised provision in both the former and current versions 2. comments or conclusions, or both, relevant to the code change 3. the scale ranking of the change

• Research Center A Division of The Fnmldln lnllllute

,*,{:-*;-." ! -1 * -; -\ .. ( TER-C5257-324

• ll.l MAJOR -FINDINGS OF AISC-1963 VS.

CODE COMPARISON Research Center A Division of The Fronldln .

• -*-:-<J ---. *. : ... .i _ ...... :.-:.** ' . '* . *:_ 1 --.;.1 . ' -*. i . -:-:.{ . -: ... :.; . ,j . *j . I . . *.

TER-C5257-324 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 12!!.Q. ]:.ill. 1.5.l.2.2 1.9.1.2 1.9.l and Appendix c 1.10.6 1.10.6 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Beam end connection where the top flange is coped and subject to shear, or failure by shear along a plane through fasteners or by a combination of shear along a plane through fasteners plus tension along a perpendicular plane_ Slender compression ened elements subject to axial compression or compression due to bending when actual width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.l.2 Hybrid girder -reduction in flange stress . Research Center. -so-A Division Of The Franklin lnsdtule Conunents See case study 1 for details. New provisions added in the 1980 Code, Appendix C See case study 10 for details. New requirement added in the 1980 Code

• Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code
• See case study 9 for details.

...... -* _..,,.. ____ oO,o_,__ -** *** .*. _ _.. ' ... _*, .. _ -._,_. ___ ... _ --. *-. .-,J .*. * .

• • • j" , .... :: i . *: TER-C5257-324 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC !ill. !ill. l.11.4 l.11.5 l.14. 2.2 1.15.5. 2 1.15.5.3 1.15.5.4 2.9 l.11.4 2.8 Structural Elements Potentially Af.fected Shear connectors in composite beams
• Composite beams or girders with formed steel deck Axially loaded tension members where the load is transmitted by bolts or rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members Restrained members when. flange or moment connection plates for end connections of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or' H shaped columns Lateral bracing of members to resist lateral and* torsional displacement Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnslitute Comments New requirements added in the 1980 Code ing the distribution of shear connectors (eqn
• 1.11-7). The diameter and spacing of the shear connectors are also subject to new controls.

New requirement added in the 1980 Code New requirement added in the 1980 Code New requirement added in the 1980 Code A c O.O < M/Mp < 1.0 O.O > M/Mp > -1.0 See case study 7 for details. --l --*:i .. 1 * .. : .. j .*; ':.*. :J *:* ' .. J ' >1 -*\ . i -' .i TER-C5257-324 11.2 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON Research Center A Division of The Franklln Institute ... ;" *.* "J ' 1 -:.-.i **:*.*_*.j . . '\ .**** .. 1 .; .. , . *.? . **lj ' ** .. .. -! *:.'i .. _ .. . ' TER-C5257-324 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A Referenced Subsection ACI ACI 349-76 318-63 7.10.3 805 11.13 11.15 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Columns designed for stress reversals with variation of stress from fy in compression to 1/2 fy in tension Short brackets and corbels which are primary load-carrying members Applies to any elements loaded in shear where it is inappropriate to consider shear as a measure of diagonal tension and the loading could induce direct shear type cracks. Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnstltute Comments* Splices of the main reinforcement in such columns must be reasonably limited to provide for adequate ductility under all loading conditions. As this provision is new, any existing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria and failure of such elements could be non-ductile type failure. Structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements

• Structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fill these ments.

TER-C5257-324 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection ACI ACI 349-76 318-63 11.16 Appendix A Structural Elements Potentially Affected All structural walls -those which are primary load carrying, e.g., shear walls and those which serve to provide protection from impacts of type objects. All elements subject to time-dependent . and. position-dependent tempe.ratlire variations .and* restrained so that thermal strains will result in thermal stresses. Center. A Division al The Franklfn lnslilute Comments Guidelines for these kinds of wall loads were not provided by older codes; fore, structural integrity may be seriously endangered if-the design fails to fulfill these requirements. For structures ject to effects of pipe break, cially jet ment, thermal stresses may be nificant (Scale. A). For structures not subject to effects of pipe break dent, thermal stresses are unlikely to be significant (Scale B). --

• ,* '.:;'.: .. ! ,;.J . -:..1 *' .:.:*=:.:---1 . _*,.

,*:1* -. . -*---*-*-*---* .*.. ' __ ... TER-C5257-324 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of COde Changes with the Potential to Significantly Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection ACI ACI 349-76 318-63 Appendix B Structural Elements Potentially Affected .. All steel embedments used to transmit loads from attachments into the forced concrete structure. Research Center A Division of The Franldln lnslltute

...55-Comments New appendix: fore, considerable review of older designs is warranted.

Since stress analysis associated with these conditions is highly dependent on tion of failure. planes and allowable stress for these special conditions,* .. past practice varied with.designers* opinions. Stresses may vary cantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures.

• J .*'J j ... -, i ... , *: . *. *1 .. .i ; ... ::1 .. l . ' -J TER-C5257-324 11.3 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 {REVISED 1975) COMPARISON No Scale A or A changes were found in the ACI 301 Code Comparison.

x Research Center A Division of The Fnmldln IMlitute * . *: TER-C5257-324 11.4 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 CODE COMPARISON Research Center A Division of The FR1nklln Institute ' I-*' , . .

• _' . . . :1 -i ;'1 ., _j TER-C5257-324 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AC! 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A Referenced Subsection Sec. III AC! 1980 318-63 CC-3421.5 CC-3421.6 1707 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Containment and other elements transmitting plane shear Regions subject to peripheral shear in the region of concentrated forces normal to the shell surface Research A Division of The Franklin lnslltute Comments New concept. There is no parable section in AC! 318-63, i.e., no specific section addressing in-plane shear. The general concept used here (that the concrete, under certain conditions, can resist some shear, and the remainder must be carried by ment) is the same as in ACI 318-63. Concepts of in-plane shear and shear friction were not addressed in the old codes and there-fore a check of old de signs could show some significant decrease in overall prediction of structural integrity
• These equations reduce to V c = 4 membrane stresses are zero, which pares to ACI 318-63 [Sections 1707 (c) and (d)] which address npunchingn shear in slabs and footings with the factor taken care of in the basic shear equation (Section CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 10).

. *_..;"; i .. ' *;;: ...... .. :* :." . . . .. ;. .. , **: .. : ,1: . . .. :.:-! : ..... 5 *1 .* .... * ........ . . : *.' . :) TER-C5257-324 ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMl?ARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced SubseC'tion Sec. III ACI . 1980 318-63 CC-3421.6 (Cont.) CC-3421.7 921 CC-3421.8 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Regions subject to torsion Bracket and corbels Research Center A Division of The Frankiln lnllilute * .. Comments Previous code iogic did not address the problem of punching shear as related to diagonal tension, but control was on the average.uniform shear stress on a critical section

• See case study 13 for details. New defined limit on shear stress due to pu_re torsion. The.equation relates shear. stress from a biaxial stress condition (plane stress) to the resulting principal tensile stress and sets the principal tensile stress equal to Previous code superimposed only torsion and transverse shear stresses
• New provisions.

No comparable section in ACI 318-631 fore, any existing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria, and failure of such elements could be non-ductile type failure. Structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements. .. J ; , .. , . *:*i -*1 .:*. -.: .d *._. :*_J * ..! _--J :j ,, . : ! -.:; . ' . --"* TER-C5257-324 ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION tII, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 cc-3532. l. 2 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Where biaxial tension exists Research Center A Division of The Franklln Jnsdlute Comments ACI 318-63 did not consider the problem of development length in biaxial tension fields. ' .. -:* .. . ,; ,: l . .. ... !

• TER-C5257-324 . 12.

SUMMARY

The table that follows provides a summary of the status of the findings from the Task III-7.B criteria comparison review of structural codes and loading requirements for Category I structures at the Palisades Nuclear Power Station. The first and second columns of the table show the extent to which all Category I structures external to containment comply with current design criteria codes. The first column applies to the concrete portion of these structures; the second column applies to the portions which are of steel frame construction. The third column applies to concrete structures.with regard to original and current specifications for structural concrete. The fourth column applies only to the containment building, including its liner. The salient feature of this table is the limited number of code change impacts requiring a Scale A ranking. Consequently, re.solution, at the "structural* level, of potential concerns with respect to .'changes in structural code requirements appears, at least for the Palisades plant, to be an effort of tractable size

• enklin Research Center A Division of The Fl'llllidln lnslftule
• -* .:> .. ' . . * .. *.; . : .: :j .... ,,. :. .. . * .. : ., . -. -* ... SCALE RANKING Total Changes Found A or Ax Not '111 c: Applicable to M 0 Palisades o.-j .,.; :I .i..l O" ca Ill 00 B .,.; M .i..i .i..l Ill ti] 0 .c Ill :z: .i..l > M C: c 0. :I ..... Ill .i..l <ti *A M 00 Ill.,.; Ill .c: .i..l i:Q .i..l ti] M Ill A 0 :I > E-< c: x ..... SCALE RATINGS: Scale A Change -Scale Ax Change -Scale c Change -..

... S.UMMARY NUMBER OF CODE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR PALISADES CATEGORY I STRUCTURES ACI 318-63 AISC 1963 ACI 301-63 vs. vs. ACI 349-76 AISC 1980 ACI 301-72 (1975 Rev.) sz* 33 37 Z: + 4* 11 0 64 10 21 6 4 16 6 8 0 0 0 0 . . ***--,, ... .. TER-C5257-324 ACI 318-63 vs. ASME B&PV SEC. IIl Div. ? 39 3* 27 4 5 0 . The new criteria have the potential to substantially impair margins of safety as perceived under the former criteria. The impact of the code change on margins of safety is not inunediately apparent. Scale Ax code changes require analytical studies of model structures to assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon margins of safety.* The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited the former criteria.

• These changes are related to specified loads and load combinations.

Loading criteria changes are separately co'nsidei::ed elsewhere. . Research Center A DMsion of The Franklin Institute

• .: .. . . ... *, '*. '. .: ... '

j .1 . 'i ... -1 . ; * -.: . ....: ... _ .... .:. .. _ .... TER-C5257-324

13. RECOMMENDATIONS Potential concerns with respect to the ability of Seismic Category I buildings and structures in SEP plants to conform to current structural criteria are raised by the review at the code comparison level. These must ultimately be resolved by examination of individual as-built structures.

It is recommended that Consumers Power Company be requested to take three actions: l. Review individually all Seismic Category I structures at the Palisades plant to see if any of the structural elements listed in the following table*occur in their designs. These are the structural elements for which a potential exists for margins of safety to be less than originally computed, due to criteria changes since plant design and construction. For structures which do incorporate these features, assess the actual impact of the associated code changes on margins of safety. .., 2. Reexamine the margins of safety of Seismic Category I structures . under loads and load 99mbinations which correspond to current criteria. Only those* load-combinations a Scale A or Scale Ax rating in Section 10 of this report need be considered in this review. If the load combination includes individual loads which have themselves been ranked A or indicating that they do not conform to current criteria, update such loads. ,,,. Full reanalysis of these structures* is not necessarily required. Simple hand computations or appropriate modifications of existing results can qualify as acceptable means of demonstrating structural adequacy.

3. Review Appendix A of this report to confirm that all items listed there have no impact on safety margins at the Palisades plant.

Research Center A Division ol The FrankHn Institute * 'r-:(:\*

---

*--*-*

---

*--*-

---

,,; .. **---'----... j '. . 1 :. : ....... ; *_j . i :!,. *-._, ;";! **1 i **. *: .. *'; .. j .j ." J : :; .* :*: *1 ' , . .. i TER-C5257-324 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED Structural Elements to be Examined Code Change Affecting These Elements a. composite Beams 1. Shear connectors in composite beams 2. Composite beams or girders with formed steel deck b. Hybrid Girders Stress in flange Compression Elements With width-to-thickness ratio higher than fied in .1. 2

• Tension Members When load is transmitted by bolts or rivets Connections

.. a. Beam ends with top flange coped, if subject to shear b. Connections carrying moment or restrained member connection New Code Old Code AISC 1980 1.11.4 1.11.5 1.10.6 AISC 1980 1.9.1.2 and !\ppendix.c AISC 1980 1.14. 2. 2 AISC 1980 1.5.1.2.2 1.15.5.2 1.15.5. 3 1.15.5.4 AISC 1963 1.11.4 --** 1.10.6 AISC 1963 1.9.1 AISC 1963 AISC 1963 A A *A A A A A -*Double dash (--) indicates that no provisions were provided in the older code * . .Research Center A DMllion of The Franldln Institute . **.t ,j * .. *. i . -1 . 0:

• TER-C5257-324 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) Structural Elements to be Examined Memeers Designed to Operate in an Inelastic Regime Spacing of lateral bracing Short Brackets and Corbels having a shear depth ratio of unity or less Shear Walls used as a primary load-carrying member Precast Concrete Structural Elements, where shear is not a member of diagonal tension Concrete*

Regions Subject to High Temeeratures_ Time-dependent and position-dependent temperature variations Columns with Spliced Reinforcement subject to stress reversals1 fy in compression to 1/2 fy in tension Steel Embedments used to transmit load to concrete Containment and Other Elements, transmitting In-plane shear Region of shell carrying concentrated forces normal to the shell surface (see case study 13 for details) Research Center A Division of The Fnmklln Institute Code Change Affecting These Elements New Code Old Code AISC 1980 2.9 ACI 349-76 11.13 ACI 349-76 11.16 ACI 349-76 11.15 ACI 349-76 Appendix A ACI 349-76 7.10.3 ACI '349-76 Appendix B B&PV Code Section III, Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.5 B&PV Code, Section III, Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.6 AISC 1963 2.8 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 805 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 1707 A A A A A A A A A -: _-: *:.*-.*-*! . **1 ... 1 . --.-._.J *.: ;J ... ... 1 . ___ .... .. --;----* TER-C5257-324 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) Structural Elements to be Examined Region of shell under torsion Elements Subject to Biaxial Tension Brackets and Corbels Research Center II. Division of The Franlclln Institute Code Change Affecting These Elements New Code Old Code B&PV Code Section III, Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.7 B&PV Code, Section III, Div. 2, 1980 CC-3532.1. 2 B&PV Code, Section III, Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.8 ACI 318-63 921 ACI 318-63 *--ACI"318-63 A A A .. '(' . --* . \ * " 'i : ...... : --*1 ' -. -'-i -. ..,: ,_.::: .. i _.,*.:I *.-*. : '**: .* :. _ {' .. , .* ., ; ... *tt TER-C5257-324

14. REFERENCES

1. NRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800 (Formerly NUREG-75/087) , Rev. 1, July 1981 2. AISC, "Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 1963 3. ACI 318-63, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" 1963 4. ACI 301-63, "Suggested Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings," 1963 5. NRC Docket No. 50-255, memorandum dated June 30, 1978 (A. J. Ignatonis to M. H. Fletcher (NRC),

Subject:

Palisades quality group and seismic design classification, TAC No. 07349)

• Research Center /\ Division ol The Franklln lnsUtute

, .. 'j APPENDIX A SCALE A AND A CHAi.'lGES x DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO PALISADES PLANT enklin Research Center A Dlvislon ol The Franlclln lnsUwte A-1 .. --------*-*-*-__ ,_ ___ ., __ .. a *** . ... ; .*_,,; '* *.:1 .-* .i *j J *. . -.: ; * .. *: .i l APPENDIX A-1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON (SCALE A OR A CHANGES DEEMED NOT APPLICABLE TO PALISADES x OR CODE CHANGES RELATED 'ID LOADS OR LOAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) Research Center A Division of The Fninklln lnsdtute A-1.l . .. -' * -1 .. *. ., * ._ * .l .** .. :* >.:'.f .***. '! ,* i .. * .. *'] . ) .*. -i AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1980 1963 1.5.1.l 2.4 1st Para

• 2.7 1.5.1.1 2.3 1st* Para*. 2.6 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Structural members under tension, except for pin connected members Limitations Fy 0.833 Fu Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu Fy Fu Slenderness ratio for columns. Must satisfy: 1 r Fy < 40 ksi 40 <.Fy < 44 ksi Fy 44 ksi Flanges of rolled W, Mv or S shapes and similar built-up single-web .shapes subject to compression Fy 36 ksi 36 < Fy < 38 ksi . Fy 38 ksi A-1.2 Research Center I\ Division of The Franklln Institute . Scale c B A Scale c B A Scale c B A Comments Structural steel used in Palisades cat. I structures is A-36. Thus , Fy < 0.83 Fu Therefore, Scale C for Palisades
• Scale C for Palisades
• See case study 4 for details. Scale C for Palisades.

See case study 6 for details .* --

• .* .. r-* _ _,_ __ .

-.. --*--------,l .. : . : . , AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1980 .llil 1.5.1.4.l l.5ol.4.l Subpara. 6 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Box-shaped members (subject to bending) of rectangular cross section whose depth is not more than 6 times its width and whose flange thickness is not more than. 2 times the web thickness New requirement in the 1980 Code 1.5 .l. 4.1 Subpara. 1.5.1.4.l Hollow circular sections subject to bending 7 l.5.l.4.4 1.5. 2.2 l. 7 1.7 1.7 and Appendix B New requirement in the 1980 Code Lateral support requirements for box sections whose depth . is larg!!r .than 6 times their width New requirement in the 1980 Code Rivets, bolts, and threaded parts subject to 20,000 cycles or more Members and connections subject to 20,000 cycles or more Research Center /\ Dlvillon of The Franklln lnllltull! A-1.3 Comments Box-shaped bers not found to be used in Palisades Cat. I structures; _therefore, not applicable Hollow circular sections not found to be used in Palisades Cat. I tures; therefore, not applicable Box section members not found* to be used in Palisades Cat. I structures; therefore; not _applicable Cat. I tures are not subject to such cyclic loading; therefore, not applicable Cat. I tures are not subject to such cyclic loading; therefore, not applicable .;.:-: . *' Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1980 1963 1.9.2.3 and Appendix c 1.13.3 Appendix D AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Circular tubular elements subject to axial compression New requirements to the 1980 Code Roof surf ace not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free drainage or adequate individual drains to prevent the accumulation of rain water (ponding) Web tapered members New requirement* added in the 1980 Code ,Research

• A Olvislon of The Franlclin lllltitule A-1.4 Conunents Circular tubular elements are not found to be used in Palisades Cat. I tures; fore, not cable Web tapered members.are not found *to be used in. Palisade.s Cat. I tures; therefore, not applicable

--*---* .

• -* ... : ... _. *.**: ' ** *. ,.i .. 4 , .. ::..<1 *-**;

,** .. -; "*<<""' *;; *:t ; _.*, .* . *. '. . i .; ; . ] . *.: APPENDIX A-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (SCALE A OR A CHANGES DEEMED NOT APPLICABLE TO PALISADES x OR CODE CHANGES RELATED 'ID LOADS OR LOAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) Research Center A Division of Tho Franldln Institute A-2.l .--i . *----1 -' . --*, .. ! **; .; ;, ._ --1 . ;. *--*-1 -___ -_: *

l --*-1 .:J -.l 4 -* **1 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Section ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Chapter 9 Chapter 15 9.1,

&: 9.3 most specif i-cally 10.l and 10.10 11.1 18.l. 4 and 18.4.2 Chapter 19 Structural Elements Potentially Affected All primary load-carrying members or elements of the structural system are potentially affected. Definition of new loads not normally used in design of traditional ings and redefinition of load factors and capacity reduction factors have altered the traditional analysis requirements.* All primary load-carrying members Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.* All primary load-carrying members Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.* Prestressed concrete elements New loadings here ref er to Chapter 9 load combinations.* Shell structures with thickness equal to or greater than 12 in This chapter is completely new; therefore, shell structures designed -by the general criteria of ol_der codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter. This chapter also refers to Chapter 9 load provisions. Comments No prestressed elements outside primary ment; therefore, not applicable

• No shell ture except primary containment; therefore, not applicable.
• Special treatment of loads and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.

Research Center A Olvislon ol The Franlclln 1111dtute A-2. 2 _

'.t .* . * .. : .. *-j 1 . .. . _.:; .. J : -* * :.J -; *.": .; -, "*i Referenced Section ACI 349-76 Appendix c ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected All elements whose failure under impulsive and impactive loads must be precluded New appendix; therefore, consideration and review-of older designs is ered important. Since stress analysis associated with these tions is highly dependent on nition of failure planes and able stress for these special tions, past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures. Research Center A Division of The Fianklln lnllllllte A-2. 3 Comments

• 1 !-l * *' . *.' .... *. . ::l . . .* APPENDIX A-3 ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PVCODE, SECTION III, DIVtSION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON (SCALE A OR A .. CHANGES DEEMED NOT APPLICABLE
• 'ID PALISADES OR CODE X-CHANGES RELATED 'ID LOAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) )

Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnslilute A-3.l -. . . . ' :: . -. ACI 318-63 VS. AMSE B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Referenced Section Sec. III 1980 CC-3230 Table CC-3230-1 CC-3900. All tions* in this chapter ACI 318-63 1506 1506 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Containment (load combinations and applicable load factor.)

• Containment (load combinations and applicable load factor)* Concrete containment*

Comments Definition of new loads not normally used in design of traditional buildings. Definition of loads and load comb inc1 tions along with new load factors have altered the traditional analysis requirements. New design . criteria. ACI 318-63-did not* contain design criteria for loading such as impulse *or missile impact. Therefore, no comparison is possible for this. section. *Special treatment of loads and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report. Research Center f\ Division of The Franklfn lnllitute A-3.2 ..

1

.. i * .. -: '-.... -***.*j : ! .. *l APPENDIX B SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS Research Center A Division at The Franklln Institute B-1

• .*:1 *.<* .. :: '. :*.-*?. *
• = ... . * * > -*

' <* . Research Center A Division of The Frenldfn Institute APPENDIX B-1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON B-1.l

J 1 ' * .. ! -i . -.: -'1 -; _:; . : -: 1 ._, Scale A Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1980 1963 1.5.l.l 1.5.1.1 1.5.1. 2. 2 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.l.4.l Subpara. 6 l.5cl.4.l 1.5.1.4.l Subpara. 7 1.5.l.4.4 1.5.2.2 l. 7 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Comments Structural members under Limitations tension, except for pin connected members F < 0.833 F y-u 0.833 F < F < 0 .875 F Beam end connection where the top flange is coped and subject to shear, failure by shear along a plane through fasteners-, or shear and tension along and perpendicular to a plane thr-ough fast-eners F y Box-shaped members (subject to bending) of rectangular cross section whose depth is not more than 6 times their width and whose flange thickness is not more than 2 times the web thickness Hollow circular sections to bending Lateral support requirements for box sections whose depth is larger than 6 times their width Rivets, bolts, and threaded parts subject to -20,000 cycles or more B-,.1.2 u y u > 0.875 F -u See case study 1 for details. New requirement in the 1980 Code. New requirement in the 1980 Code New requirement in the 1980 c6ae Change in the

• men ts Research Center A Division cf The Franklin lnsdtute Scale c B A --

.:*: * .. *. .*-;;-; * .. :. . :I .. ;.* ; *::j .; **:.-1 Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1963 1.7 and Appendix B 1.9.1.2 and Appendix c 1.9.2.3 and Appendix c l.l.O. 6 l.11. 4 l.11.5 l.15.5.2 1.15.5.3 1.15.S.4 1.7 l.9.l 1.10.6 1.11. 4 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Members and connections subject to 20,000 cycles or more Slender compression ened elements subject to axial compression or compression aue to bending when actual width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.l.2 Circular tubular elements subject to axial compression Hybrid girder reduction in flange stress Shear connectors in composite Composite beams or girders with formed steel deck Restrained members when flange or moment connection plates for end connections of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns B-1.3 Center A Division of The Franklin lnslilUle Comments Change in the ments New provisions added in the 1980 Code, Appendix C. See case study 10 for details. New requirements added in the 1980 Code New*requirement added in the 1980 Code. Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. See case study 9 for detai,ls. New requirements added in the 1980 Code ing the distribution of shear connectors (eqn. 1.11-7). The diameter and spacing of the shear connectors are also introduced. New* requirements added in the 1980 Code New requirement added in the 1980 Code

-I ._ .. ; **. :J .-i -:.1 ' . Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC ..ill.Q. 19 63 1.13.3 1.14.2.2 2.4 1st Para *. _ 2.7 Appendix D 2.3 1st. Para. 2. 6. 2.8 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Roof surface not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free age or adequate individual drains to prevent. the accumulation of rain water (ponding) Axially loaded tension members where the load is transmitted by bolts or rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members Slenderness ratio for columns must satisfy

• Flanges of rolled W, M*, or S shapes and similar built-up single-web shapes subject to compression Lateral bracing of members to resist lateral and torsional displacement Web tapered members B-1.4 Research Center A Division al The Franldln lnslltute Comments New requirement added in the 1980 Code See case study 4 for details. F 40 ksi y 40 < F y < 44 ksi F 44 ks i y See case study 6 for details. F < 36 ksi y-36 < F < 38 ksi y F 38 ksi y See case study 7 for details. New requirements added
• in the 1980 Code Scale c e. B A Scale c B A --

.. \j *.J . , *. :,.-1

• '** **:**:. . " "' ' ' . . *..:,, *** .. . -i ... " *. :j Scale B Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1980 1963 1.9.2.2 1.9.2 1.10 .1 1.11. 4 1.13.2 1.14. 6.1. 3 1.16.4.2 1.16.4 1.16.5 1.16 .5 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Flanges of square and rectangular box sections of uniform thickness, of stiffened elements, when subject to axial sion or to uniform sion due to bending Hybrid girders .Flat soffit concrete slabs, using rotary kiln produced aggregates conforming to AS'lM C330 Beams and girders supporting large floor areas free of partitions or other source of damping, where transient vibration due to pedestrian traffic might not be acceptable Flare type groove welds when flush to the surface of the solid section of the bar Fasteners, minimum spacing, requirements between fasteners Structural joints, edge distances of holes for bolts and rivets Research Center A *Division of The Frankiln Institute B-1.5 Conunents The 1980 Code limit on width-to-thickness ratio of flanges is slightly more stringent than that of the 1963 Code. Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. Application of the new requirement could not be much different from other rational method. concrete .. is not permitted in nuclear plants as structural members (Ref. ACI-349). Lightweight construction not applicable to nuclear structures which are designed for greater loads Scale B (Cont.) .Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1980 1963 1.15.S.S 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.3

---

* -* .. *. --***-----*-----**. AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Connections having high shear in the column web Braced and unbraced multi-* story frame -instability effect Members subject to combined axial and bending moments Research Center A Divbion of The Franklin lnllitute B-1.6 ---------**-.-**-'- ' CoJlUllents New insert in the 1980 Code Instability effect *on short buildings will have negligible effect. Procedure used in the 1963 Code for the interaction analysis is replaced by a different procedure. See case study 8 for details. -._._.**.: -.-*. -**-;-*. 1 ' * *'j '.( . 'l -:.1

• Scale C Referenced Subsection AISC AISC 1980 1963 1.3.3 1.3.3 1.5.1.5.3 1.5.2.2 l.10.5.3 1.10.5.3 1.11.4 1.11.4 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Support girders and their connections -pendant operated traveling cranes The 1963 Code requires 25% increase in live loads to allow for impact as applied to traveling cranes, while the 1980 Code requires 10% increase. Bolts and rivets -projected area -in shear connections Fp = 1.5 Fu (1980 Code) Fp = 1.35 Fy (1963 Code) Stiffeners in girders -. spacing between stiffeners at end panels, at panels containing large holes, and at panels adjacent to panels containing large holes Continuous composite beams, where longitudinal ing steel 'is considered to act compositely with the steel beam in the negative moment regions Research Center A Division of The Franlclln IMlllUle B-1.7 Comments The 1963 Code ment is more stringent, and, therefore,. conservative. Results using 1963 Code are conservative. New design* *concept added in 1980 Code.giving less stringent ments. See case study 5 for details. New requirement added in the 1980 Code .. ' .-:.:1 *.f *! . :*:, * . l ' ", j --* :.4 .j .. : ::_-* 1 Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute APPENDIX B-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON B-2.l -. -: -"-:.! . i -.* .* 1 . -'t .. * .. "i -**., .. **1 . A ' l 1 ! .. J 1 .] . "J ; ____ . .. -** -*****-.... -*. Scale A Referenced Section ACI 349-76 7.10.3 Chapter 9 9.1, 9.2, & 9.3 most specifically 10.l and 10.10 11.1 11.13 ACI 318-63 805 Chapter 15 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI. 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE Structural Elements Potentially Affected Columns designed for stress reversals with variation of stress from fy in compression to . 172 fy in tension All primary load-carrying members or elements of the structural system are potentially affected All primary load-carrying members All primary load-carrying members Short brackets and corbels which are primary carrying members ' Comments Splices of the main forcement in such columns must be reasonably limited to provide for adequate ductility under all loading conditions

• Definition of new loads pot normally used in design of traditional buildings and tion of load factors and capacity reduction factors has alter*ed the traditional analysis requirements.*

Design loads here ref er to Chapter 9 load combinations.* Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.* As this provision is new, any existing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria and failure of.such elements could be non-ductile type failure. Structural integrity

• Special treatment of load and loading combinations.is addressed in other sections of the report. "'ftnklin Research Center A Division al The Franklin Institute B-2.2 --*
• =* **:: ,;, *: **:J *; * .. . *j .*, *.*.-.;_ Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 11.13 (Cont.)* 11.15 11.16 18.l. 4 and 18.4.2 Chapter 19 ACI 318-63
• ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Applies to any elements loaded in shear where it is inappropriate to consider shear as a measure of diagonal tension and the loading could induce direct shear-type cracks All structural walls -those which are pr-imary load carrying, e.g., shear walls and those which serve to provide tion from impacts of missile-type objects Prestressed concrete elements Shell structures with thickness equal to or greater than 12 inches Comments may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these Structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements. Guidelines for these

• kinds of _wall loads not provided by older codes; tural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these ments. New load combinations here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.*

This chapter is pletely new; therefore, shell structures designed by the general criteria of older codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter. *Special treatment of loads and loading combinations is-addressed in other sections of the report. Research Center A Dlvtslon at The Franklln Institute B-2.3 -; Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 Chapter 19 (Cont.) Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected All elements subject to time-dependent and position-dependent temperature variations and which are restrained such that thermal strains will result in thermal stresses All steel embedments used to transmit loads from attachments int.a the reinforced concrete structures All elements.whose failure under impulsive and impactive loads must be precluded Comments Additionally, this chapter refers to Chapter 9 provisions. . -._.: . ..-:--.. New appendix; older Code did not give specific* guidelines on temperature limits for concrete. .The possible effects of. strength*loss in concrete at high temperatures should be assessed. New appendix; therefore, considerable review of older designs warranted.**

• New appendix1 therefore, considerations .and review of older designs is considered important.**
  • Since stress analysis associated with these conditions is highly definition of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, past practice varied with dei:;igrier s' opinions.

Stresses may . vary

• significantly from *those thought to exist under previous design procedures.
• Research A Division of The Franklin lnsliture B-2.4
• .* .. ,; '.;.:-: ... :: .. .:.'! i .. ,.; " : :i >-.* .* .. ,'. *'*".'l .: ... -,:1 . **. -: :** :1 . ' ***,*;1 *.:*A .*,j _, .;.** Scale B Referenced Section ACI 349-76 1.3.2 1.5 Chapter 3 3.2 3.3 3.3.l ACI 318-63 103(b) Chapter 4 402 403 403 -enklin Research Center A Division al The Franklln lnJlitule ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Ambient temperature control for concrete inspection -upper limit reduced 5° (from l00°F to 95°F) applies* to all structural concrete Requirement of a "Quality Assurance Program" is new. Applies to all structural concrete Any elements containing _steel with fy > 60,000 }?si or lightweight concrete Cement Aggregate Any structural concrete covered by ACI 349-76 and expected to provide for radiation shielding in addition to structural capacity B-2.5 ... ; .* Comments Tighter control to ensure adequate control of curing environment for cast-in-place concrete. Previous codes required inspection but not the establishment of a quality assurance program. Use of lightweight crete in a nuclear plant not likeiy. Elements

• containing steel with fy > 60,000 psi may have inadequate ductility or excessive deflections at service loads. This serves *to clarify intent of previous code. Eliminated reference to lightweight aggregate.

Controls of AS'!M C637, "Standard Specifications for Aggregates for Radiation Shielding Concrete," closely parallel those for ASTM C33, ";<standard cation* for-*Concrete Aggregates." ... ,. : ;.*-i **: ' . . , ... , ' : ."'.:: .. .. ___ _ Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 3.3.3 3.4.2 3.5 3.6 4.1 and 4.2 4.3 5.7 6.3.3 ACI 318-63 403 404 405 406, 407 & 408 501 & 502 504 607 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Aggregate Water for concrete Metal reinforcement Concrete mixtures Concrete proportioning Evaluation and acceptance of concrete Curing of very large concrete elements and control.of hydration temperature All structural elements with embedded piping containing high ture mat-erials in excess Research Center A Division of The Franldln Institute B-2.6 Conunents To ensure adequate control. Improve quality control measures. Removed all reference to steel with fy > 60 ,000 psi. Added requirements to improve quality control. Proportioning logic to account for . st;atistical. variation and statistical quality control. Added provision to allow for design specified strength at age > 28 days. to be used. Not considered to be a problem, since large cross sections will allow concrete in place to continue to hydrate. Attention to this is required because of the thicker elements countered in related structures. Previous codes did not address the problem of . long periods of exposure . to high temperature and

• • l ****-. . "J . ; .. . '* . ' **:.* .. :*:. . i . Scale B (Cont.) Ref ere need Section ACI 349-76 6.3.3 (Cont.) 7.5, 7.6, & 7.8 7.9 7 .10 & 7.11 7.12.3 7.12.4 7.13.1 through 7 .13. 3 8.6 9.5.1.l ACI 318-63 805 805 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected of 150°F, or 200°F in localized areas not insulated from the concrete* Members with spliced reinforcing steel Members containing deformed .w.ire fabric Connection of primary load-carrying members and at splices in column steel Lateral ties in columns Reinforcement in exposed concrete Continuous nonprestressed flexural members. Reinforced concrete members subject to bending -deflection limits Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute B-2.7 _Comments did not provide for reduction in design allowables to account for strength reduction at high (>150°F) temperatures. Sections on splicing and tie requirements amplified to better control strength at splice locations and provide ductility. New sections to define requirements for th.is new material. To ensure adequate ductility. To provide for adequate ductility

• New requirements to conform with the expected large nesses in nuclear related structures.

Allowance for bution of negative moments has been redefined as a function of the steel percentage

• Allows for more stringent controls on deflection in special cases.

______ .___:.. __ , ________ . . ----'*--*----** _,_,._...._ __ . ----* _____ ,_ __ , _ __,___ .. __ . -* i *;* ...... i . :*. -. ***:-J .*-! .. { *-:;.; ; ' *l **; " *l ' 1 ] Scale B {Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 9.4 9.5.l.2 through 9.5.l.4 9.5.2.4 9.5.3 9.5.4 &: 9.5.5 10.2.7 10.3.6 ACI 318-63 1505 909 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Reinforcing steel -design strength Slab and beams -minimum thickness requirements Beams and one-way slabs Nonprestressed way construction Prestressed concrete members Flexural members -new limit on B factor Compression members, with spiral reinforcement or tied reinforcement, prestressed and stressed . B-2.8 Research Center A Division of The Franklln lnsUtute Comments See comments in Chapter 3 summary. Minimum thickness generally would not control this type of .. Affects serviceability, not strength. Immediate and long time deflections generally not critical in structures designed for very large live however, 1911' design by ultimate requires more attention to deflection controls. Control of camber, both initial and long time in addition to service load deflection, requires more attention for designs by ultimate strength. Lower limit on B of 0.65 would correspond to an f 'c of 8, 000 psi. No concrete of this strength likely to be found in a nuclear structure. Limits on axial design load for these members given in terms of design equations. See case study 2 . ' Ji . *.1 ... . ** --**--*--* Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 10.6.1 10.6.2 10.6.3 10.6.4 10.6.5 ACI 318-63 1508 10.8.l 912 10.8.2 10 ._8.3 10 .11.1 10.11.2 10 .11.3 10.11.4 10.11.5 10.11.5.1 10.11.5.2 10.11.6 10.11. 7 10.12 10.15.l 10.15.2 10.15.3 10.15.4 10.15.5 10.15.6 10.17 915 916 1404-1406 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Beams and one-way slabs Beams Compression members, limiting dimensions Compression members, slenderness effects Composite compression members Massive concrete members, more than 48 in thick Research Center A Division of The Franklln Institute B-2.9 Conunents Changes in distribution of reinforcement for crack control. New insert Moment magnification concept introduced for compression members. Results using column reduction factors in ACI 318-63 are reasonably the same as using magnification

• For.slender columns, moment magnification concept replaces*

the called strength reduc-tion concept but for the limits stated in ACI 318-63 both methods yield equal accuracy and both are acceptable methods. New items -no way to compare1 ACI 318-63 tained only working stress method of design for these members. New item -no comparison.

---

*---.. .* . .:J i .. . , Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 11.2.l 11.2.2 11. 7 thr.ough 11.8.6 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Concrete flexural members Nonprestressed members Research Center A Division of Tho Fninlclln lnslitute B-2010 -* -----,---* Comments For nonprestressed members, concept of minimum area of shear reinforcement is new. For prestressed members, Eqn. 11-*2 is the same as in ACI 318-63. Requirement of minimum shear 'reinforcement provides for ductility and restrains inclined crack growth in the event of unexpected loading. Detailed provisions for this load combination were not part.of ACI These new sections provide a conservative logic which requires that the steel needed for torsion be added to that required for transverse shear, which is consistent with the logic of ACI 318-63. This is not considered to be critical, as ACI 318-63 required the designer to consider torsional stresses; assuming that some rational method was used to account for torsion, no problem is expected to arise.

.. . *. *_ * ;_:,_:::r! .;_:.::d .* *-.... i*. . ,. ***"" ' . . . . :

• _*-:

.. ::>1 '/1 . . __ .;! .. Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 11.9 through 11.9 .6 11.10 through 11.10. 7 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Comments Deep beams Special provisions for shear stresses in deep beams is new. The minimum steel requirements are similar to the ACI 318-63 requirements of using the wall steel limits. Slal:;>s and.footings Deep beams designed under previous ACI 318-63 criterion were reinforced as walls at the minimum and therefore no unreinforced section have resulted

• New.provision for shear reinforcement in.slabs or footings for the way action condition and new controls where shear head reinforcement is used. Logic consistent with ACI 318-63 for these conditions and change is not considered major
• Research Center A Division cl The Franklin lnsdtute B-2.11

.. *, j ) . . *".j Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 11.11.1 lLil.2 through 11.11. 2. 5 11.12 ACI 318-63 1707 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural-Elements Potentially Affected Slabs and Slabs. Openings in slabs and footings* Research Center A OMsion of The Franklln lnsdtute B-2.12 Comments The change which deletes the old requirement that steel be considered as only 50% effective and allows concrete to carry 1/2 the allowable for two-way action is new. Also deleted was the requirement that shear reinforcement not be considered effective in slabs less than 10 in thick. Change is based on. recent research.which indicates that such reinforcement W' works even in thin slabs. Details for the design of shearhead is new. ACI 318-63 had no provisions for shearhead design. The. requirements in this section for slabs and footings are not likely to have been used in older plant designs. If such devices were used, it is assumed a rational design method was used. Modification for inclusion of shearhead. design. See above conclusion.

• .' .* .. * . :1 . -* i **._*, . . -* :1 . *:*; -"'*": * * *_r:' . ' -.. ' .. Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 11.13.l 11.13.2 Chapter 12 12.l.6 through 12.1.63 12.2.2 12.2.3 12.4 12.8.l 12.8.2 ACI 318-63 918 (C) ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Columns Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement of special members Standard hooks B-2.13 Research Center -A Division of The Franldln Institute Comments No problem anticipated since previous code required design consideration by some analysis. Development length cept replaces bond stress concept in ACI 318-63. various la lengths in this chapter are based entirely on ACI 318-63 permissible bond stresses. There. is essentia.lly no difference* in the final

• design results in a.design under the new code compared to ACI Modified with minimum added to ACI 318-63, 918(C). New insert in ACI 349-76. New insert. -Gives emphasis to special member consideration.

Based on ACI 318-63 bond stress allowables in general; therefore, no major change. ... . ..:..: . ' -.:; *_.-..:** . ,).i

• • .j .. "/ . . . ; .. Scale B (Cont.) Referenced

.. Section ACI 349-76 i2.10.1 l2.l0.2(b) 12.ll.2 12.13.l.4 13.5 14.2 ACI 318-63 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Wire fabric Wire fabric Wire fabric Slab reinforcement Walls with loads in the Kern area of the thickness B-2.14 Research Center A. Division of The Franklin lnslitule Comments New insert. Use of such ment not likely in Category I structures for nuclear plants. New insert. Mainly applies to cast prestressed members. New insert. Use of this material for stirrups not likely in heavy members of a

• nuclear plant. New details on slab reinforcement intended to produce better crack control and maintain ductility.

Past practice was not inconsistent with this in general. Change of the order of the empirical equation (14-1) makes the solution compatible with Chapter 10 for walls with loads in the Kern area of the thickness

• e.

. .. ... -*.-.' .. * " ._.. *l : .. _: 1 . '>1 .. ,i .*,1 . :; *' "l *' . . : * .... .. * ..... , : _,) *-: -, .*: Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 15.5 15.9 16.2 . 17 .5.3 18.4.l ACI 318-63 2505 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 .

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Footings -shear* and development of forcement Minimum thickness of plain footing on piles Design considerations for a structure behaving monolithically or not, as well as for joints and bearings

• Horizontal shear stress in any segment Concrete immediately after prestress transfer B-2.15 Research Center A Division of The Franklln lnsllb.lle

........ _; Comments Changes here are tended to be compatible with change in concept of checking bar opment instead of nominal bond stress sistent with Chapter 12

• Reference to minimum thickness of plain ing on piles which was in ACI 318-63 was removed entirely.

New* but consistent with the intent: of previous code. Use of Nominal Average Shear Stress equation (17-1) replaces the theoretical elastic equation (25-1) of ACI 318-63. It provides for easier computation for the designer. Change allows more tension, thus is less servative but not considered a problem.

- -*. *._ -*' Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 349-76 18.5 18.7.1 18.9.1 18.9.2 18.9.3 18 .11. 3 10.11.4 18.13 18.14 18.15 18.16.1 18.16.2. 18.16.4 ACI 318-63. 2606 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Tendons (steel) Conunents Augmented to include yield and.ultimate in the jacking force requirement. Bonded and unbonded members Eqn. 18-4 is based on more recent test data. Two-way flat plates (solid slabs) having minimum bonded reinforcement

• Bonded reinforcement at .supports Prestressed compression members under combined axial load and bending. Unbonded tendons. Post tensioning ducts. Grout for bonded tendons. Proportions of grouting materials Grouting temperature

""""' Intended primarily for control of cracking. New to allow .for consideration of t;he

• redistribution of*
• negative moments in the design. New to emphasize details particular to prestressed members not previously addressed in the codes in detail. Expanded definition of how grout properties may be determined.

Expanded definition of temperature controls when grouting. Center A DMsion of The Franklin Institute B"'."2.16 e --e --**--*-*---------* ...... ----*-**--*-----'-'-- .. . : * . . ... : .. * . . :.

• . ':; ._ .. i .; *. *. **.*: :: 1 -. ; Scale C Referenced Section ACI 349-76 7.13.4 10.14 11. 2.5
• 13. 0 / to en'd 13. 4.1.5 17.5.4 17.5.5 ACI 318-63 2306 1706 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Reinforcement in flexural slabs Bearing -sections controlled by design bearing stresses Reinforcement concrete bers without prestressing Two-way slabs with multiple square or tangular panels Equivalent column bility stiffness and attached torsional members Permissible horizontal shear stress for any surface, ties provided or not provided enklin Research A Dlvlsion of The franklln lnllltute B-2.17 Conunents ACI 318-63 is more conservative, allowing a stress of l.9(0.25 f'c> = 0.475 f'c < 0.6 f'c Allowance of spirals as shear reinforcement is new. Requirement, where shear s*tress exceeds 6<PJi";', of 2 lines of web reinforcmerit was.removed. Slabs designed by the previous criteria. of ACI 318-63 are generally the same or more conservative. Previous code did not *consider the effect of stiffness of members normal. to the plane of the equivalent frame. Nominal increase in allowable shear stress under new code.

• • **:.: .. .* :: ..
  • ..
• APPENDIX B-3 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Research Center A DMsion ol The Franldln lnslllute B-3.l *

• . *:; .. ':, : .: ... -* .. ! . . .j_ \ .. . :

/.*-; * .. *--: * ... ' -* .. ,. _;-J . Scale B Referenced Section ACI 301-72 3.8.2.l 3.8.2.3 3.8.2.2 3.8.2.3 17.3.2.3 ACI 301-63 309b 309d 1704d ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Lower strength concrete can be proportioned when "working *stress concre.te" is used Mix proportions _could give lower strength concrete Lower strength concrete could have been used Comments ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) bases proportioning of concrete mixes on the specified strength plus a value determined from the standard deviation of test cylinder strength results. ACI 301-63 bases proportioning for * "working stress concrete" on the specified strength plus 15 percent with no mention of standard deviation. High standard deviations in cylinder test results could require more than 15 percent under ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) ACI 301-72. (Rev. 1975) requires more strength tests than ACI 301-63 for tion of strength* and bases the strength to be achieved on the. standard deviation of strength test resu1ts. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires core samples to have an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 percent of the ppecified strength. ACI 301-63 simply requires "strength adequate for the intended purpose." If "adequate for the intended purpose" is less than 85 percent of the specified strength, lower strength concrete could.be used. Research Center A Division al The Franldln Institute B-3.4 .. -***l . ' .. ***! ":': --:.: Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 301-72 17.2 15.2.6.1 15.2.2.l 15.2.2.2 15.2.2.3 8.4.3 8.2.2.4 ACI 301-63 1702a 1703a 1502bl 1502el 804b 802b4 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural.Elements Potentially Affected Lower strength concrete could have been used Weaker tendon bond possible Prestressing may not be as good Cure of concrete may not be as good .concrete may be more nonuniform when placed B-3.3 Comments ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) specifies that that no individual strength test result shall fall below the specified strength by more than 500 psi. ACI 301-63 specifies that either 20 percent (1702a) or 10 percent (1703a) of the strength tests can be below the specified strength. Just how far below is not noted.* ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires fine aggregate . in grout when sheath i.s more than four times the tendort area. ACI 301-63 requires fine sand addition at five times the tendon area.* ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives considerably more detail for bonded and unbonded tendon anchorages and couplings. ACI 301-63 does not seem to address unbonded tendons. ACI-301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for better control of placing temperature*. This will give better initial cure. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for a maximum slump loss. This gives better control of the istics of the placed concrete. Research Center A OMslon ol The Fl'l!llldln lnslitllle

---

__,.....__

_,_,. __ ._... ... -* ,,_ *-*-... --------... Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 301-72 8.3.2 5.5.2 5.2.5.3 5.2.5.l 5.2.s.2 5.2.l 4.6.3 ACI 301-63 803b 503a 406c ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Weaker columns and walls possible Poor bonding of ment to concrete possible Reinforcement may not be as good Reinforcement may not be as good when welded steel wire fabric is used Reinforcement may not have reserve strength and ductility Floors may crack B-3.4 Comments ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for a longer setting time for concrete in columns and walls before placing concrete in supported elements. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for cleaning of reinforcement. ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for use of welded deformed steel wire fabric for reinforcement. ACI 301-63 has *no corresponding section. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides a maximum spacing of 12 in for welded tion in the direction of principal reinforcement. AC! 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has more stringent yield requirements. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for placement of reshores directly under shores above, while AC! 301-63 states that reshores shall be placed "in approximately the same pattern." Research Center A DMsJon of The Fnmklln Institute ' '.*J * ... **.; ..

• .e Scale B (Cont). Referenced Section ACI 301-72 4.6.2 4.6.4 4.2.13 3.8.5 3. 7. 2 3.4.4 3.4.2 3.4.3 1.2 ACI 301-63 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Concrete may sag or be lower in strength Concrete may sag or be

• lower in strength Low strength possible if reinforcing steel is distorted to have lower strength floors Embedments may corrode and lower concrete strength Possible lower strength _ __.. Possible damage to green or underage concrete result.ing in lower strength Comments ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for reshoring no later than the end of the working day when stripping occurs. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for load tion by reshoring in multistory buildings.

ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires that equipment runways not rest on ing steel. ACI 301-72 (Rev*. 1975) places* tighter control on the concrete for floors. ACI 301-72 (Rev. *1975) requires that it be demonstrated that mix water does not contain a deleterious amount of chloride ion. ACI (Rev. 1975) places tighter control on cement ratios for watertight structures and structures exposed to chemically aggressive solutions. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for limits on loading of emplaced concrete. Research Center . A OMsion ol The Franlclln lllllilule B-3.5

.... -------*-. -:'. Scale C Referenced Section ACI 301-72 3.5 3.6 3.8.2.l ACI 301-63 305 306b 309b ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Better strength resulting from better placement and consolidation Better resulting from better placement and consolidation Higher strength from better proportioning B-3.6 Conunents ACI 301-63 gives a minimum slwnp*requirement. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits minimum slump which could lead to difficulty in

• placement and/or tion of very low slump concrete.

A tolerance of 1 in abov.e maximum slump is allowed provided the average slump does not exceed maximum. Generally the placed concrete could be less uniform and of lower strength. ACI 301-63 provides for use 'of single mix design with maximum nominal aggregate size suited to the most critical condition of concreting. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) allows waiver of size requirement if the _architect-engineer believes the concrete can be placed and consolidated. ACI 301-63 bases tioning for nultimate strengthn concrete on the specified strength plus 25%. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) bases proportioning on the specified strength plus a value determined from the standard deviation of test cylinder strengths. The requirement to exceed the specified strength by 25% gives higher strengths than the standard deviation method. *. *' Research *center A Ohltsion al The franldln Jnslitute . -*. :1 .. ,*:. : . . :e -'* .-. 1 i Scale c (Cont.)

• Referenced Section ACI 301-72 4.4.2.2 4.5.5 4.6.2 4.7.1 ACI 301-63 404c 405b 406b 407a ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Comments Better bond to reinforce-ACI 301-63 provides that form ment gives better strength coating be applied prior to placing reinforcing steel. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits this requirement. If form coating contacts the forcement, no bond will Better strength and-less chance of cracking or sagging Better strength and less chance of cracking or sagging Better strength by curing longer in forms -develop

• ACI 301-63 provides for keeping forms in place until the 28-day *strength is attained.

ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for removal of forms when specified removal .s.trength is reached. Same as above but applied to reshoring. ACI 301-63 provides for cylinder field cure under most unfavorable conditions prevailing for any part of structure. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides only that the cylinders be cured along with the concrete they represent. Cure of cylinders could give higher strength than the in-place concrete and forms could be removed too soon. Research Center A DMsion of The Franldln lnsll!Ute B-3.7 . *-:**:,. .*. . **: ... . *.; i .. ' . .. l Scale C (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 301-72 5.2.2.1 5.2.2.2 5.5.4 5.5.5 12.2.3 14.4.l 15. 2.i.1

• 15.2.L2 ACI 301-63 505b 120ld 1404 1502-clb 1502-c2 *-** ---*-------

---

. ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Structural Elements Potentially Affected Better strength, less chance of cracked forcing bars Better strength from reinforcement Better strength from better cure of concrete Better strength resulting from better uniformity Higher strength from higher yield prestressing bars Higher strength from better prestressing steel B-3.8 Comments ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has less stringent bending requirement for reinforcing bars than does ACI 318-63. ACI 301-63 provides for more overlap in welded wire fabric. ACI 301-63 provides for final curing for 7 days with air temperature above 50°F. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for curing for 7 days and compressive strength of test cylinders to be 70 percent of specified

strength.

This could allow termination of cure too soon. ACI 301-63 provides for a maximum slump of 2 in. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives a tolerance on the maximum slump which could lead to nonuniformity in the concrete in place. ACI 301-63 requires higher yield stress than does ACI 301..,;.72 (Rev. 1975) ACI 301-63 requires that stress curves from the production lot of steel be furnished. ACI 301-72 (-Rev. 1975) requires that a typical stress-strain curve.be submitted. The use of the typical curve may miss lower strength material

• Center . A Division ol The Franklin lnslltute .e

-. :. .. .* .. . . ' *.* . . _, . -.: ---Scale C (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI 301-72 16.3.4.3 16.3.4.4 17.3.2.3 ACI 301-63 1602-4c 1602-4d 1704d *ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON . Structural Elements Potentially Affected Better strength resulting from better cylinder tests Better strength, less chance of substandard concrete Better strength could be developed Comments ACI 301-63 requires 3 cylinders to be tested at 28 daysr if a cylinder is damaged, the strength is based on the average of two. AC! 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires only two 28-day cylinders; if one is damaged, the strength is based on the one survivor. ACI 301-63 requires that less than 100 yd3 of any class of concrete placed in any one day be represented by 5 tests. ACI 3Ql-72 (Rev. 1975) allows strength tests to be waived on less than 50 yd3. ACI 301-63 requires core strengths "adequate for the intended purposes." ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires* an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 percent of the specified strength. If "adequate for the intended purpose" is higher than 85 percent of the specified strength, the concrete is stronger

• Research Center A OMskin of The Fninldln lllllilute B-3.9

.; _:l .. * ' APPENDIX B-4 ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 Research Center A Division o( The Franklin Jnalltuie

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON B-4.l .. _ .. --* -------*-:"! --. -j 1 :>:**j **:1 --** __ ] . :. <::1 ..i --;. *. ,. . ,-" ,_ ".:; .:.::_-__ .. -: .:.':, ., --_ **. . ---------, ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63. CC-3230 Table CC-3230-1 CC-3421.5 1506 1506 Structural .Elements Potentially Affected Containment (load tions and applicable load factor)* Containment (load tions and applicable load factor)* Containment and other elements transmitting plane shear * .. Comments Definition of new loads not normally used in design of traditional buildings. Definition of loads and load combinations along with new load factors has altered the traditional analysis ments. New concept. There is no comparable section in ACI 318-63, no specific section addressing in-plane shear *. The general concept used here (that the concrete, under certain conditions, can resist some shear, and the remainder must be carried by reinforcement) is the same as in ACI 318-63. Concepts of in-plane shear and shear friction were not addressed in the old codes and therefore a check of old designs could show some significant decrease in overall prediction of structural integrity.

• Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report * .

Research Center A Division ol The Franklin ln1tllute

• e

.. , .,. : .:: *,. e ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale A .(Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3421.6 1707 CC-3421. 7 921 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Peripheral shear in the region of concentrated forces normal to the*shell surface Torsion B-4.3 Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnsdtule Comments These equations reduce to Ve= when membrane stresses are zero, which pares to ACI 318-63, Sections 1707 (c) and (d} which address "punching" shear in slabs and footings with the $ factor taken care of in the basic shear equation (Section CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 10)

• Previous code logic did not address the problem o.f punching shear as* related to* diagonat tension*;

but control was on the average uniform shear stress on a critical section. See case study 12 for details. New defined limit on shear stress due to pure torsion. The equation relates shear stress from a biaxial stress condition. (plane stress) to the resulting principal tensile stress and sets the principal tensile stress equal to 6 code superim-posed only ___ torsion and transverse shear stresses. See case study 13 for details. .* 1 -:" . ' . .. * : . .i .>.j -.. ** ... :; . -.. . :f. *'

3 .>

;<.1

-*. "'! ' -**< , -.. : ' . --:*1 -*---. *:: .. ;: .. _ *. . -. . . . . ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced

• Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3421.8 CC-3900 All tions in this chapter* Structural Elements Potentially Affected Bracket and corbels Where biaxial tension exists Concrete.containment*

Comments New provisions. No comparable section in ACI 318-631 therefore, any existing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria and failure of such elements could be non-ductile type failure

• Structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements.

ACI 318-63 did not. consider the problem of development length in biaxial tension fields. New design criteria. ACI 318-63 did not contain design criteria for loading such as impulse or missile impact. Therefore, no comparison is possible for this section. *Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report

• Research Center A Division of The FrankJln Jnslitute B-4.4

-: ; . ) . :-j ... _, . :: ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3320 CC-3340 Table 1503(c) CC-3421-1 cc-1701 3421.4.l Structural Elements Potentially Affected Shells Penetrations and openings Containment-allowable stress for factored . compression loads Containment and any section carrying verse shear B-4.5 Research Center A OMslon of The Franklln JnsUlllle comments Added explicit design guidance for concrete reactor vessels not stated in the previous code" Acceptance of elastic behavior as the basis for analysis is consistent with the logic of the older codes. Added to ensure the eration of special conditions particular to concrete reactor . vessels and containments. These conditions would have been considered in design* practice even though not specifically referred to in the old code. ACI 318-63 allowable concrete compressive stress was 0.85 f'c if an lent rectangular stress block was assumed; also ACI 318-63 made no distinction between primary and secondary stress. ACI 318-63 used 0.003 in/in as the maximum concrete pressive strain at ultimate strength

• Modified and amplified from ACI 318-63, Section 1701.1. 1. $ factors removed from all equations and included in CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 17.

.* * .. *z .*. ! .1 .. , .** J ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 cc-3421.4.1 (Cont.) CC-* 261D(b} 3421.4 .2 CC-3422.l 1508(b) Structural Elements Potentially Affected Prestressed concrete sections Reinforcing steel *B--4.6 Research Center A Division of The Franklln Institute comments 2. Separation of equations applicable to sections under axial compression and axial tension. New equations added. 3. Equations applicable to . cross sections with combined shear and bending modified for case where p < o .ols. 4. Modification for low values of p will not be a large therefore, change is not deemed to be major. ACI 318-63, Eqn 0 .26-13 is' a straight line approxi.mation of Eqn. 8 (the "exact" Mohr's circle solution) with the prestress force shear component "Vp" added. (Ref. ACI 426 R-74) ACI 3i8-63, Eqn. 26-12 modified to include members with axial load on the cross section and modified to reflect steel percentage. Remaining logic similar to ACI 318-63, Section 2610. Bot_h codes intend to control the principal tensile stress. ACI 318-63 allowed higher

• fy if full scale tests show adequate crack control.

  ! ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80.) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3422.l (Cont.) CC-3422.l CC-3422.l 1503(d) Structural Elements Potentially Affected All ordinary reinforcing steel All ordinary reinforcing steel .B-4.7 Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute comments The requirement for tests *where fy > 60 ksi was used would provide adequate assurance, in old design, that crack control was maintained.

ACI 318-63-allowed stress for load resisting purposes was fy* However, a capacity reduction factor $of 0.9 was used in flexure. Therefore, allowable tensile stress due to flexure could. be interpreted as limited to some percentage of fy less than 1.0 fy and greater than 0.9 fy-Limiting* the allowable tensile stress to 0.9 fy is in effect the same as applying a capacity reduction factor $ of 0.9 to the theoretical equation. ACI had no provision to cover limiting steel strains1 therefore, this section is completely new. Traditional concrete design pr.act ice has been directed at control of stresses and limiting steel percentages to control ductility. .----*

• -*.:*! 'r*,, .... *, ' -* *' 'i L ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3422.l (Cont.) CC-3422.2 1503(d) CC-3423 2608 CC-3431.3 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Stress on reinforcing bars Tendon system stresses Shear, torsion, and bearing B-4.8 Research Center Division of The Frnnldln Institute comments The logic of providing a control of design parameters at the centroid of all. the bars in layered bar ment is consistent with older codes and design practice.

ACI 318-63 allowed the compressive steel stress limit to be fy; however, the capacity reduction factor for tied compression members was $ = 0.70 and for spiral .ties $ = O. 75, .applied to the theoretical* equation*. As this overall reduction for such members is so large, part of the reduction could be considered as reducing the allowable compressive stress to some level less than fy; therefore, the 0.9 f¥ limit here is consistent with and reasonably similar to the older code. ACI 318-63, Section 2608 is generally less conservative. ACI 318-63 does not have a strictly comparable section; however, the 50% reduction of the utimate strength ments on shear and bearing stresses to get the working stress limits is identical to the ACI 318-63 logic and requirements. . ': -... . 7 ., . : . '.*** --* .. . ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 Table CC-3431-1 l003(b) CC-3432.2 1004 (b),. (c) CC-3433 2606 CC-3521 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Allowable stresses for service compression loads Reinforcing bar (compression) Reinforcing bar (compression) Tendon system stress Reinforced concrete B-4.9 Research A Division of The FronkJJn Institute comments Allowable concrete compressive stresses are less conservative than or the same as the ACI 318-63 equivalent allowables. ACI 318-63 is slightly more conservative in using 0.4 fy up to a limit of 30 ksi. The upper limit is the same, since ACI 359-80 stipulates max fy = 60 ksi

• Logic similar to older codes. Allowance of 1/3 overstress for short.duration loading. Limits here are essentially the same as in ACI 318-63 or slightly less ACI 318-63 limits effective pres tress to O. 6 of the* ultimate strength or 0.8 of the yield strength, whichever is smaller. Membrane forces in* both horizontal and vertical directions are taken by the reinforcing steel, since concrete is not expected to take any tension. Tangential shear in the inclined direction is taken, up to Ve, by the concrete, and the rest by the reinforcing steel. In all cases, the ACI concept of $ is incorporated
• . * .. ,. :-. I I ** ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont)
• Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3521 (Cont.) cc-. "3521.2.l CC-3532 1701 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Nominal shear *stress Where bundled bars are used B-4.10 Research Center A Division of The FrankUn Institute comments in the equation as o.9. While not specifically indicating how to design for membrane stresses, ACI 318-63 indicated the basic premises that tension forces are taken by reinforcing steel (and not concrete) and that concrete can take some shear, but any excess beyond a certain limit must be taken by reinforcing steel. Similar .to ACI 318-63*, with the except-ion of ct>, which equals O. 85*, being included in the Eqn. 17. Placing ct> in the stress formula, rather than in the formulae for shear reinforcement, provides the same end* result. Bundled bars were not cornrnonly used prior to 1963; therefore, no criteria were specified in ACI 318-63. In more recent codes, identical requirements are specified for bundled bars.
• .;. *-*., .*.. ".:'1 :;* l -.*,. _._; .i .. _:;! ::.. ,. .. . --.. 1
• j .. _.; ASME B&PV CODE, *SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 cc-3532.l.2 cc-3532. l. 2 918 (C) 1801 CC-3532.3 918(h) 801 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Where tensile steel is terminated in tension zones Where bars carrying stress are to be terminated Hooked bars B-4.11 Research Center A Division al The Franklin lnsUWte Comments Similar to older code, but maximum shear allowed at cutoff point increased to 2/3, as compared to 1/2 in ACI 318-63, over that normally permitted.

Slightly less servative than ACI 318-63. This is not considered critical since good design practice has always avoided cutoff in tension zones. Development lengths derived from the basic concept of ACI 318-63 where: bond strength = tensile strength l:olJL = Abfy L = Abfy/(µ 1f D) If µ = 9.s/f'c/D then L = 0.0335 with 4> = o .as L = 0.0394 No change in basic philosophy for ill and smaller bars. Change in format. New values are similar for smail bars and more conservative for large bars and higher yield strength bars. Not considered critical since prior to 1963 the use of fy > 40 ksi steel was not common. ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III DIV. 2 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3533 919 CC-353'4.l CC-3536 CC-3543 2614 CC-3550 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Shear reinforcement Bundled bars -any location Curved reinforcement Tendon end anchor reinforcement Structures integral with containment Research /\ Olvlsion of The Franldln Jnslflute B-4.12 Comments Essentially the same concepts. Bend bf 135° now permitted (versus 180° f9rmerly) and piece stirrups now permitted. These are not considered as -sacrificing strength. Other items here are identical. Provisions for bundled bars were not considered in ACI 318-63. Bundled bars were not commonly used before the early 1960s. Later codes provide identical provisions. Early codes did not provide detailed information, but good design pr!'lctice would consider such conditions. Similar to concepts in ACI 318-63, Section 2614 but new statement is more specific. Basic requirements are not ch_anged. Statement here is specific to concrete reactor vessels. The logic of this guideline is consistent with the design _ logic used for all nate structures.

.*

. r -*,".'..:***

.-i \sl )1 .

1 ** .. ] -!j '-.* * ..

ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III DIV. 2 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3550 (Cont.) CC-3560 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Foundation requirements Research Center A Division of The Franlclln lnstilllie B-4.13 Conunents ACI 318-63 did not cally state any guideline in this regard. There is no comparable section in ACI 318-63. These items were assumed to be controlled by the appropriate general building code of which ACI 318-63 was to be a reterenced inclusion. All items are considered to be part of conunon building design practice. . :J .: .; ., .. : . __ .. *;. .--: . . ; ' ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III DIV. 2 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale C Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 1980 318-63 CC-3421.9 2306(f) and (g) CC-3431. 2 2605 dix II CC-3531 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Bearing Concrete (allowable stress in concrete) Concrete reactor vessels All B-4.14 Research Center *

• A Division of The Fninklln lnstltule Conunents ACI 318-63 is more tive, allowing a stress of 1.9 (0.25 f'c> = 0.475 f'c < 0.6 f'c Identical to ACI 318-63 logic. ACI 318-63 did not contain any criteria for compressive strength modification for multiaxial stress conditions.

Therefore, no possible for Section* II.;..1100. .. Because of this, ACI 31S-63 was more conservative by ignoring the strength increase which accompanies triaxial stress conditions

• . This section probably does not apply to.concrete containment structures.

Rather conservative for service loads. Using of 0.9 for flexure, u = 1*5 ta 1*8 = 1.67 to 2.0 0.9 0.9 for ACI 318-63. By using the value of 2.0u the upper limit of the ratio of factored to service loads is employed_

• *_e _ _J
• .-.'_* .*.i . ." *'I *' **-:. :J:; *' *.-:1 **. .*:;
• -

.. .:*.: APPENDIX C COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES Research Center A Division of The franklin lnsatute C-1 . 1 '.**) **: ***** . .. " . ... ' .. . -... -*** * .. , . "'". -....... ; .... :*_,_,_ ______ . Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjomin Franklin Plllkwey, Phit... Pa. 19103 -me. \."'-\"\. Project By MD C5257 Date oc:r: SI I Ch'k'd 11. J//,tJ). Date P/i'I st ....

• -.
• l.'5'. t. '2.. . of f\ l code_ l<i8o* Page Rev. -= o. 4o ---Ct) .kuJ -. -U.& ."...

\.-'cwt.\;(.'-, tkt. \'\:!o Cid.c.. o. tk.o...t ; t.;.t.'2.2 ic,, 0 A-c. e"""1 Ulkc.rt. t;;r il. c.ore.4. ... \ ...... h<l (ff" 0.. of She4-r a_Q,,'""'d 0-tk a... .. J .\ .. oa < Ol\.. -c.t..e. o 1Pa A *r .. :. . *F" :;O.:io*i=- ... . __ --*a * -0 1

• v * -IAlhc."'c.

tt.....:. G\.-t"UL. t.. ......:. * ....... ""'ek fCc.f<<--<..;d ii._ t\...<.. a-1.. r;;. C. 1.S. l.'2.. :.i. ca-. he... . . O. 3o fl,,-+ o.Sq (2.) w'-'tAG. A-v-a-4.. At -tk av.....a ..... er on.c.u . . J.n -t -tk e.{fuZ" o j cha-.?-J 3 sc.t;. cf eAJ,.; , i f". wc..-e.. tuiA..-( (,J,{.._ l°"'JL-4-11 '?f. fUSC strJ . . -rhc (1).( tz..) a..bcrv< i:t..e.* t'f3a Cod'- o.5 t\...<.. foiCaw4 -A-C-2 . Date .. r--.; .... -i , .. -j I I ., >> Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute Benjemin Franklin P..,.._, Pa. 19103 Project By tv\,D C5257 Date OC.T. "81 Date tc/'il El'iD loiHERE l'CFl FLAt:GE IS COPED, CASE STUDY FY,PSI F'U,PSI !-t 1 IM C1 C2 . ALLOi*1'RLE: LOAD,t..A 1963 CON: t CIFIO 360fl0 0 60000. 12.00 1.00 o.74 112suo. 104400. 36(100. 60000. 12.00 1.50 o.74 112eoo. 131,401). 36ono. f;l)OOO. 24.00 1.00 (1 .-14 345600. 104400e 36000. 60000. 24.00 1.00 2.4R 345600. 206EIOO. 36000. 6COOO. 24.00 1.50 0.,74 345600. 1.3 "400. 36000., 6(1000. 24.00 1.50 2.ae 3456(1('1. 23Gl?OO. 3600(1. 6QOQ0 0 24.00 2.25 n 0 74 345600. 3600C. 6COv0 0 :?.+.oo 2.25 ?.

• H! 345600. 7.83800. 36000. 601'\00. 36.00 1.00 2.48 51i1400. 208800. 36000. 60000. . 36.00 1.00 4c81* 51S4(10
• 348600. 36000. 60000. 36.00 1.so 2.,46 5.10400. 2388fJO *. 36000. 60000. 36.00 1.50 4. !11 518400. 378601). 36000. 6000.0. 36.00 2.25 2.4n 516400. ,283800. 36(100. 60illj()o 36.00 2.25 4.81 51A400 0 4231'00. soouo. 7U0l10
• 12.00 1.C'O o.74 240000. 121300. 50000. 70000. 12.00 1.50 o.74 240000. 156600 .. 50000. 10000. t?..00 2.25 o.74 240000. 209300. 50000. 70000. 24.f'Q J.oo o.74 480000. 121000. 50000. 70000. 24.00 1.00 2. 46 480000. 243600. 50000. 7000(l. 24.oo 1.50 o.74 480000 *. 156800. 500fJO
• 10000. 24 .. 00 1.50 '2.48 480000. 270600. 50000. 10000. 24.00 2.25 0.14 480000. 209300. 50000. 70000. 24.00 2.25 2.48. 4ROOOO. 331100. soooo. 70000. 36.0(J l.OO 2.48 120000. 243600. soooo. 7000,,. 36.00 1.00 4.1'11 720000. 406700. 50000. 10000. 36.00 1.50 2.48 120000. 278600. 50000. 10000. 36.00 1.50 4. 720000. 441700. 50000. 10000. 36.00 2.25 2.48 720000. 331100 *. 50000. 70000. 36.00 *2. 2 '5 4. R 1' 720000. 494200. 65000. 80000*. 12..00 1.00 Ou74 -312000. 1.39200. .: 65000. R0000 0 12.00 1.50 0.,74 312000. 179200-. 65001). 80000. 12. (10 2o/.5 0. 74* 312000. 23'l2QI'\.

65000. aoooo. 24.00 1.00 o. b2*HJ00e 139200. 65000. 80000. 24.00 1.00 2.., 4R 624000. 278400. 65000. aoooo. 24.00 1.so o.-74 624000. 179?.00o 65001). eoooo. 24.00 1.50 2 o4R* 624000. 31A400. 65000 *. soooo. 24.00 2.25 o.7-4 624000. 239200. 6500(1. eoooo. 24.00 2 0 48 62400(1 _. 3701\00. 65000. 00000. 36.00 1.00* 7..46 936000. 278400. 65000. 80<'00. 36.00 1.00 4.81 936000. 464R00 0 65000. soooo. 36.00 1.50 2.48 936000. 31!l400. 65000. 00000. 36,.00 1.so 4.81 936000. 504ROOe 65000. POOOO. 36 * .00 2.25 2Q48 936000. 3784(1(). 65000. 36.00 2.25 4.01 93b000., 56.4801)., NOTES: A[,T,Or/ABI,E. LnADS !1RE GIVEII PER HICH OF' liEB THICKiJF.SS

• • • • • -------Page .. c-:_ 3 Rev. Date PCT. 40. 22. 10. 40. 61. 31. 4fl. 18. 60. 33. 54. 27. 45. tA. 49. 35. 13. 75. 49. 67 *. 42 .. 56. 31. 66 .. 44. 61. -39. 54. 31. ss. 13. 23. 78. 55. 71. 49. 1)2. 39. 70. so. 66. 46. oO. 40. 2* PC'!= !'ERCE'1T Of l'Hc; RE[*UCTIDl*

Of PF.RCEIVF.D Of SAFETY

-. . ..... *------*--- ..... 'M Research Center : * * :--.:i A Division of The Franklin Institute . *.'.:-.._:;:'..] The Franklin Parilw.y, Phila.. Pa. 19103 ..... :I Project Page C5257 C-By Date I Ch'k'd Date Rev. Rt</r---to \0 /81 ;!//: "; Jo_/ti . *<] :;: :.! . .. />.;j CAse.. STvcy Z C.QMPABll\IG SHORT cou.lMNS By 318-6'3 AMC> 3Y.9-76 b2.S IN'2. G.25 . > *" '-h.-tf-#11 = 6.2.Y IN" ?i:\1 -_** . .-.. j . ; . ' . :! *! I . " ... _.,. .-i1*.. CLOSE TO 1% Ps SHORT COLUMNS SEC.. (AND IL!02 ACI. '318-.69.) P-= .. e-s ( fc. = 3,ooo +/- I PS I ) , .., ;s = .Lfx yo,ooo = 16,oco PSI = =-.as [ 62S (750 + *160TI = l..j s 3. ooo ,.. csi:Fw1c.E L.oPti:>)

• ay '31.\q-7<, sec. 10.:;.s Pll =-cf> .so[ss -

+ f'y Ast] = .-7(. al( (.SS)(3,ooo)(62.S-6 * .2Lf) t 40,000(6.2.Y)] ,,. .56 [ 1578,ooo + 2. '-19,-600]:s I, 023,000 (ULT. LOAD) USING LOAD FP\CTORS OF. t."+i'l.7

2. = THEN SERVICE LOAD = D. L. L. L. 1.5 s 1,02'3, 000 -1.s s -=# 660,000 INCREASE OF

• 660 -8 3 x 100 % = '36. 6 % L.(83 ,, ,, .. . ."\

co DES . l'-'\\J C. H !'W\ oi<! e; . <:.o l\J S'E "AllV e we.ee 4 Date __ 1. __ ,_,____, ___ . * --___ _i___.._.:_ ______ ----*------------

---

.

---*--*-------------* ' *1 . ' ... ,::.:.:.: -:i .!:-.-*-.

• • . \i * ..

.** '*=i *3 . . -:i . ..... . j .. *. --.*.: ... ! *; *.... . < -* I . j :' ... . *I ... Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute Project By R'</r--1D C5257 Date *ol '31 Ch'k'd ;;;;:_.<,!J Date /.J *>, Page c-5 Rev. Date The Benjomin franklin Pori<w.y, Phola.. Pa. 191 OJ I. CASE STUD.\ p\e Campa.rTSO"l\ 5t (

st°t"esc;) ( U\*H,..,,o..te)

<A-nd Sec:+eo-n 4---13---l T , .. 60 11 " /-:, ... 6 * "' , . l 'lt°; 4' I r , . . ' l..,**-*1 Al\owo..\:i\* Stresses CoY"crete

3coo lb /i-n ""-J rr.\.de ( -fc =3,ooo .,1 fc =-\35"0 ./ "Y'.='\) Re mfo stee\ ( .f A*o, oao *

• Lt. o 1-b/tn .,_ .J f' S' J. 0 i 000 ( bfi'-n2} As-= Lo..!to b?.r-s =

1112. By D-es.1'9-n ( There f .- -Ii l<. S"l .* . 01234 Sut o... TS . hoJC . . . \ q,.. = , o\ 234 3 -=

• 1 '74-S-'ls o.. lr-m"Lt of .0218-' (( " oles:c:ri of this.).* M \) = . q [ (I g *) ( 5'"7 "J 2 ( 3 i</ lr'\"J..) (
• I (:.tt s) ( ( . 64 c. I f:,lf..S)

]-=-°;. 2.li +5" 0 I/ jc. Tue -rnomeY'lt

• .* "ll'lomen+

/.._ . L.. -::: D* L ) u I*+ t-1-1 = 1*5S'"(D+L) . . ? -+1-\e'l"I rs e9uivo.\eYit fo °' I( se ... vic e 11 *. f. . r-°::2 o .l 3, 50 / I* S-5' = I I 0 e .. :..; _______ _, ___ *--*-*---.. *--**----------.---- .... ***-**-*-*-- -* . .. . > .. * .. :**1 . .. . ._ * . :.:-") :-.*.*.' ... * .. ":j

• -' I. . *-1 . . . Project Page Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute C5257 c-6 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phola.. P1. 19103 Oat 10/s1 I Ch'k'd Date Rev. f,)!!;} /11)8'/ 1[.

-\-\,e of the 11evtro.I o..'lels X (= \<d) l<i? x ( X) -q So\ vt-Ai / x. -= \{cl -= JI . '11 Date {II -the l'nome"'t O\r'YY\ = =-51 I* 2.J = I y 2 ( "3 s iYl l.) ( l g II) ( ). I . 2 7 ., ) ( 4 q . 'l == / 2..1 q 00 ,, /< 12-66 m"l.( w -( <<:Si o ver-n 5) Co1'c\vs\on

for R.ec.+o..""Jv

\o.(' Be.Gt-ms , ( Corrimo"fll1 vsed when -folloWl>"ld .+h-e AC.!. c.odes) vJer-e . -mof'e C.On seY-VO.til/e. ., ' . *-.-; . *-. --. ' . -.. .. .-:-.'. . . : . . .*. Research Center Project Page C5257 C-By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. A Division of The Franklin Institute .sEP-r:, "6'\ ;;:A//// The Benjamin Franklin P*kWllY. PlulL. Pa. 191 OJ Ref CASE STUD! AISC Subsection J., L\ Co lu-m"flS I"""' +lie of of c.o I umns w h1d1 would olevelop o. flo.sirc o.t ultf"FY'o:te. I 0 J sle'YlderY'less f'o..tio ShC4ee "'"t c\ c. ,, "*)'.c.-ee c,---whefe K'ef AISC Svbsect"lan \\ F= *x 10 3 \<51 = y le \cl J. L 7S6*b --r Code 2. Co lu-m-ns I."1\ tlie plo.:ne of be-ndl11} of colUmT\S tvhld, i.vovld <A pl°'-s+lc hl)'\de at Uf+T.,..,,q,te , The. s\eY1<:\erness r 10,, * * * " J_ L I 2..0 -r ra.i'\o . shcdl 'Ylol-* 7 Date

• • .. '. -_\ .... . * :-:j -* .. , . _*: * ..... .. ,* . . -* ----*'**-**<

_,.,; .. : .. _ . . --. Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute Project Bv MO C5257 Date I Ch'k'd SEP,-, S 1 f'//f :t/. The Benjornin Franldin P""'-, Phila.. PL 19103 'W\-\\c:.'h the:. t"wo coJc.s """ e;< d't\ .. JieQd

• of

-{n-t"'c.. ""'L I) Both c.odes Cc. --12.0 r = \'20 Fd-=-4o KSI ;z_) 1980 Cede. s z .J. -, S-6 . ' --;::-=lilt= .J F<f -thenJ F'a-:. '1 1<st. Seo.le ----.© Page C-B Date Rev. Date ;://" I -. *. Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjllmin Fronklin Porkway, Phda .. Pa. 19103 STUD! k'ef AISC 1.10.s.3 .. " T..,, glrdeY-S OYI fhe. bo..s'ls of' -teY1Scn"YI field C\.C+roYI ,, +he Sfl\-cl.,.,3-be-twee"l1 s+lffe.,,ers at e)"'ld po.11e.k / cti-po:.Y1els lo..rge holes .1 o..,.,J a.t F°'"" els +o pa."rle\s c.(ft\i"o..IY1l"Y\d-holes shed\ be Suc.h fv does -noT -the VIA-lue II below Wher'e Cv = 5"1 3'1-4 + (a./h t = 5"* 3Lf -+ ( a.f )2" °fh ) I. o -,

Research Center Project Page C5257 C-* 10 By Date I Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute HC 5EPT. fil /.J!l,f{ Ji .. k; The BenjUnin Franklin Pmkway. Phil.>.. Pa. 191 OJ -Ref AISC [q63 Code. . Svbseclio"'fl 1.10.s.:3 II l'he between s-\-I ff-e-n-eY' s a.t pa..""e\ s C\."l\d P'--ne.ls Co-nfo.Ml1-holes sho..11 be "t\,e s-ni a. II e Y-f°'-""el dlmeY\Slon °' or h sho..11 llot '*Xceed ,... /looot. II ,*_:. =} *: .. *.i *: *.j L--------------------------------**-*--*

---

.. :,.._.,_.

____________ -**-. *. :,: __ j *' .. ., .,; Project Paga CS257 C-11 Research Center . ' A Division of The Franklin Institute By MO Date 3\ Ch'k'd Data Rev. Date The 8"njomin Franklin Plllkway, Phila . .'Pa. 19103 ,. !; I'.,/, , , A ISC Sub sedl'oTI I* 10. s. a

• V '=2'+o l!i'XAMPt.."E h-= -t.-::: I Aw = x =

s V = l<ipS r ..l.4o ju-= ---= q.06 .JS, rS' ..from I* iO. S* 3 Tn-z.. b°&'; KSI :2.0' G\ or h "} IG'\G3 G::iJe Llooot .J-{v-11000 ;<. 3/g * =. q.3-T-n j q.o6xlooo W*hi<:h. )s +'he .f<o"""' e.-:nd. o . .,..d..e.< .f iY"!,t t-<o..""'iiue..-Me By ... ..fi& Code s e..ctum lYl l'l80 o.s sreclfied -fi.r = q.oG !'st h 62' -::. -.::: I t *37S -wk :: 4-+ (O.fh).1.. -Cv-'Fv-(:{/t::)* F-a--i.gq '1-+ 5 .3+ = i 7. '1 g (: bl8);z,, . SiXO x; 17. qg -=: CIS l).i. .'t-'1-* \.lo.5'.3 -3f, *x** = --1b Ks\ ¢ fro7Y'\ IO*.?.(;; tk. rf.J -g'."<a Ks( ... ttiA. _Qowe.r t\.-.a.""- f.J o J * '1.o (p J<. ,>i. .. L Sca.E'.e s_ {.sv

• • --. . **.* .. * .. *. ". ' *:; . ; . ! --.j . **! .,,.

Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute llie Benjunin FrMldin Pukw.,, Phila., Pa. 19103 Project By M.0 C5257 followm(t +wo show fV lfo.ri'ovs I/a.Ives of' A I H a:nd . Date , . ,Y,! ';-j

• I B/ -rne s'heo.(' s+ress fv or 'Fv 1 -\"V\e . ( T V<Alue co."' be. o..bto-1..,, ed °'"'cl CO"mpo-red v*flft\ -rhe cles15-n A /T . -rhus CO'n'1f ri'So1'1 shovld be.. e 1'0..1'Ylt""ned OY1 0.. co.. se co.se. bo.sl5 . Page C-12 Rev. Date
• r--.. I* ** .*.. ' *, . ' :: .... * * * : * *"

--* ' * * ****. .'1..' .. c* ..*. fl fu' * .

0 o F'1:: 3G,. --------Flf, A/H:. 4.0 ' All/:. 4.o fv I * :.. ' **** *: ** 1

• • * .. ... ,!/ ** n 01 N 01 ...... l .. n I . . l' i I I
• Fv t Fu:' ( K5I) ... -._. .... : ..... ... -** ' 20 10 0 200 * ! Fv = oo.o l\SI LlMIT .4*fv= 20.D l<$I 4W A/T F l1, NH= 4 .0 600 n I 0 I-' .. .i::-.. ID t i** !

  ...

  • ; * .. --*. * ... : . , 1..*.*:: *.*.:** .. :--... :* .:*.*-.. I . -* .. -*--*----*--*--*--. .

Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute Project By MD C5257 Date .SEPT. 1 81 Page . C-15 Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date /?. . J .,,")(_.(; The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phila ** Pa. 19103 **:. :';

• Ret 3b 42.. 45 S-0 :rs-bO CASE STUD'( -b-AISC SecrToY"I

2

• 1 -me Width -thic.k-ness
• ro.tlo fOr"'

of ro \\ed w, M 1 or S a.--nd sl-m1\o.r bvl\'t-vp Web s ha..pes h.C\.t-woulq 6-E!. to c.G-mp Under v l+-Tmo.te.. 'Y\ot s v 'oJ ec\ ec\ r 0 TI>. t't oYl +he fo vo..\ueG : bfh g,!;" z.o I . '-t 7.0 6.6 (.3 {.o " -rhe wTd+h -+hie kness of sTrnllo.rly C(j'Yl'\pressed flo."'6e phtes 'f"h box

• sec+ lolls u nd
• c.over f lo.'tes sh"ll "Y1ot tcro /1 Fa-11 t: 'l< o..mf\e 6 -I '{,Q *r-v'J F4-36 so 15" {00 b/t 31.1 2.b*q 2.2. 1q

. ' _..._,.. ___ -*--.. .:..- .. -****--=*---'-***--* . Research Center Project CS257 . av Date I Ch'k'd A Division of The Franklin Institute se-PT. "'31 . ' The ee..;...... Fronlclin Pan.-y, P!lila., P1. 191 Ol . :* .* .. _: -rhe - ro.+10 of webs of . <-. .. * .* "* ;<.(li -.. ":;.j ' *: -......... .

• jl*, *-"-j -* ... ---. *. r . .,

+o Sho..\\ -not -elCCe*d " ..... d/t == (I -1.y.£:..) Pia 1--L:. = o.o .* d/t. :: 2.f;J when _e_ P}. pla.s+lc wheY\ L f.O. "l7 d/t 3G 5"0 ;-g.3 47.6 100 4 I. 2. ) . Fit d/t 36 42-8 so 36. 3 IS' 30 l 00 25.7 Page c-16 Date Rev. Date / .. : /*_ .. ; -' .1 I . . _____ L._ _____ ___;____;_ _______________ __ .* .*. . . ---; '-:*---. ,* .. :;: .;; * .. ---.. :...: ... -=:; .. -.,_.*.;..l

_; , __ _ .:-_* -.-... ; ; **.::: -; .. * : .: .-1 . -** "! .* *:...*--.

---

'-------**----****--

Research Center Project Page CS257 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. A Division of The Franklin Institute 1-v\!::i I !?I £;?1.j/ /.J 'rfl The Benjamin Fronklin Parkw.y, Phila., Pa. 19103 Ref AISC Sec.-t'io'Yl 2

• b " -e.leme-nt., +hG\t wovld be .subjeded

+o c.o--m p v plo..s+ le h (i, rota. t1 <m under ultTYl'!"tc. loo.diYI& sho..11 f\a.ve. wld-tt, - ro...t!o Y10 ma-n +he fo

11 by;4 f g, 5 /<oiled Sho..1;)es f. 3 2 SecHoYlG \\ depth -tl,1ck'Y'ess rC\tfo of -bea:m *

'fil<'der webs svb,feded +o plo..sfTc.., beY\d I/ 15 b'I the follow?ti(f -for-rnv lo. . p -1/ L 70-(0o-£.f 3. cy vJ Re"mar k 'S -rhe !Cll,3 Code -r""ke mm "YhoJer!o..l for of f<t = 36 !<SI or less ( noie +ho-t wo c.odes c:Are +1-ie same foy-= 3£). If -the stNActvre wta.S usTrid 1'Y1C\tercctl ho..vm& yield / -the des1jl"I .be \.4..'Y\.c!c:v-r't"e.Sc"l\t r; 3' l<st © 3( -<rd 1<s1 F(J-2. 3& l<Sl @ c--17 Date i ..

• l :'::.J .: l . *. *l , :! *.* . . ***:! * .... :-.. . * .. '.'l 1.1

., ' : *, * .. i . Project Page C5257 C-18 Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute By Date I Ch'k'd SEF'I. /8\ /!_)/,.) Date Rev. Date The Beni-min Franklin ParloNy, Phola.. Pe. 19103 I-'\ D lq/?J .. C.ASE-STUD! -'f-Ref A-ISC 1qgo Code Sec:+coYl )..q ro..\ ll )-.s "mem b*rs sho.\I be o.&e9vo.te ly brci.ced +o res:ls.+ lo..ier"'-1 C\"l"d tor.s'i'J'itAI drs:-plCA.cern'f'nts

• * ** \he lo..rer°'-\ly u-nsupported . clrs+o.:nce

.,/ Jl.cr -' ... sh(},.11 "not exceed -0,e. -fro""" ,, . .J!.cr .* M -== 13.75"" +2s . l*O /Mr> y-'1-.J.cr-137S whe..,, 2 > -1*0 or -0.5 Mr Y"d--f F}: 3' kS'I 5"0 7S' /00 6.3*2. 52.s-43. 3 38*7S . ), M -*5" -/-1.0 Ylr 3g. 2. \c?* :i 13. 7S *-* ,_J_ _______ ..;.._ __ _.;... __ .;.._ ______ .>** .. * -. -;,.:* ,, -; -*. . . Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute Project By "1D CS257 Date /81 The Fronklin Parkway, Phila.. P& 19103 Ref '* xo..m'p\ e. Al SC ll:f6"3 Code. SeclToYl 8,.."'-clY'lrj-de.ff"fl(-\-(oY\ I<; WT-th -+he l'\g'O Code) -the forn'l\J Jo.. for-Jlcr/ rca-beco"'WleS '. 3S <t; -.1:1 _fJ. Cf' MF [ (OQ O* bo -,5" 40 bO + lt-o 1:L_ Mf 'C'QIVC: L. u'Slou w -follows ( Jl.crjr '"d1'car,.rt:4'c.t (11 (t M S'co..le. IV\ . o'> Mf /-I @ Page c-19 .Date I Rev. Date / l/S. M/Mf'.) No+e \he . l's bg.-sed OY\ 'Y'Y'o. +er!<>.I wTt-h * :=36 other should be e'f.o-.mlY\ed cm CAse by* .. Co. bo. sis. .*.:1 --:._. *.! . * ...* -**** *. :.' . :J .i ., ' ' Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Park_,,, Phila .* Po. 19103 l..cr rd-Project By M.D .. _*--*--'OCL .. ----* ..... 1--____ ._,_ ___ */10-C5257 Date ,,,. 5EPT. S'I LI 1+ \Jsm8-1'16;a coce-f "'3 SI f =-so K'SI . -l,o-.. _, ____ ,_ _____ ,, .S' 0 . 5' Page C-20 Date Rev. Date L__ ___________________ .....L ___ _ I. .*..-..:**.: .: *.'.; ... **: *. * .. ! . . . *. Research Center. A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franl<lin Pori<wcy, PhilL PL 19103 Project By RA C(TSE: STUDY -'8 -----** Page . C5257 c-21 Date Rev. Date SEPi i?I Compar\soY\ of wi#i Sec+io"Yl

2. 3 .J Calvm-ns (

l'i ..{. 4 J Columns (A 1SC.. l't '80) 7-n eo'Y)+'inv os ** fra,,mes where side.wo..y l's ""'ot prevented_, T's li-m'i°ted 67 Fof"')'fHJIO.. ( 20 J . 2..P + 1:. L.. 1.0* Py 7o r -rh lr,.,..m -slenderness Ro.-tro 1=.. 10 Ovv\d r . too..d '°Y\o+ -to a.s Py for .:i = 0. A\so limited r by fCrmvl<A. (i6) below. 2. For co\u-m >15 T'Y\ frC\mes -fhe * "Wlo.. x'I YY\vm o:;< i o.. \ . I ooJ p ::s }.-,""II Y\ o1 -e-xceed . Py* /\\SC 1'180 Sle-nder Yl ess rcdi o -For Co\umns In Col'l\-i'nuos -f'rC\me5 wheY'e S1deswo..y Ts -not pre vevi\ed) 'Y\o+ I Im *t ed +o OYl.1.y 10 . Gut . \.1,.,,1red by Foi'"m.vlo.:s ( :..:... to.) o.-nd* Ci* q -1. b) <J1 "e"" below a.Y\d l.... 'l"\ot +e Cc ,1

• r as :JIVe-n belovJ i. lhe. o..xl G\l loC\d tY1 Co( UmY\S l'Y1 bl"l\Ced fro..mes
• Yiot +o e'IC

o. S-'5°' Py . ( See . Cl\se STvd7

• 4 oJso, * * -For-ro-+lo.)

  • .. * .. **' s , .. "'-: .. l *; ' .. : J . . 1 . . ' .-.. i * --. I Project Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute av RA The Franklin Paikw.y, Phila.. Po. 19103 3-l\) Slenderness ro.tro 4 -not 1-o I £.o b) -rh e o..\\ o\.Vo..'b\'*

10\.-\-.e'<'l\\\ y vn.supported drs+a..Yice M .lcr = ( bO -4o) Mp '('! ' tormulo. (lb) But_ .e.cr 4: 357 c. ) 'ho+ +o e'.Cceed Page C5257 C-22 Date I Ch'k'd Date Rev. SEP7 °'f./ :(;;.:..£! !c/t'J 3 a.. o. ro.-tr o ...Q 'ho+ +o . C.c \'"' where. for F'y =-3 b KS i Cc - 1 3 .b. The . _ lo..terl\ll y UY'*supported clisto.Ylce Jlc.r "t\o+ -le 'fh-e -fol\

!:::::_ -Ii 7 S" + 2. 5 ( 2-4 -i a. J ry y Whe11 +I* 0 )' 2j_ / !'J\p -1375'"" Fy 0.'<\ f CllSe . Date

• -'"*' .**.' . . _--.. . *. *-:; .

Research Center Project By A Division of The Franklin Institute Rlt The Benjamin Franl<lin P..._. Phila.. Pa. 19103 4 (Cl.) I7'+et"O..Ctlo-n lo.s -fOr curVC\-h.u*e. l\re. f"or"WHJ\O. ( 2"'2...J _M__: B-g.(L) L 1.0 Mp Py M f Mp l\. nc\ fOr'rYl v IC\. ( ::l.. ) 2.. l* o -H ( /p 1) -J ( iJ'py) V "'\ v es of lrs1ed IY'l -0 nct'rOYl of F'} .BJ q) H o:nd j l\6 a..

• ra.tlo lb) I-ntet'"°'c-tTan -ft>,mula.s

-£,r c:{oub\e curVC\tufe. o..re For"rl\U\C\. ( 21) fYl .f Mp -£,r o/p/ L 0.1 S rvl ' . . ( p/ M f \.\i-\.\S IP/ )5=. /.o F . -for Pj /' 0.15"" G\. Y\cl For' mu IC\. . * (12..) . _ti_ 13-<q-(.L) 1. 0 ' Mr Py tv'\ L Mp ____ ._ _____ C5257 Date f;rmv \"' C .2 *t -2..) __E_ + Cm M Pc,. (1-L) M Pe m Page Date Rev. lq/"(} !: 1-0* O..'Y'a Forinulo.. (2-4-3) C-p + M L \. o M f Mp P'/ l.18 Mp -.., Pu ; (. 7 A Fo.. P*** -= 2 3 A f . . ' '2... -Fo.. by (I* S"-I ) C\nd Fe 5 NeYl In Sed-ean !

• b
• I t1 -m = Mp ( brl\ced m the. . Wea.k * * ) 23 Date == L (.01 -(o/ry LJFY] Mpf 3\bO ( Un 6ro.ced In W*0..k d l/'ecFiim) o.) Fof' curvcd*vre

()

• b .: CW\ f.: l
• 0 b) -for double Cur VC\.1-ur-e a*Lt = en\ O* b e

.. .* .* .... , ::::._:*/

• -1 * .. *. ) * ... oj *' 1 ..* :*1 *1 *_._, : _, . . "': /::1 *._:':; -:: **"*' "' ... . . . ...*. * .. *--.. : " ... *! . " e ;,;. 'i Research Center Project Page. . C5257 By Date Date Rev. A Division of The Franklin Institute SEPi 1'6/ 1:-A'"I The Benjainin Franklin Patkwll)', Phila.. Pa. 19103 for C01'Ylpctrlso>'\

of *'ese. spe.clf\CG\t(cn1s .1 of P /py vs M/Mp O\r"e drct.vJ"r1 sle-nder'Yless ra.t'lo of o,:nd ICO. Ty pie.a.I Cclum-r\ /Lf 'vF /So V.iith Fy = 36 ksl hGl:S been . 0.'5 an ec;a:m pl-e fOr"' our"' purpos-es Sepamte 8ro..phs o.r'e -fOr cucv<Xt-ure ( o. b .= C.,,., .f: (. o) a.nd dbubl-e.. Cu..-vo..-ture. ( o

• 4 .f:: C. m f: o. b ) c.o.. ses . For-fr<A'n"IC:'S with wo...y ( Cm = o. 85") a.I\ owed ... for""

of vs o..re dro..vJ YI Two +ypes of colv,.,,.,, s 14 v..F I S"o o.nd 12 v.F 4 == 36 ksl,.. C.olol'\-nS l\ssumed +o be. bf"o.ced l"l'\ 1-he weo. k duec+lo"YI

• It CaY'\ he. * *1t\*fe.\'re.J..
• from +he t'1C\.t m a.II ca.secs ; -#le ..,.,,a.Jor cho..Y\5e Ts tl,e. (!mrt C-of a.llcwi:\.ble

(,t)Ct'o..I (oo.dJ 'ls mcrea..s-ed frorn O*S" P7 -+o 0*7S" Py c.olunrns ( S1deSv.Jo....J ctl lowed _) l\nd 0 1 b Py +o. O* gs-Py -JC,... . co!u-m11s. But" +he re3 1in bot+\ c..cdes Is CA.liYlos+ so.me. For c..urva.-\vre we Y)otice fOr k.Q = 3o FOr)t\vl"'- r (1*4-2.) (r"'e -fOr-Cm::.i.o Ts b.Q\ei14.J -r-h.e fo'C"'-mulc\...()..3) bur -fOr :. 70.1. --r-hey overlo...p l\')'\d (00.1 lhe. f;,r.,.,,ulo... (..l.*4" --l) -for C.n-r-==-l .*0* Is <Above. ll"ne;* "Thus 24 Date M -= 3a 1 c.octe b*1ng ">"riore c011servo..-TI11e..) h"il-e. -fOr Ke_ .::: I oo ..J

• c.ode Se.ems +c be. 1'YI Or'"e_ r . C.CY\ ser vv..tiv'e . *n'ls

<:0.11 -thus be. dC\ s<;ifreJ bes+ CA5 r:.,1._ .,!. -

---

*--* ..

Research Center Project *cs2s1 By Date Date I .. ' .-:** ...___ ___ L A Division of The Franklin Institute RA SEPi 0'6'I J!/4.J/ /.;. 'i/ The Benjamin Franklin Park-. Phila., PL 19103 F

• 36 ksi y 1963 Code Formula (22) : !. B:-G_(P /Py) .i 1. 0 p il
• 30 14 vv= JSO ,.. (2.4-2) SI!IGL.E Cl:"R\"An:R.E 1980 Code L + _.-cm,.,M,,,__

!. 1. o p p er (1. - e 0.6 < c c 1.0 -m.-(23) !t l 0 (P/P ) J(P/Py)2 <2* 4-3) Ppy + l. l!t8,'L -" l. O, !t !. M.... Formula M !, * -H "1 -* '11 -., p TYPICAL .EXAMPLES ....... ,,,s o*'-o.'7 c.A 1.a 1>1l11p Page C-25 Rev. Date e

• • -** '. I :.i I . .,,

Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin P.,._, Phila.. Po. 19103 Project By RA F

• 36 ksi y
• JQ* 14 ..... 150 T" Fomula (21) 1963 Code ':!
• MP when P/Py !. 0.15 MM !. l.18 -l.18(P/Py)

!. 1. 0

• p (2. 4-2) C5257 Date Ch'k'd SE.PT 0 1ll 1980 Code p C M O -+--m-..,,..

__ !, l. p p er (l - e Formula (22) !, B-G(P/Py) !, 1.0 .. p M (2. 4-3) p y + l. lBMP !, l. 0, M !, Mp M JI. Jl<JI,, T'lPI CAL EXA.'fi'LES I! )I . .. '-!I .Jl<M. II. ..e I.II r Py -*A 1'!90 CoDli!' Wl'll"I' !., Foru.,1.11.-'1 ('i .. 'fo -2) <M! -0,1. Page c-26 Date Rev. Date , __ ..;....._ ____________________ ___... ____ ._ ,---_....

• . ;; .. :_;'. ._ .. _.i
• . .-: *: :i -**:; -) 1 *--o-: . 'l ... Project Research Center. Page CS257 C-27

__

• • .> A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Plllk...y, Philo.. P*. 19103 {(A ?i 1 3'1 F
• 36 ksi y ll
• iO 14 .,,,-lSO T SI!>CLE: Ct.'RVArtlRE 1963.Code Formula (22) ;-!. B_--G(P/Py)

!, 1.0 p !1 !. 'ii Formula (23) !. 1.0 -H(P/Py) -J(P/Py)2 .. ., TYPICAL EXA.'IPL!S l*O ..E, OJl C.oOli C..IMI P7 &JI* . 0.1 I 01 .... o.a.. Oo'3 o.'t 1980 Code C:?.4-2) C M l 0 ....!'..... + _ _,.,m .,,...--!. . p ., er (l -f"H1;. e o. 6 < c < l. 0 -m. -p _M_. -< 1 *O !1 < M_ (Z.4-3> Py + l.lSMP -* ' * --., . o.s O.'-0.7 o.g 0*'1 l*O MIMp . **i " .... :*i ..... , .. :. -. * .. ,.. . -j . e* .... Research Center Project Page C5257 C-28 By Date l Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute RA SEPT'g1 ,;;:J-x.:.' .' . / :-' The Benjamin Fronklin POlkw<sy, P!nla., Pa. 19103 ,/ ;. / F -36 ksi ll. ;o 14 ....... 150 COL11LE C'.Jlt\'..\n-.U: y .,. 1963 Code 1980 Code _P_+ C M !. 1.0 (2.4-2) Cl Formula (21) M

• M. when P/Py < 0.15 p p er (1 -. p . -0.4 < c < o.11> e .1!.. < 1.18 -l.18(P/Py)

< 1.0 -"' -M --p p M (2. 4-3) Py+ 1.18.1> .::_ l.O, M !. Mp Formula (22) : !. B-G(P/Py) !. 1.0 I' M !. Mp JI. ll<M. TYPICAL Ir )J \:I Jl<M. M,, . ; .i! P-t . o ... *--COlll: Ll"llT . 0.1-*-

• .

M/Mp

_*.: ... -.. * . ,,, ,:. * ... > I ______ _.: ___ _

Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franldin p.,.._, Phila., Pa. 19103 F

• 36 ks1 y, 1963 Code Project By RA ll . 100 14 ,,,, 50 r (2.4-Z) C5257 Date Date SWGLE: Ct."R\'ATURE:

1980 Code c It ....L+ __ m...,,.. __ !_ l.O p p Formula (22) : !. B.-G(P/Py) !. 1. 0 p er (l - e o. 6 < c < l. 0 -111-M ' (2. 4-3) :y + l. ,i 1. 0, lt !. !ii Formula (23) M"' !. 1.0 -H(P/Py) -J(P/Py)-r p TYPICAL EJOOIPL:ES rrr /j ftl f 1 !r . . . !.f, .. JI, Jl<M. . .J!. 1.0 Py Co DE LIMIT o.i O*'I o.co o.s Oo't .. ,,. > Q,J Page C-29 Rev. Date ' . * **1 * .. *.** .J ... .* .. . *. ! .J l *-i I *;; Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Park-. Po. 19103 Project By P,A F

• 36 ksi y ll -100 14...... 150 .,. 1963 Coc!e C5257 Date IXlli'BLE Ct.'RVA'IURE 1980 Coc!e p C:l'. !, 1.0 -+. Formula (:!l) M ., M? 11he11 P/Py !, 0.15 JL < 1.18 -l.18(P/Py)

< 1.0 Per (1 -: >11>

• e 0.4 !. Cci !. o.& M --? Formula (22) : !. l!:-G(P/Py)

!. 1.0 " M !. Mp TYPICAL EXAM!'LES "" 1.0 ...._ P'f .. , 1qi9 CODI!. UMtT OS 0.1 0 o.s (.1.4-3) .!... + __ M_ < 1.0, M < M... Py --.,. o **I o.a o. o **'1 Page c-30 Rev. Date Project Page Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute C5257 C-31 l--0-v-f( __ /+ __________ ... -. The Benjamin Franklin Paikwoy, Phila., PL 19103 Formula (21) F

• 36 itsi y ll. 30 \ 2. ....... "5 .,. 1963 Code M
• MP when P/Py !. 0.15 MM !, l.18 -l.18(P/Py) p !. l.O SIDESWAY ALLOWED 1980 Code Formula (22) : !. 8.--G(P/Py)

!. l.O p M !. p M (2.4-3) Py +l.l8Mp!,l.O, M!_"? Formula (23) !. l.O -H(P/Py) -J(P/Py)2 TYPICAL ElWIPl.:ES 1.0 c :o.as m 1963 Code Also Imposes the Following Limit 0:1 "*S' .. 2P l p + 70 Y !, l. 0 Formula (20) y .. .. l -*.*, .:J *'.: ' _j ... Research Center Project C5257 By Date I Ch'k'd Date A Division of The Franklin Institute ,C<A- "-"! /'J;'!., ' ..'ff/ The Benjamin Fronldin ParkwGy, Phrla ** Pa. 19103 J. :';; -F -36 i<.,;i kl

• 30 14 'I/:' 150 SID?SYA'i ALLOl/C 'J .,. 1963 Code 1980 Code Formula (21) M
• M when P/Pv < O.l5 p . -11. < 1.18 -l.18(P/Pv)

!. 1.0 _P_+ c !'! !. 1.0 M -* (2.4-2) m p p ? er Cl -p-H'ii e c,,,,..o.BS' Formula (22) !. B-G(P/Py) !. 1.0 p p M M !. (2. 4-3) p-+ l lBMP !,LO, M !. 11> y

• Formula (23) : !, 1.0 -H(P/Py) -
• M<:M, p TYPICAL ElW!?t.ES . ..e.. 1.0 P'/ o., <t.i **'l 0-' o.f; o.t o.a I &3 COOG UMll o. 0 .. , .. ' f[l M. M. ; . l 1963 Code Also Imposes cha Following Limic 2P I p-+ 70 r!. 1. O Fomula (20) y o.'fo o.$' O*' 11.7 o.f o.q 1.0 M/Mp Page C-32 Rev. Date ______ L._ ______________________

--..1.

(*-*-* . * ... '.:

• • .*.: . ....... . __

-; .:-*:* .. i *. -. *. . . _)3 -<:. *:*j *.,.: .. *-.* . ; .. ,. . __ , *.::* . ' ;.:, .. .,, ) Project Page C5257 c-33. Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute Date Date I Rev. Date The Benjamin Franklin PorioAy, ?hila .. Pa. 19103 Ot..T 0 1" I ;;/'*> (A SG STVDI -Co""'p"rl of Al SC -l ct 80 :;;ecfco"Y) I . I 0 . 6 w<i41 Al.SC -1q &3 Sec+ran (. lo. b _, Reductco"Y) Sfre:;;s) . HY qirders 0Y1ly.

• on I'/

be-tweeY'I -hvo codes is +he Tnrr-oduc.tTo/\ of fi,r'lr'vlo... ( j. iO -b) co.se of . h1bf."ld ... Je( /. +he tciso code.. -Formulo.. ( 1. 10-s) of 1q go Cade. w\th Fb 1)1 ksi Is -1o fOrmulo... ( 12) of. *IC{ b3> .with Fb . * * \..,, P5i .

• Hy br-.ld deslj11ed In l't b3> t.Vovld be .

rl"1 a.cc..ordllnc.e. wr+h . Formulo... C 12.) is fctel"ltTCG\.\ +o ( 1-10-5) iY1 (Cf8o Co4e.. But o... hy br\d desl,jYJe:\ in O\.c.cardo.'Y1C*.. w <+h l q 5 o -R.o.s to .CD"'f1fk"YYI +c bath Fo nn uJ o-.s ( I* 10 -s) c:A.nd C /. lo -b). For Fb :::..ls l<s'i o.."l'\d oo ksi ,,. we dro..w of reduc.tton . fu..c-tor ( ) Vs. of v.iet:> {trea.... f ro.Jro l=b (Aw/Af)) rormulo...s C1*10-s) O..'Y\d C I (,) -fci r . "°' = o

• o
• J o-.N:\ o, 4 evvJ -R.(t l"O\i-Tos ( 162, 17 1fi. J ..J;y-2,s-j6; omd l I 7 ..i f 27 g,.. *\ 3 7 . for" "Fb -=5'0 Ks I}. We. fr'f\d IY1 '\II sl)< co.::es .
• depe"'d . on _ Aw/A-f m.i'to fl'". rJ.... = o. 45" J -For" l'J\Ulo...

c (. lO -b) CY\ t\-ie lq go* c:.e&e., rs iu\-te C.OV\Ser V<A.ttve_.

• ,. .

-* . ** ... -! : .. *.: *. -;** .*.: .. ;3 *'.! .. :l *. ::! *.iJ **:.i .**1 " i ;, _, **.:* .,.":'*:; .*: .. ') ::*; e Project Page CS257 Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franlclin Park-. Phola., Pa. 19103 By RA Date I Ch'k'd Date I Rev. Q <!.1" f??.z; ;-:. /'/ * .. But -fOr 0.4$' < J... o. 7fi'. ,, f"or-mvb. C. l

• I 0 -b) o.r c I* 10-S) Covld he Ul'1serva.tlve.

o..s C6mjX\re.d to '*0.°' other-on Yi /t

• r"affo -far
• R * .Rut -f'r o< / o. /S-.J 0-'l"(J-Ca.se,, Foo-mvlo... ( l *Io -s) (5 -mo(e
• Thus we. CO.ri ma.ke -fO 11 6"Y\ -+"' e rn . c.:. 34 Date OLD Sco.Qe.. ci) b) f ormulOI.. ( I "L) I { q b 3 Code... Fb .f l=b [ l*O -O* ooos J Af F_i, w 1-Hi 'Fb i'Yl Psi .

C \. l0-5) lqao eode 6 Fb C I* O - -)] .Af -t. "Fb ; 'l=b IY) ks\ New formul o... foY'mul°'-( \ * \O -b) \ q go code. "Fo' f b r \l.. + c J C-3d.. _rA3 J J l -+ .i c {!VJ ) . Af L G\Y\c\ Av.JI ti-a /Af oA*s +o o.1s '1 Q.l'S A B c

.... :--------*-*

._ .... . , .;, * .** ,1 Research Center Project Page C525_7 C-35 By Dam Ch'k'd Rev. Date e A Division of The Franklin Institute RPt oe.;' 'l I !'i?r:v' I* it; The Benjomin Fronlclin Plllk_,, Plula.. Pa. 19103 J!/ . AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON . . 1. o

• . .::.* ........ :;; -----------__, -------,*.* .. -.'t. *a= 0.6 a: 0 ..... u O*S' < ... z: 0 -(l .. 0.3 ..... u ::::> c ... a: a.is: I

_ _,_ ____ -:1: ..... 0* 15'0 ,_ WED/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDIHG STRESS '" 25KSI ALPHA 11 0.3, 0.6. 0.9, H/T RATio" 162 .. .*.:.;. . . 1 **:! .,. . ' '. *.. ::..:. -__ .;.

• . ;J .. *1 : :1 .--.} . . . .

Research Center Project C5257 By Data A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkw.,, Phila.. PL 191 OJ .RA c:: 0 ,_ '-' cc ... z: 0 ;: '-' :::I Q ... a: AISC 1. 10.6 1963/1980 CODE. COMPARISON a = 0.9 ---------------------a= 0.6 o.s-------a = 0.3 0 WEtl/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS a 25KSI ALPH/\=0.3, 0.6, 0.9. H/T RATIO s 172 Page C-36 Rev. Data *-*= _:__::__L __________ -** .-: _* _______ _:_,.. _

• *,; Project Page Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute C5257 C-37

.. Benjamin Franklin Pan...,. Ph1la.. Pa. 19103 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date W' n If> ,-,,_, ' 1<....A <0c.; b 1 f><..t'.* AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON I 0-:l'l"" __ I ------a = 0.9 ---------------* o.g a= 0.6 ----.---*a" O;J ** o.:z. o .. n-ll-..--"""""--+---+ 1---t-i ----;1----i .lo* 4o so ,o. 0 10 WEB/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS 25KSI ALPHA*0.3, 0.6. 0.9, H/T RATIO

• 182 I.

Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute ,,,., Benjamin Franklin Porkway. Phila .* Po. 191 OJ Project By RA C5257 Date Ch'k'd OCT'<( I AISC*l.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON

1. 0 _....,._,.,,_"":_:""::_:-_=_:-_:-::_=-::--=-=-=-=-::-:-:_=::_::-::.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-:"'(J:--=.=0:-:.-=9

-=-::"':-='f a ,. 0.6 a* 0.3. 150 200 100 50 0 WEB/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS* 50KSI ALPHA*0.3, 0.6, 0.9, HIT RATIO z. 117 Page C-38 Date Rev. Data J'///j -* ....

• '.' .* .. * '. -* .... :_._ _

.. Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben;.min Fronldin P.,._, Phola.. Pa I 91 OJ Project Page C5257 C-39 . hn d *K..h OC.T' 'll t///.;d llj?J AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON a a 0.9 o.a ----------.----a = 0.6 I I a ,. 0.,3 o.:z: o.o-l----ao1----1f-----t..----+----; 0 . :i.o 40 'o so 100 AREA RATIO BEHDING STRESS

• SOKSI ALPHA=0.3.

0.6. H/T RATIO m 127 ] *,.: . ' *.:; I :1 . ,_,; ; .. ,-.. .. :;1 ;<"l *-.;;, . . ., ,, *-,'j . ' .,:i ., . : *. J_" Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute Project By QA C5257 Date Ch'k'd '7) c. 7 I /' /,J;,'c} The Benjamin Franklin Porkway. Phila .. Pa. 191 OJ "' 0 1-u a u :::i c .... a:: AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON 1.0 . ------------------------- Q.8-t-I I i o.&..L i o.r. I ,J a a 0.9 ------

---

_.,.

a .. 0.6 --------a '" 0.3 o.o-+1 ---+---+---r---+-----r----t 0 10 .20 30 'lO SO WEB/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS SOKSI ALPHA=0.3, 0.6, 0.9, H/T RATIO 2 137 Page C-40 Date Rev. Date ____ L_ ______________________ ... --,...__, .. ., .... *-. .-.. __ : _____ ---*---"---**-*-* I *-*. :*._**,: *: ... :,.,:._; ' Project Page C5257 Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. The Ben;.mn Fra,,-Parkway. Phda., Pa. 19103 R.A s E PT I '6) /.)//..t*;

c_h, CASE

STUDY . ComfQrison of Sed(o-n ( I . q. J. z.) ClY\d. Ap peYldlx c. (A-ISC wi-lii Sedco:Y' ! . q. I (Alsc, rqb:s) ; w1cHii-th1cki,ess fl\flo cf tn'lsiffe'Yl-ed ele-ments

+o o.x'lo-.\ o."r'-d du* -to bendmd. I..,., sectTans *+he... 11-mit of width -(O.flo Is +he various cctses. CASE I : CASE 1! CASE: ][ : s'""5le .- struts j double -C\Y13le struts \\I rth.

• s e .p<Arato rs Struts double o.')'\3les 111 can-iu.et j

or plc..tes

• f'roYY'\

Of"' o+Yiel"" C..ompreSS(<m 'J1°'emb*rs

. CO"YY\pre.ss(on of bea.'IYlS j S'+'i'if'ene<S

• on plo..te stems af +-ees c-41 Date e rY\ A-\.SC .I 19 so ,I a.

ti) the. sreci f icQ.t.M.s * °'-bove C.C\.Se5..,,

• w heYl Com pre ssl"on _ -me"""'bers ex:ce-ed +he o-..1\ ow"'-6l-e..

'"*n*d-t\,- ikrct'Y\ess. rotco,. the o...l\owo..b\e -* °'"<a. red0cec:\ bf a. fused on -9,r-mula...s ffi\/en \..,, C . . wh1c.h depends on yield

• s-tress. C Fd )

-. r°':tfo. .. :i .*. ::1 'i -' .. -**1 *. ;: -.. *J . *. *-: * ... . ...... J . . *:._; .-ji, '*;41

• • ' .. , *, _*.:: .
• r ***
• _.* *.. *, .. ,; .. ** 1 . e "' Project Page C5257 C-42 Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute By Date I Ch'k'd SE.P1 1 <{I ;;,*}?:*:.,.-:

Date I Rev. Date The Beni-min Fr1111klin Porkway, Phil4., Pa. 191 OJ fl.A .. But l\C.C.ardini to A-ISC.,1 l'l b'3 Specl-frc,"tloYIS, e)cc.ee..q -fh.:e_ a..l\ owo..ble. \iJ\o\ th --th1c.k.,,-e.ss ro..+ro ,) "member i6 if S'G\ti'Sfies -th*. o...l\ ovJo..bl-e... st-ress relucf'e"MeY'ts wl+h o... of wee:\#, 1e., effec.1-Ne.. w1dB, . stress re1ucr-emeni"s . fOr -t\ie 4.Se Stvdf -' two voJu-eS of ry 3'1. Ksl l\"Yi.cl SO l<sl O.<'e chosen . f;r +he. fv-io vo..\u.es +-r plcoJ secf'(on Cl"r\c\ \ sec.tto-ns

• In.

Ma.,.."'"o....Q.

• *5 f'C\.f hs -f\£Ave *beeYJ. plotted 1=or-Reducf'6rt
• VS Widi+) -thick11ess rC\ho. Reduc..+Tl\'r) for. A-ISC; /Ci'30 cocf.*_ Is rused on 5T11en 1-n c"ependl'x C ct'Y'\c;f for . A-\ s c. _, (CJ 6 ::, ,. . red v c-f con
• fo-c.--to r T 5 -the..

o . of effect\v-e.. W'tc\+h +o o.c+v°'"I w(c\1-h of -the sec+ tOYJ

• BO'Sed O'Y'l

-fOr CG\,Se I 07..se. il.. o-.+

her- /thickness rot(o would be. a.. C

• Speclf wer-e.

GU'Y' TY\ LCf63' c.ode .* -ir-Co.se1[ +he rYl rs A a..s rt i5 'n'\or-e.. (ari.Ser lfC\.t\\1-e. TYi tq C.octe..J o..+ T d th -th kkns-s r'C\ tc o .

J .***1 . . .. *-

Research Center Project Page C5257 c-43 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute RA ! The Ben!Omin Franklin Plula.. Pa. 19103 ,;/.:./,. FY""36KSI ANGLES 0.8 R E D" u c 0.7 T I 0 N 0.6 F A c: T 0 a.s R 12 i-4 1e: t8 29 22 24 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATJ'.O .-,;. . .. _ . **: .. *: --!.:: . ... -. -**: *** _-:..; . ... Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjomin Franldin Pari<w.y, Phila.. Po. 19103 Project By RA C5257 Date Ch'k'd Date Sf Pi' '(I f'J( /:' _;;-/:-; FY""50KSI ANGLES SEPARATED R E D u c T I a N F. A c T 0 R WIDTH-THIC<NESS RATIO Page C-44 Rev. Date

• • .. ;

Research Center Project CS257 Date . :*

• 1 **-** .\i .* ;.* . :*.-:-j ... *.;

.. -.-** . . -A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Fronldin Pan.-,. PhilA.. Po. 19103 R .E D u c T I 0 N F A c T 0 R 14 ta .....__ ____ __:___ _________ - {/ FYa36KSI ANGLES IN CONTACT t8 29 22 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATJ:O Page C-45 Ch'k'd Date Rev. . Date e f""" 1 /;7.:V* .'a -: .*. : , . . *.: . '_ Research Center Project C5257 By Date A Division of The Franklin Institute R.A The Benjamin Franklin P""'-* PhilA.. Pa. 19103 FY-SSKSI ANGLES IN CONTACT .R E D u c T I 0 N R A T I o* 12 18 18 20 WIDTH-THIC<NESS RATIO Page C-46 Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date *];::*z*'. /.:/.f'; 24 .,, I* .. **.* .. **-: .,. I : *' ! .... *. ':. Research Center Project By A Division of The Franklin Institute P,A The Benjamin Franklin Pork-. Phila.. Pa. 19103

• FY=36t<SI:

T SHAPES R. E D u c. T I a N F A c T C5257 Date Ch'k'd Date S f I E T i'I I //!;d /.J/?'1 o __ _.....-..o

a. 4 . ....J.--_;l--.--+--'T-+-r---l---T""",_1-1r11

-R 34: WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO Page C-47 e Rev. Date

J" .. -*.a .., .. . ... *.1

• 1 -* .
• Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Senjomin Fronldin Parkwmy, PhilA., Po. 191 OJ *'*****---'*--. Project By :RA C5257 Date Ch'k'd £EfT 1 1l"' /l#.M FY""59KSZ T SHAPES R E D u c T I 0 N .F A c T 0 R 17.S 22.S 25.9 27.5 39.'1 32.5 36.9 WIDTH-THICKNESS RAT:I:O Page C-48 Date Rev. Date

.. *. ::*.\ .. -.. . "i .. . >.-: -___ . -. ... Project Page C5257 Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. A. Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Fronklin Parkldy, Phtla., Pa. 19103 PA-;:;i.** . ,/_/ 11/i'J CASE STVD\ Co'W\p0trlson of A-ISC lctcgo Secf'i<>-n I. ii* Lf wI+\i Alsc. ('}{,3 Sectl<SY\ \.11.l.f,; . S'h-ec.r'" Coh'T\ectol"'S -f(i(' Composite _, where. sfee\ G\ds with beo.m

• to AISC !'18'0; hrnivlo. ( (
• 11-s") V" = Asr F1r /2. ( /,Ii -S") is 5\ve-n fot' (.oYrtlY\uous CoYY1 pos'ite be.a.-m e

sted rs (07'\siderect to o.c.+ Composite!/ wl+h +\ie s-1ee.I M.am I)') the. "Y1edqfi'Ve_ . 'J'Y\o1'1'e-nt . -fo c.o..lc.vla.te. t\ie

• 01-0.I kori)CYl+o.J
• -to be. re 6'/ * .sheo.r ca11.,,ec.tors betw'*e'Yl l\'Y\ \nfe.rior svpport a11d *a.ch pol"nt of c.0'11 +Y-"-fl e ;< ur e Whereas tY\ A TSC !'iG3 speclfieo.tloYlS J -+he *hrtG\\

sliea.r +o kle res&s-red between -the po Inf of -mo-'Xl-ml.l'\'Y\ posl+i'v'e. l'Y\O")l'leY\t .. a.nd eo..ch *Y\d ol"' o.. po'i'Y1t of Co'Y'\+rCAf le.;<ure 1-n co"'-t111vous be.a.ms Ts as +he smc:A.11-er voJ ue. af f'or'W\ul o.. Ct g) o..nd (IC\) Vh = . o. gs :;_Ac.. (tg') O..Y'd vh:: A-s Fy (ta.) ' :z.. ' c-49 e Date . -.. ,*****,_! . ,' **:.-:_ *.:) .... \ .-'. . *_- .. -.**: " *.i . , .. '*, : .. , **. :3 . * * .. :>l ..... i : -:j -; * ... , I. **--....:>* .* ..... ** -**** Project Page CS257 *C-so Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute By f? Date Rev. Date The Benjamin Fronlclin Porlcwny, Phrla., Po. 19103 i<A /;:/// Ts -no sepo..ro.te. for-mu \o.. 11eso.t\v'e -mo-me.,,+ 1"11 A-ISC..1 /qb3. The o.bove. -for-mv\cts so.me h1 A-ISC. J

For,,.,vlQ. (I. il-3) o.<nd Cl* ll -4)

'the posltNe -mo.,.,.,e-,,t tv1oreover m AISC. " I Cj G 3 , Ts 1'10 Cons I dero.tTon of s.+eel M c011crete ac+m3 Compositely wt+\, -the sfee\ beo.m m 1r10111e-nt re.slo11s. !his Pmplres thC\t Tn eompufl'Yld +he S'*cfio11 'Wlodulus at -the points of 11eao.*tlve / Y'emfo("c.e:meYJt. po.r-o.lle.l

• +o .+h*
• s-tee\ ..
• b-eam J. . o.."'d \/in'a within * +he effec t'iv'e. .. wTd+h of s\°'b -mo..y *be T-nduded

+o AlSC.., But 1+ rs not o-.llowec! -fo 1-ndude reinfol"CIYl3 stee.\ .m -the sec. tTon ')y\odu I us -for +he o..bov'e. Co. se as per +iie specl{ieo.tToY1S of A1sc.. ll\63. Thvs deslj71 crH*edo.. rs liber"o.lized IY1. A1S C. lC\SO. Sirice +he of -th Ts IT be ro.\ cr't. te rio.. Ts vn k-now"Y), -th Ts ch C\.n<Je bes+ b-e.. clC\.SS lf1*d °' s £.: A"Y\y . Co-mposlte. beo..m cts per Alsc \'1f,".:J Wiii show more. ')-)\o.,.,..,ent Co..'P°'c:rt-y +o AISQ. .. IC\ 80 Spec";".f1 co..tiOYJS.

• .: _____ . ____ __ .;_ _______

., . *; ..... *j ' .; *'j .... ' .. * . .....; . *. ; *** 1 .,,. ) Research Center Project C5257 By Date Ch'k'd A. Division of The Franklin Institute r.w*J/, I The Ben;omin Franklin Pan.w.y, Phila.. Pa. 19103 !t./ ... !:) CASE: SiUD"f -IL. -lhe o. \\owo..ble perl phero.\ 'Shear ( Sheclr ) as s+cded l'Y\ +he 5 PV ASME: . Cade Sec+ion 1!I. 'Div. z.; (qgo ( AC! 35C{-8o) Po.rC\.. CC-3£t-2.l.G Is Date L*/ g I limited +o 1.Tc. where -m_ sh"-11 be as +he of Ud, 0-1"-J VC.YY\ Page Rev. 'The -the. AC.I 318'-{,3 Code Sec+rcm 1707 s+ct-tes*-+ho..r ul-\-ima.te Sheo.r S+re"'ca+h UU sho.. ll 1'1ot "e.'J(ceed . Uc, the . a.bo'\/e two c.a.ses +he. Ts C.onduded

. When

s ca.et. I. Membrc\'ne stresses o.re. c.ompressNe.

3 \&"-6-:::. Ts ll"lor"e C.oY\SerVCl tive (_c..) 2* Mem bra.ne. s+resses o.re. -+eY\sl'\e -b3. . T's less CPn Ser Ve\+\ l/e, * (_A) C-51 Date e

Research Center Project Page C5257 C-52 By Date I Ch'k'd Data Rev. Data A Division of The Franklin Institute l'Pit 1 Jn* 1.,,/ gr Benjamin Franklin Poricwoy. Ph1t... Pa. I 9 I 03 ... Jc,.,. .

3. M-em stresses air-e. cef'o -Ts ld-en+T ea.\ No ro. t"i '.a 4. M-e"h'"t bra;11 e S+r-*SSe5 a.re opposl+e fu (A) 3\8"-b3 be \-ess con servo..tlv'e

• . -.* .. -* : .

. _ _. ___ .... __ ., .. *-* -.....

---

* . '* .l . i 'i :l 5 .... . .. -.. .. , . *:*-_.f,,*, . : ....... .. * ; **:*,, . *.-. **-: ,. -: .. _.; . -*.* . . -.*

Research Center Project Page C5257 C-By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. A Division of The Franklin Institute f'l!t(I) r?'i</MO The Benjamin Franklin Park..-y, Phila., Po. 191 OJ iii' * .,, J /_? .. <(! 10/':l l * (ASE STUDY :B PV AsM E: Code Sec*hon ]I D lv"i Si' o'Yl '2. ,, .s+o..-tes -tho.t 1'180 ( ACI 359-go) PO\ro.. CC.-3421*1 -the. sheo.r stre;s 6)' C.oyicrete from pur"e +orslo11 sha..tl 15c.t w he.re Uct = I + -fh +fm blf' c. While +he AQ.l _31g-b,5 Code Sec.+<an 1707 I Tm t-Ts +he ul+r-ma.i-e $\.ie.o..(" .. .. o From +k-e.

• o..bove. -hNo cases +he .fol low Is c.011 cl uded ; 2. Meynbl"'at'le s+resses o.re. 318 -6 3 rs 1'Ylofe c.om pre sslv'e C.O'Yl serv'o..i'T11e 3\8-63 s+resses a.re. +e"Y'lsile Ts \-es -s, CPY\Ser"la...tlv'e.

53 Date e

• ... -*-****i --. . 4 .

'. .1 .. ***-1 . *-* .. } *_-: .:j ' .. :

Research Center Project Page C5257 C-54 By Date I Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute fl/l /II . !;;/*/; p. Y../l'-4 !) 10/31 Tht> Benjomin Fronklin Pork.way. Phila.. Pa. 191 OJ I / l.* . ' 3.' Me.mbrO.'Y'\*. S-tresse5 o.re. 318"-63 Ts more con va.tNe 4. He-mbro.ne s+v-esses a.re oppos11e lY1 (A) *31g""-63 Could be less c.onservo.tlve ' . ,. . , . ----- .. l .: **--: .. 3 Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute APPENDIX D ACI CODE PHILOSOPHIES D-1

• .,; ,. 'i . ; .. ) . . . . ACI CODE PHILOSOPHIES The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete delineate two philosophies of design which have long been in use: the so-called working stress method, which was in general acceptance and predominant use from early in this century to the early 1960's, and the ultimate strength method, which has been rapidly replacing working stress since about 1963. Working Stress Method The working stress methad of design is referred to as the "alternate design method" by the most recent ACI code. By this method, the designer proportions structural elements so that internal stresses, which result from the action of service loads* and are computed by the principles of elastic mechanics, do not exceed allowable stress values prescribed by the code. The allowable stresses as prescribed by the ACI code are set such that the stresses under service load conditions will be within the elastic range of behavior for*tjle materials involyed.

As a result of this,* the assumption_.of straight line stress-strain behavior applies reasonably for properly designed structural members. The member forces used in design by this method are those which result from an elastic analysis of the structure under the action of the service loads. Ultimate Strength Design The ultimate strength method is referred to as the "strength method" in the most recent ACI code. By this method, the proportioning of the members is based on the total theoretical.strength of the member, satisfying equilibrium and compatibility of stress and strain, at failure. This theoretical strength is modified by capacity reduction factors which attempt to assess the variations to be encountered in material, construction tolerances, and calculation approximation.

• Service loads are defined as those-loads which are assumed to occur during the service life of the structure.

Research Center II Dlvi*lon of The franldln IMlilute D-2 I * ,_ ........ . -, ** -""! ****:;. *.*" ** ... . -__ -'-1 -.. , . . . .-. Strength Reduction Factor In the present code, the capacity reduction factor ($) varies for the type of member and is'considered to account for the relative seriousness of the member failure as regards the overall integrity of the Load Factors

• Also, by this the designer increases the service loads by applying appropriate load factors to obtain the ultii;nate design loads in an attempt to assess the possibility that the service loads may be exceeded in the life of the-structure.

The member forces used to proportion members by this method are based on an elastic analysis of the structure under the action of the ultimate design loads. Importance of Ductility A critical factor involved in the logic of ultimate strength design is the need to control the mode of failure. The present ACI code, where possible, has a philosophy of achieving ductility-in reinforced concrete designs. Ductility i.n a .structural member is the ability to *maintain load carrying capacity while significant, large deformations occur. Ductility in members is a desired quality in structures. It permits significant redistribution of internal loads allowing the structure to readjust its load resistance pattern as critical sections or members approach their limiting capacity. This deformation results in cracking and deflections which provide a means of warning in advance of catastrophic collapse *. Under conditions of loading where energy must be absorbed by the structure, member ductility becomes very important. This concern for preserving ductility appears in the present code in many ways and has guided the changes in code requirements over the recent decades

• Where research results have confirmed analysis and intuition, the_ code has provided for limiting steel percentages, reinforcing details, and all directed as guaranteeing ductility.

In those aspects of design where ductility cannot be achieved or insured, the code has required added strength Research Center A. Dlvlsion of The F11111idln lnslilule D-3 . *<. -*.-* .... . ': **.::. . : *. '.. * .. 'i . '_.:,**':.

• .. : .. _. ____ -.. to insure potential failure at the more ductile sections of structures.

Examples of this are evident in the more conservative capacity reduction factors for columns and in the special provisions required for seismic design. Strength and Serviceability in Design There are many reasons for the recent trend in reinforced concrete codes toward ultimate strength rather than working stress concepts. Research in reinforced concrete has indicated that the strain distributions predicted by working stress computations in general do not exist in the members under load. There are many* reasons for this lack of agreement. Concr.ete is a brittle, non-linear material in 'its stress-strain behavior, exhibiting a down trend beyond its ultimate stress and characterized by a tensile stress-strain curve which in all its features is approximately on the order of one tenth smaller than its compressive stress-strain curve

• Time-dependent shrinkage and creep strains are often of significant magnitude at service load levels and are difficult to assess by working stress methods. While ultimate strength methods do not eliminate these factors, they *become le.ss significant at .ultimate load levels. In addition, u*ltimate strength methods allow for more reasonable approximations to the nori-linear concrete stress-strain behavior.

In the analyses of structures., the designer must, by necessity, make. certain assumptions which serve to idealize the structures. The primary assumptions are that the structure behaves in a.linearly elastic manner, and that the idealized member stiffness is constant throughout each member and constant in time. Working stress logic does not lend itself well to accounting for variations in stiffness caused by cracking and variations in material properties with time *. Although the ultimate strength method in the present code requires an elastic structural analysis to determine member forces for designv it recognizes these limitations and, in concept, anticipates the redistribution resulting from ductile deformation at the most critically Research Center A Division ol The Franklin lnllitute

• .o-4
• e.

__. __ ----- j . -* Ii] .

.. -. <1 *-::*::! *1 . 4 ' :. l * ... t . ; -, ... . , -; *) . . **-) .-.\ *. l l l . **i . *:1 . i *** 1 stressed sections and in fact proportions members so that redistribution will occur. In addition to strength, a design* must satisfy serviceability requirements.

In some designs, serviceability factors (such as excessive deflection, cracking, or vibration at service load) may prove to be more important than strength. Computations of the various serviceability factors are generally at service load levels; the present code uses elastic concepts in its controls of serviceability. Factors of Safety Factors of safety* are subjects of serious concern in this review. For working stress, the definition of the factor of safety is often considered to be the ratio of yield stress to service load stress. This definition becomes suspect or even incorrect where nonlinear response is involved. For ultimate strength, one definition of factors of safety is the ratio of the load that would cause collapse to the service or working load. As presented in the present code, a factor of safety is included for a variety of reasons, each of which is but *has no direct* interrelation with the other. The present ACI code has divided the provisions for safety into two factors; the overload factors and the capacity reduction factors (considered separately by the code) are both provisions to insure adequate-safety but for distinctly different reasons. The code provisions imply that the total theoretical strength to qe designed for is the ratio of the overload factor (U) over the capacity reduction factor The present ACI code has assigned values to the above factors such that the ratio ranges from ----. about 1.5 to 2.4 for reinforced concrete structural elements * *Factors of safety (FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the relation MS = FS -l. ftnklin Research Center A Division al The Franlclln lnslllule D-5 * '}}