ML18046B281
| ML18046B281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1982 |
| From: | Darwish M, Stilwell T, Wallo E FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Persinko D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18046B279 | List: |
| 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 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 FRC PROJECT C5257 NRCTACNO. 41502 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11
- ~
i, NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-79-118 FRCTASK 324, SEP Topic III-7 .B Prepared by T. Stilwell, M. Darwish, Franklin Research Canter Author: E *. M. Wallo, R. Koliner, The Parkway at Twentieth Street P. Noell, R. H. Hollinger Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: T. c. St:i.lwell Prepared fa; i f.Juclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 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, ex-i;irESSed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for anv
; I 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.
~EGUlATORY DO.CKET fllE COPY
~nklin R.esearch Center A Division of The FrankJin Institute The Beniamin Fninldin Paricway, Phila.. ?a. I S103 (2151448-1000 0202190306 820212 ~-~1
. PDR ADOCK 05000255
*p ,. .. PDR
---~,
t
*. 'l
- *,1 .
*:*, j CD RAFT)
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA,
.AND *LOADING COMBINATIONS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-255 FRC PROJECT C5257 NRC TAC NO. 41502 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC--03-79-118 FRCTASK 324, SEP Topic III-7.B
'**{
.. ,;
;
. Prepared by T. Stilwell, M. Darwish,
.-.. Franklin Research Center Author: E. M. Wallo, R. Koliner, The Parkway at Twentieth Street P. Noell, R. H. Hollinger Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko
**.i
. ':]
j
;--*j Jantlary 20, 1982 (Rev. 3)
*- ~
- -* *.j
' :.
- 1 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor i any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, ex-
. -~ 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
* .~~)
,:1
- J
*-. j
.j m-cs2s7-324 CONTENTS
- 'R1
- . *
- :cc;i Section Title Page
- c*...-,.'.:'~: * .*
- i:*~~: ::~~:-~~
l INTRODUCTION
- l
;'if1 2 BACKGROUND 2
... 3 REVIEW OBJECTIVES. 3
<d
* .. _:.1 4 SCOPE. 4
.. *' :*~
<*l 5 MARGINS OF SAFETY. 7
* .. ;.{
- ;:;;
-.:~
***:;
6 CHOICE OF REVIEW APPROACH. 9
>)t
- ~.s~ 7 METHOD 11
.*:*A
.. ::~
., *,~
7.1 Information Retrieval
- 11 7.2. App~aisai of Information Content. 12
-~
**.;
7.3 Code Comparison Reviews
- 12
**-..;*~
* ";,j
.:*;) 7.4 Assessment of the Potential Impact of Code
**., . ..;*.;*..~
*....~ Changes
- 15
- .~,- --1
- 7. 4.1 Classification of Code Changes * * ** *
- 16
':{\.~ 7.4.l.l General and Conditional Classifications of Code Change Impacts * * * * *
- 17
-'<J
':::~~
7.4.l.2 Cade Impacts on Structural Margins *
- 18
. :--..~
.l
'.":l 7.5 Plant-Specific Code Changes * . * * * * *
- 20
- 5
~1 8 PALISADES SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES * * * * *
- 21 9 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA .. 22 10 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA 24 10.l Description of Tables of Loads and Load Combinations 24 e
iii
~nklin Research Center I\ OMsion ol The Franldfn lnslilule
*_:; . ,.;
TER-C5257-324 CONTENTS (Cont.) Page Section ~
.-1 27 J
. i 10.2 10.3 Load Definitions Design Load Tables, "Comparison of Design
. ~*l~ Basis Loads" 30 10.4 Load Combination Tables, "Comparison of Load Combination Criteria" 38
. ..::~ 11 REVIEW FINDINGS 47 11.l Major Findings of AISC-1963 vs. AISC-1980 Code Comparison. 49 11.2 Major Findings of ACI 318-63 vs.
ACI 349-76 Code Comparison
- 52 e
. - .. ~
11.3 Major Findings of ACI 301-63 vs. ACI 301-72
- -~ -
.*.;
(Revised 197_5) Comparison .. . 56, 11.4 Major Findings of ACI. 318-63 vs. ASME B&:PV Code, Section III, Division 2, 1980 Code Comparison . 57 12
SUMMARY
61 13 RECOMMENDATIONS 63 14 REFERENCES 67 APPENDIX A - SCALE A AND Ax CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO PALISADES PLANT APPENDIX B - SUMMARIES OF CODE COMP~ISON FINDINGS APPENDIX C - -COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES APPENDIX D - ACI CODE,PHILOSOPHIES APPENDIX I - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF TECHNICAL DESIGN
.BASIS DOCUMENTS DEFINING CURRENT LICENSING CRITERI1~ FOR SEP TOPIC III-7 .B (SEPARATELY BOUND) iv
' ~nklin Resear~h Center.
A Olvtsion of The Franklin lnsUtute
l -I
- __ ,.__, ___ :___ ~ ... * *--...:*--------*~*-* _,_.:.................... _~--- ----*-*-- . _,,_,_,___ ___ ---- . *-. _, !:."-:.') ,;*-'.?:::~
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
*.* ****>j 349-76 VS. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REIN- "~' -~ ;:~;i FORCED CONCRETE ACI 318-63 (SEPARATELY BPUND)
APPENDIX V - COMPARISON REVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS, ACI 301-72 (1975 REVISION) VS. ACI 301-63 (SEPARATELY BOUND) APPENDIX VI 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)
- '*J v
enklin Research Center A Olvlslon ol The Franklin lftllilllle
*\
TER-C5257-324 I
.,I FOREWORD . I' I
lj This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center l under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of j
.j Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical l1 assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The *1 l technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by j
1 the NRC.
- ~
. -r
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute vii *
.l
*,,I
--~
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 t1ith current design criteria, based on infonnation available to 1 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 f.acilitymodifi~ations. they are b~sed 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. ' *~
.;
~* -~
. 'l
* . . *. 1*
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 *
- e n k l i n Research Center A OMsion cf The Franklln lnsdtute
- 2. BACKGROUND TER-C5257-324 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 r.*.* 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 *
. ... J
*The report addresses only the_Palisades plant.
~nklin Research Center, A Division of The Franklin lnldtute
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 structu~es. 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.
**.* .J
~nklln Research Center A OMsion cl The FranJcUn Institute
. :___*--***--'----'* *~
TER-C5257-324 .e
- 4. SCOPE FRC was asked to review the provisions of the structural codes and stan-dards used for design of SEP plant Seismic Category I civil engineering struc-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; 10CFRSO.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 typic~l 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
. **... ~
i *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).
~nklin 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: Designation III-1 Classification of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems (Seismic and Quality) III-2 Wind and Tornado Loading III-3 Hydrodynamic Loads III-4 Missile Generation and Protection III-5 Evaluation of Pipe Breaks III-6 Supports III-7 .A. Inservice.Inspection of Structures III-7.C Delamination of Prestressed Concrete Structures. ...."'.. _; III-7 .D 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, Reviewed in Generic Task A-7. local region of drywell at vent penetrations Reactor pressure vessel supports, Reviewed in Generic Task A-2, steam generator supports, pump A-12. supports Equipment supports*in SRP 3.8.3 Reviewed generally in Topic III-6, Generic Task A-12.
~nklin Research Center A Olvtslon ot The FranklJn lnstilute
Other component supports (steel and concrete) TER-C52~7-324 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.)
Testing of containment Reviewed in Topic III-7.D. Inservice inspection~ quality Shoqld be considered in FRC review control/assurance 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 Determination of structures that* Not in FRC scope. should be classified Seismic Category I Shield walls and subcompartments Reviewed in Generic Task A-2. inside containment Masonry walls Reviewed generically in .IE Bulletin.* Seismic analysis Being reviewed by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
~nklin Research Center A Division ol The Frenldln lnllltute
. _.,:;*-*-~-----.:--*---*'"-'~.*~~*------ *-*****- .. - **- *-*---~*~**-
. *.' . j l
,~{.!
ij 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.
- }il This is a particularly useful concept when discussing the behavior of steels,
*:*:.l
;**-:]
and became ingrained into the engineering vocabulary at the time when steel
-"~ was the principal metal of engineering structures. In this usage, the margin
' j
.~ 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
*.-~*'~' -:1
;, _ _.
load) a structure has no margin of safety, any increment to any load will .,. ' .;_*;*~*:*:?
.':. :~*:::** ~:1 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) cases~ the structure possesses substantial reserve capacity~
*.. .;
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.
;-
. i ~nklin Research Center A Division of The Fninklln lnsdtute
1 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 TER-CS257-324 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 p~ants meet the "intent" of curre~t 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 assure~ 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 quantit~tive 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
'i, of these two key considerations.*
-a-
~nklin Research Center * *.
A Olvi5ion cf The Franldln lnslilute
*,*' ]--* -~-~-*----~-- .. . :1 *>* ' -~ ~-. 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
**-~ .:.,;: '.~;* : 1 current loading combinations and evaluated to current criteria. This approach-
.. . . ~: ') . *.**.*~:::>~ gives the appearance of being efficient. The review proceeds from the general ' Yi (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. Rule-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. It may turn out, after examination of the
~nklin Research Center A Division of The FnmkUn lrwltute
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 issues~
~~ ,;
**".i
. *~- : **. ,1
.. *.:*~ "
~nklin ~esearch Center A Division ol The Franlclln lnllflule
~"'"~---r-------- **-
- TER-CS257-324
- 7. METHOD A brief description of the approach used to carry out SEP Topic III-7~
follows. For discussion of the work, it is convenient to divide it into six areas:
- 1. information retrieval a~d 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
.... -:.r The initial step (and to a lesser extent an ongoing task of the review) was to collect and organize necessary informationo
_work assignment, NRC forwarded files relevant to the work. At the beginning of FRC's 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 III~7.B files on a plant-by-plant basis. The files also house additional information, subsequently r **
- 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 infor-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).
~nklln 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 ~ere 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-by-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.
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin llUdtule
-**-*. =-*-**........ :.
.. *. ~:::.
*. . . *l . -. . . .. ~
TER-CS257-324
- /: ~ i 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 inves-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-
.. :~
~nklin 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 require-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 supports--
to name a few.
~nklln Research Center A Division al The Franklin lnslitute
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 *
. ...=. *::
* *l
-*. -~
. ***, -: ... 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 *
- ~nklln 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 lev~l 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 orde~ 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.
*_;,16-
~nklin Research. Center
. A Division of The Franklin lnslitute
*-k****-----***-*****-****-*- *****-
'.~* :<{j
~* .,};j
>./';~ 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. Four
- categories are. established:
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
- -*1 enough 'to cause engineering concern about the adequacy of
' any structural element.
..*. *.":l Scale C Change - The new cr.iteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited under the former criteria.
**.* 1 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 adequate~ but it does not l
..... *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?
~nklin Research Center A Division ot The Franklin lnslllllte
. 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
- : . .J 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 *
. . ~nklin R~search Center A Division of The Franlclln lnalltute
* ..;
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
*' ,*~
**-.'i 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 Higher Stress Limit Results
*'~-.
Maximum stress in beam Applicability Beam adequate under under original loading immaterial current criteria conditions*was low with ample margin for addi-tiOnal load Maximum stress in beam Beam qualifies for Beam may be under original loading higher stress limit adequate under current condition was near former criteria allowable limit . : "* _.;
...**. >;.;_:~ Maximum stress in beam Beam does not qualify Beam unlikely to be under original loading for increased stress adequate under current condition was near former limit criteria allowabie limit 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 structure-spec~fic level.
d
.l
~nklln 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 th~ 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 plant-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 str~ctures 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 done~ 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 Ax changes . that remained are listed on a code-by-code basis in Sectfon 11 *
.~nklin 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)
I\~"~ *. :*. -*~
*~:~~~~
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 feed~ater)
- 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 *
* ~nklin 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 de~ailed in the following table.
Design Current Structure Criteria Criteria A. Containment
- 1. Concrete ACI 318-63 ASME B&PV Code, (including shell, Section III, dome, and slab) Division 2, 1980 (subtitled ACI 359-80)
ACI 301-63 ACI 301-72 (specifications for (Rev. 1975) concrete)
- 2*. Liner ASME B&PV Section III, 1965 ASME B&PV Code,
. (Provisions of Article* 4*) Section III, Division 2, 1980 ASME B&PV Section VIII (Subtitled ACI (undated), (Fabrication Prac- 359-80) tices for Welded Vessels Only)
ASME B&PV Section IX (undated), (welding procedure and welders qualifications only)
- 3. Personnel locks and ACI 318-63 for Concrete ASME B&PV Code, equipment hatches ASME B&PV Section III, Section III, 1965, for steel Division 2, 1980 (subtitled ACI 359-80)
B. . Internal Structures ACI 318-63 ACI 349-80 AISC 1963
*The two si3nificant applications of this article are~
- 1. determination of thermal stresses in the liner
- 2. analysis of pipe penetration attached .to the liner.
~nhlin Research Center A DMsJon of The Franklin Institute
... :*.. :*;
TER-C5257-324
.. ":;,*---~
Design Current
. -.-.) Structure Criteria Criteria
- c. External Structures
- l. Auxiliary building AISC 1963 AISC 1980 Control room ACI 318-63 ACI 349-76 Fuel pool Diesel generator room Radwaste facility *
- 2. Service water, AISC 1963* AISC 1980 intake, pump house, ACI 318-63 ACI 349-76 and discharge structures
- 3. Turbine building AISC 1963 AISC 1980 auxiliary feedwater ACI 318-63 ACI 349-76 pump enclosure
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)
* .* l.
~nklin Research Center A qlvisicn ol The Franklin Institute
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 considera-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 govern-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 ~valuated 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
.. :..1*
_*Jj current licensing procedures require demonstration of structural integrity.
. **:~
*.j j
~nklin Research Center A Division cf Tha Franklin Institute i
- . ~ *=.::." *~
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) 3.8~ The tables in the present report correspond
. -.'! to, and sununarize, these requirements for each structure. A note at the
.... .:i
- --~- ..1' bottom of each table provides the reference to the applicable section of the
**: ..- *.1 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 appiic~ble 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
***.': :.*"i against the reduced list to see if all applicable loads (according to
. i 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
*. :._.::::.1
.. ! encompassed by the load category definition represented in the
=: *.:1 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.
~nklin Research Center A OMslon ol The Franklln Institute
TER-C5257-324 Of particular importance to the Topic III-7.B review are comments indicat-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 ta~les are dra~ 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 super-imposed on- the load combinations currently required. two steps: This -.is accomplished in
- 1. Currently specified lo~d 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
'...;26-
~n~in Rese~rch Center A Oivtsion of The Franldln lnslilUle
------* ---** ****- - -*** .. -*--*----~. **~ ... , . "** ______ ,______ _
TER-CS257-324 tions. However, when the number of load combinations considered in design was . : *..=- . 7~ 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 ~ombinations 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 inferen~e 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 E0 Loads generated by the operating basis earthquake. E' or Ess Loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake. F Loads resulting from the applicati~n 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.
~nklin Research Center A Division cf The Fnmlclln IMlltutc
**--~.....:..:._,_,;,_::..... ... . . ---- *- i* -*
TER-C5257-324
. .': > .*~*.
...*. L Live loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as
. . ._.-:_.~~ ~~ movable equipment loads)~ P0 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). T0 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.
Tornado loads include loads due to tornado wind pressure, tornado-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 accident~ Y*] Equivalent static load on the structure .generated by the impinge-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.
*-.. -i
*-~
;
~nklin Research Center A OMsion of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-324 The load combination charts correspond to loading cases and load defini-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.
- * .:*l
***;
~nklin R~search Center A Oivlolcn cf The Franklin lnsdtute
TER-C5257-324
- 10. 3 DESIGN LOAD TABLES "COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS" e.**
~nklin Research Center A OMsion of The F111nklln IMllllllE ..
. - . ': ....*._ .. -* . ~ ***- ..: - ..
TER-C5257-324 eo1Jn:-*1JP1iil.Jr COMPARISON OF GESIGN BASIS LOADS -. *srR0cruR£*: s -re_;.;c.t.;u.
.(GotJc.e£T~)
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 Commena:. Laada Stnc:ture7 Design To Present In Load Ranking Bas:l.ll? Criteria? Buis? D lSS '#5 1~.s rJO
~" L "\6.S 'f~ 1f:C":a ,Jc B-.t 3.)
F '{es "1i::~ 'ic> i.JC - II ;e:5 'fES - - 6x ::z.)
. QI lo
=
p 0
,.Jo 7.)
Ill Ill* QI p a 'fE.S. 'iE-S> 'i cs. >-JC - .4.) :;eP *r.,p1,; ~-l *
- m:-1e lo
!loo ~
s i..IO
"'4 T '1E.~ 'feS °'f.SS i..IO -
.*.~
a QI T 0 a
*1es 'tSS NO YES - 4,) >eP *re~~ 'it-<.
Jit-cB
~
TS !Jc - - - - ll 0 ic~ 'i6S. i~~ tJO -
..QI ca. ..
.=
IJ ll a . 't&.S I-
-te; "16~ tJO
- i QI Qo z I Is tJO i - l
"'4 a
=
QI E' E
. "'\E'>
ia
'\6';)
"'f&s IWO lo&Q "16~
'\e-;
~"I-
}l'"" i;.*kiil-*
g W' "'\ES '1,t;;S "1ES NO
,,....,. 1.),?'.J seP
....lo "f"OPlC
.*. ~ *~
a> w
. ""tGS "16!) - - - . 1Ii.-2
*=*** "' T 'f6S i6S ~o 'iE:S A.~ ~ -roPrc. i!l.:J, A QI r Ill ~ -roflc. °1/I.-7.A
"'4
= yj "'\es 't~ t.Jc '1E5 p;.. "'f Clo a
.. *-~
*.~>:'l Conaenta-.-
y ID,. ;es '(ES
- A-,.: '*) $eP "1'o'1c. "JJI,-'i.11 . ..*j .**.* f 1.) nu. load 1s bemg r.viewed as a separate SEP Topic
- .*:*J
- *: .i
.l.~1"12&aT""'1eNf oF Sou.. p12essu.e.e tJol 1>6S<l21t3ED 1,J 17s~ ,4c."7'Hou<.tf Pf!o"Vis1au
-ro .Aceav~ r t=ae. 1r uuoee. t.oA-0 c.RT&<9~f \r:I '~ S.TA"JeD. .
.. :_. :*.J <1 3) IZooP '-DADsnAVE 11Jc:l2EJ'SED Pee. St;PToPfc 1I-2.A;.IL-3i3(pu<°'Ci.f2..Trc6~)
.. ' 4~Lo~0 "'4la"Al1TuDE .QtJll IMPAC.i d,4Se,9 oiJ ~1..3 ot= SEP "'Toft<: lZL - 2. 0 .*
**.1
.. ':: 5.) F'~~te sTAiC'5 IHA1"s'E1SMIC. IJJA{)IAJ{i CdNTi2ol. "t:IE.51~/J ~II!) -n+AT
' 3'9o. "'1PH -rc~A-J)a CQIJStDe12ED;' aur .:iFFEI( /Jc SPECIFIC '""8TAM1i.A7ioAI.
fO ~ FSA-2.. STATES Pl pe l.UHIP teESTeA11JT o/Z. CQAIC.ee-ns CJ.4LC... oil. Sl.AtS f3~1e-1?$ f"'l?ol/.tDS:.C,
- 7.) fS~ TeCH. >PE~. ST"ATliS 714& R.itAC.TU,(. .S~ALL ,.Joi a~ C.CI 1:_acM.. IF' C:01JTA*Nl"'fei1Jr. !NTe/?.uAL -~R.,;s111~ exc:ee1:15 ~ PSI~
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Frenldfn lnsdlule
TER-C5257-324 AVXIUM'! T oL.~ 3-~To~Y a1J<..w;
- COrtPARISOrt OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS TRUCTURE Fc..e: Cot.i T.e<.1. R""H Pt.ANT.: PALISAO.a:.s l>ICS&l.. (.4.:-JJ~ if S..:1Tc:.HlfreA,e Currmc l:s* I.Oaci
- Is Load Does Load Does Code .. . .
Desip Applicabl1 Included Magnitud.e Deviaticm Impacc
- Buia To 'Ihis ID Pl.Ant Co=espcmd .~t .Scale Comumcs Loads Stncturel Design To Present: *ID Load l!anld.Dg Ba81s7* Crlt:eria? :Basis?
......>=-- D 'tt:S "\6) '\ES /.JO -
0 Ill L '16$ "!es 'tliS /Jc A.,:. 5'.)
....=
Ill F I!
!JC
-;es
"\es a~ 3.),4.)
Ill p a -* - - A,..,, l~)'!:E..~Cr>.\..rn:~ P>
~
e T 0
'iSS '\ES '\E., t.JO -
Ill eS T a -* - - - AJ 1'.)~~c.1lt.--5e.> G
.=u B.
o*
"te7. ":1ES
*-(.e.~ .
""'o -
',Cl.'
"" :c QI aa g*
'fSS
- - - A~
I I I
~
~ I "ilS7 )JO 'iE~
I A. y. l j SEiP ToPl.C. c: Ill Ii I :z w* I "\ec;, "1eS I - I - I -- I iJJ"-(Q I
=
Q 'iES "\&~ YES f\Jo- 1.)2JSEF"
' "t"oPIC Ill c: 'll '1&S "'{es - - - :!II-2.
y r - - - Aj... f..' iEP -rot'lc. 111-7.'5.
"1- "~ se:P' -r--c. rrr-7.13 Ill
~
yj 'le? 'iE5
=
Cl.
... - A.y.. . Sff"' "foP" liL-5.6 a ? '
Ill . 'tSS ~. Coniullts l~ This load 111* being reviewed as a sepante SEP Topic
*'2.)TORA.IA-Oo ~aSSn.t:; 1tJc.u1Q~O llJ Y\1 1
'3~ Sou.;.. ?ReS)IJRIS 'T~e<<T"Me..iT /JCT 1:)E'ScR.1t3e1' j JJ FSA-e. ( E XC.EPT iltAT PAL.ISAJ;>E'S e>E'5i&.iJ St:ISIS ~oV'*OS:S .Foil. IT5 C4NS*DE~T1aiJ \JM,0C£.
L..:iAP pe5tc;AJ~T1ot.J "D') * * . *
- LdAD .... ~ Go~ aawA-T&otJS ~esee YEFD r-.:.e 0
.A.) H uJ F'Al..t.sA-Oes.' I'S> F'1P
. ~AC.T.c:uJS l:)u21~4j t.lc2MAL oPeeA-r,o..A. F~c. ..ises li?.e. Fa~ TH1S.
5.) fZooF . . u:J~'i)S U.A-116 1tJt:.li?eASe~ ?ee. Sep 10P1c. JI .;,,.:z A;.Jr.-3\3~~) Gi ~=sut.iS ~... SeP ToPJC JI£,-'7.D wn..I.. :PeTe4e."M11.l~ 11-' .
. *I*, . :OE.'4\jlo,."\u~N EJ<,.ISTS ,a.wt> *,t= "01!'"1"1'10~ 15 Fc::n..11JD ACC:ES.S ITS
'.* . : ::1* s \~.U I l=I (;AtJCG
*-* . ,~
~nklln Research Center.
A OMslon ol The Franklin Institute
*;:;*.* -~---~-- .. *-----~~----*--***-*-*--**~-------**** ..--- *-** *-** - -* ----*-*--- .....
TER-CS257-324 A~l<.IWA.e"t '6i_C" CONPARISOfl OF DESIGf~ BASIS LOADS
- CTURE* ::>Pe~ T f"i..J~L i'QC PLANT: PA'-15"-Des Ci::o..ic.12eTe)
Current: Is.Load Is Load Dou Load Does .Coda .
~-1811 ApplicablE Included Magnj.cude Deviaciou Impac:c Buis To This In Plane Correspoud Exist: Sc:ala Cammmcs Loads Scruccura? Duign To ~e9ent In Load llanking Buia'l Criteria? Basis?
.>o.
...> D "'fSS '{SS "!es IJQ -
al t:l L 'fE-5 'te-5 'te5i iJo Ill
.....=
al F
!I i-Jo
'\IS-~
iE$ '\E;S
)0 Ill l2o P,, i.lo - *- I\*°~'- Dr.$
...Ill~
T 0
"'ee4l. * - - - -*
T - ~
; .,
. **:..:. tS a ie-S '"\6'5 '\E~ r.Jo "-)-1-rD* Cl'TT':"SB Ill ..:u a0
"'*'° - - - -
Co
... '4 Cl ll ;Jo.
- c a 15 l2o
... !' "i&S "\6.S. tJ-o 'tes. ~x Vst-~of'tc. I
....Cll
..=
ii
! z "16S
'tes3.)
~&':>
167 4-,
,..,.a ves
-tes
--~)
I - Ax.
\.),1-~3.1'56-P I
...=...>
o* 'll'
=
Cll
'll t-l Q - - - -
-r'oPIC.
m-z y r -* - - - t } P1Pe am<.
...=
Ill ID yj SX T'e'2-MP\\. To C:-0 loi'T'i'UUMErJ -
,, iiivAl.t.iA"T'~I) seP TaPlC:.
IN Q,
... a y m . Ax 'ut.-5'.S .
-: ~* *~
*-;*::_:*.)
' I..} This load is 'baing revi*ed u. a separaca SEP Topic:
2.) To~AOO MtjStLE ltJC.WD&-.D IN W~
.3..) APPLl~SltS OIJl..Y SltJc.E .R.ooP ove/2. SP&AlT Fuel. Pe101- 1S NcT To.eAIADo ~lf.StS~AtJT.
.. ~ 4.) F5Ae... STA-TWS Poot.. u:~u.s fti/E IU5SISTIM7 lo '7b.e.uA-Qc:S A&J.O
*.~ -
,, ~ 'T"WS- ASSot:1A'Tte-.D ciet>*Sl.C- MISSll..E:S
';
**_*j '5.) S~P "ioPIC '2It-2. 'llllLL ;:>ETet2MlfJS: uJUElT"4ee. oil llGT 'Fbol.. -C-;i.Posu/Zc
*1 -rC) PoSs1a1..e -ro~oa E=i=Fec:Ts l!I AAi ~u.~ASc.E SPewT. Fuel..
~- !
Poot.. l.aA-0.
~:) FSM- Sl~-n;') .THAT ?PfilJT Pl)EL Pool_ /$ ])E;";.IGIJ6D "'IO W\\"<:.TA "TEMP.
~ESSES <:AVSC-.P SY t=bol. WA-~ TC:MA' ~iSIN<'. To /';'o° F <..JJJ{)6tf!.
AS,.,o.e.MAL C'Ot.JOIT10 tJ. *
~nklln Research Center A OMslon of The Franklln Institute
---~* -**-* ---- -
TER-C5257-324 AV~ll.1Ate1 61.~ COHPARISOfl OF DESIGH BASIS LOADS "TRUCTURE 5Pe<rJT
~ Poo.__
t=.i et... PLANT: p,q l.i SP, 015-S (R.a.aF - ST.e:e1.-) Current Is Load Is Load Does Load Does Code Desigll ApplicablE Included Magnitude Deviation Impact Bui8 Ta Thia In Plant Correspond Exist Scale CDllllllClt* Load9 Structure2 Design Ta Present In Load Banld.ng Basu? Criteria? Basis? 0 D L
*-tes
"'fES
'les
"'1ES
'le-s
"'1.ES NO iJa
-Ax 3 ..)
...QI F f\JC
.....=
OI II UQ QI c:i. P,. .Jo - I '.)~1., -m:-6JI.> a... T 0
"t&S ll~l016l6
- QI
.c:
T a Ne-* - -- - - ~ 1)°\i'.PIL -ai:,~
~
B. a JJ<> - - - Ill
-=
- g. u c:i.
QI
- c B.
a No ---
. ., E' E
"\9S
'tes I
I
-iS> NO
*1es
- I-Ay.
.* lj S.;t_r,cl'IC.
..o-c
'f &c; !
a c .. ~* w
- i6S
'16$
NO "ie:s
'fE5
/J>*..,.
. ***>' **'.r.... -
ToPlC.
'![t.-2.
y r
!'JO - - - -
- ...=
GI
!II yj . ,.;o ea-en.cs c:i.
I! y Ill I-JO lJ 'rbU load 1s bmng revimred as a separate SEP Topic .
'l.) ~of' o"GC"C. SFE\.lT F\JeL. PooL 1~ uc\ l:)f:-S i'IJi?O A\ laCi.JA1>o f(CSIST~alT
- -_ - - .... -a~ec.o~ \..oAi')S HA-" 1iJC.tli:EMEC., SEP.TciF'ic, "'IC-:t * .O..)iL*3B(fUi~)
~nklin Research Center
/\ OMsion ol The Franklin lnslilllte
TER-C5257-324 COffPARISOfl OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS PLANT: F°AL1~AOS-S Current Is Load Is Load Does Load Does Code. Daip ApplicablE Included Magnitude Devia~iOD Impact Buis To 'this In Plant Correspond Eld.st Scale Comments Loads Struc~un! Desip To hesen~ In Load Ranlcing Buis?* Criteria? Basis?
...>>- D ies 'il:'S 'ie.5 ~Q Ill ..
~"" L 'tes 'f6S 't&S iJo A-,.. 4.)
.. p ,.;a - - -- - '
=""
Ill Cll II ie'S "1ES - -
..."" p~ - - - - Av ,\~;* .i'\.~B a.
T0 *1es. '1.S5 alc%LI Ci,; BIE tS T a - *- - - A'{. . sEP
\)"""'i*"i"IT'-...::;.e, \
.... .=.u B.
0
'lE'~ ~e:s. :"16S IJc
.... Cl
- c R a - - - - Ax
....llS
.. I .~s~~~t c:. I "g*
I 't&S 'i~S ,.Jc "tGS f:t..~ -*
.=
Ii
=Q W'
I "'ieS I ;es
'\eiS "iES -
1es I -
,JO
- I. ),'2.} r;:P. .
...""> "i~PtC.
a 'll 't6S lCS-S - - - .Jit-2 Ill
...=
y yj. l:'
'\es 1'&-5
'\es
'tc-5 A~
-A.,. :~:.;Fe
. 7.6
*. 'l
~
,, -~
...a T Ill . '16-S - - - A--. 1.) ,3.) .
j 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
...j "t'o~.,JA\:)c ~'ESlS°T~N\) .
3 .) rJo <Des c.e 'Fr*o tJ f o"t=" ~~ \.oA.P 's. .,.eeATeo, 1 s F-o" i.l1) 1 ..i
- Fs~a_
P2o"UlatJ Foe. LT e~l~TS. IU 'PA1...1!.As::>es :oesl<e~ aASIS. 4 .) *~oo~ l..oA.'DS ~ :~cR.et\SeD - sep Ta ?tc 'It._ "J. A. j I(-3B(~1°fr,-i..'l (0~) ... ; e
~nklin Research Center A Oivlsion of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-324 uJTAIC:6 ~ievc.1"u COf1PARISOn OF OESIGH BASIS LOADS* (It.le.&.. e"c.~.1!£ CTURE Fil~ :oe<<.v'~ i..;Ali PLANT: FA\..\ SA De S OIS.CH~a.~ ~'Tlt\1(.1\0ie!: Current Is Load Is Load Does* Load Does Cade Deaip ApplicablE Included MagJU.tude Deviation Impact Buis To 'Ih1s In Plant Car:es11011d Exist Scale Comments
"!Loads Structural Design To Present In Load Ranking Basis? Criteria? Basis?
....> D "16S '\"GS. -te~ tJC -
Ill i::i L '{~ 'ie-s '\&!> "1 c Ax. l.)
.=.
Ill l NC - - - -
... II ,es "'\eS 'tES /IJ c:.
Ill
"" p~ ,JO - - - l)SE.\> ibPl\.1Jl'.::S1 ?
e To IJE"li"4GI ~I.£ - - - - ES Ill T a tJc .....;._
- - - 1\st$T11f ii. ~-5 ~
Ill . -= B.o "\6'=' ~(i~'*falf - - - c:i. ...
.. .a Ill
- B.a
. tJO - - - -
l:J* SwP
~
.=
*=
Ill E'
.E I
I*
'i.,;S
""\es
'(e'>
I '\eS I I - i.J 0 'ie)
- I-A.y..
I. TQPIG, 111:-6 ..
!I
*o.
ii
=
w* ""\eS "1e> ieS iJo - 1.)J~I?' "Tof'\C. a w "\ES '(ES
. 1-4
}~~*"
y tJO r Ill
...=
Ill yj !JO - - 1--:.:- - m:-s~ s Clo y m ~o Cama.mts 1.) This load is being reviewed u a separate SEP Topic
*:-~
.;
*, - -~
',;
~nklin Research Center A OMsion ol The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-324
\U~a.1~~ el-i~~
COHPARISO?I OF DESI GH BASIS LOADS AIJ'/... ~een u.:p; CTURE P.J MP IS-iJC.LaS.J PLANT: 'P~LlSi\.DeS Cot..14-'t Current Is Load Is Load Does Load Does Code. Dellign ApplicablE Included Magni.Cude Deviation Impact Buill To '!his In Plane Correspond Exist Scale Comments Ito.a scrw:cuei Design To hesenc In Load* la:aldng Bu;Ls? Criteria? Basis? D '\e.S '\ES "'les 11.J 0 a= L tES --ies '\ES l'Jc - 4.)
.=
GI F NO - - - *-
'\~S CD
'\cS 3.)
CD Ill II B')( ;l.). i:i. p
- Ax* 1"\S\::.?Trr:, II. l.!J. ~ -*.;
a T0
'tE~ "1.S 1Jec.u,1eu; - -
ti Ill T a - - - - A.)<. 1)5Ef'rt.p;l. TIJ-: IB '.i GI .c:u B. a '\E-5 '\ES "\CS r.JC - c:i,;
.. :J . . . . Ill i:i. ::c .B.
a
- - A;><*..
... g* ~e..s '\eS i.la -tes ,A--r- lj .:-<o SC? ToPtc.
OI I 'I!..= ! "'\GS I "teS - I
! - ! -- . \,)JseP .
I
..=
..=
Cl Dll W' w
'\es
'\es
'tes
'{es
"'\e-5 i.lc
~oP\C lII.-Z y
- r. ies -tes - - ,,..~
**)}
)
~?
\0P1c:.
GI Ill
- I Clio yj '\E'S "tt:-S - - A ilf (.
.W.-5 13 ...
...s y ies - A.,-. 1.)
la "'\ES Coaiml:s l~ Thia load ~ baiDg revimred aa a separal:* SEP Topic 2.) Sou.. Pe.ess"a..e "Tie~Pir MetJT !Joi ::Dac.eae~.o iu F>~ (e)Ccli-PT -T-H1'r'T * '------* - - ... -- i=>AL."iSJ'OES 'DSSlG#J SP.SIS ~l/lCIGS roe \'TS couStDEl~AiT1c11J *ui.J.l)eE.,
- Loi'rD -oe~lc:;1Jii.-i1orJ. 'Ti I .
3.) '"' . IN PAl.l~Oes l.011.'D C.OM~uJ,\'Tlot.JS DES -'""ATES PtF't:-laet.C..Tlo ti
..: i.lt)~ o\'"e~ATli..lG, C4'1'D*"T,oiJfa. F"~<:. l.lSES ~ t=O~"'t'~\S,
-4.) ~~aF Lo,0..0S. i4A"E 1i.)~ASe,t> 1 SEiP Tc Pl C 1I.- 2.A )U:.":3~Lf£.t,u..~"°t' j
\Cth)
']
- *.. ~
~nklin Re~earch Center .
A Dtvtsion of The Franldln IMll!ute
. , __ * 'I
- -£;_1 TER-C5257-324 10.4 LOAD COMBINATION TABLES "COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA"
. ~nklin Research Center *..
A Division af The Franldln Institute
- ... - -----~---...:. .....__ ,___;**
TER-C5257-324 STRUCTllRE CONCRETE CC/ffAHil'.E!IT PA Li SA.DES Cocllined Gravity Prescresa Severa Nacul'al Sea.le
~c11gory Loading Dead, wad Presaura '!herul Environment Phenomena *Mechanical Rankinr Cues Live
!lonial l D+ L F .I\ T a
I! 0 2 D+L F T I
- -~
.* *--~
~~U~-*al l D+L F *'"-,.-- T a
a
!a II ll a
a Severe
* ~1.fii (II ~ (1J 1.1-g 1.sv ~
En'11ronmental (Factored) Extrema 5 6 D + L.JL IE} UJ F
\.
\ ISl T
0 {g
-1."l.
~
R a Emrimn,_,.Ul 7 tE!J crJ ~ III lie ~ 4. a !]EJ IJJ 11.j p.I ~ I a Air. Abaarul 9 D+L F p T !.25 I a a
- Ahnarul/
Sev*re. LO [ml (!l
~ ~
- 11.2s z~I
~
EnvirOftlllelltal 11 D+L F 1.25 p
.. T l.25V II.
12 D+L H
.. T 0
!a 13 D+L ., H a
T a II [&j CZ.) Abnormal/ Excre*
-- . 14 la m ~ 12;] &i R* +II.
a r Ax. 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. H~*ever no specific details are found *
. :_:-~.-~
.. --~
. *.. j
-.~
-;~
- 3. l"or purpcses of the SEP Review, demnstracion th:i.c struct~ral ini::egrity is maint~ed for load *:asa 14 J 6 (per current c:riceria} m.ay be .
.j cauaiaered as providing raasona~le assurance that .:.his strucrure ceecs tha '~ -*1 izlceut of current. design .:riteria.
1
- ".i
~nklin Research Center A OMsion of The Franklin lnslitute
. . ;.:.::]
*---..-:.:..-~..__......... __. ___..;___,_.,____,__ ..
.. _:.*_,:~~:~1
- ..:*~:~~=j
._, ; ~-!
TER-C5257-324 STRUCnt~E
- COMPARISON OF LOADI:;G COX5INATION CRITERIA.
COllTAlll~NT LillER
~ PALiS~~E.S Combined Cravicy Dud~
Pnsci-e** Pres*ura Thermal SeVt!!r* ?facural Phenomena Mechanical Scale . Cace1ory Laadio& Load En~ro-c Rankinr. ea... Liv* Sormal 1 D+ L p
\. T CJ ll 0
u~m-ca1 2 D + l. F *\ Ta* "Z 0
*11 a
3 D+L r
\ 'l a
v
- 0
[~o 1.1~ Sev*re Env1EODmental (Factored) 4 Li!:U 'Ty'. ~ v S51 5 D.+.L F
\ T a
II a IE ITi rn l!:l ~
~
EXtreme 6 Enviroicunencal 7
!ill m GJ* ,,t ~ ~4, Ab.normal a !El 11] l1El ~ II
- A.'Xo 9 D+L F p T r.
- a
- Abnormal/
Severe 10 [fil 0 ~ ~ I l.2,, t" ~ Environ11eutal 11 D+L r p T
.. II R 12 D+l. F Ra *T 0
E 0 I 13 D+L F H T II
** CJ Abnomal/ ~ ~.
F.xtreme
.. . i --------t 14 [El [!] 13:1 [!J cg R + R
- r Ax Ref.: 1. SRP Section J. 8.1 Concrete Containm~nt
- 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.
"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 st~ir.tural .integrity is maintained for load case 14. - B (per current crite:r:l.a) may be c:onsiderad as providing re~o~aole assu~3llce ~ha~ :his structure c::?.eCS* !:ha illteat of curren~ design cri:aria.
~ ,. . ,*.*1.
'!f: PfJR~G~ti <: C-3120 of: A~MG SGC.Tior.J TIL. 'D\'/, 2 $TA7'=':) lt¥-T
- Fa~ 114E L.1ue:R... ~e l..OA-D FAc..T.,.es Fo~ Al..L CA-S.E>S. M~i ei; TA>K.Gr.l A~ \ . .:i >
~\JT IM" ~M) l=Ac..Toes :S.t-4ouJ~ Ai3o./E we~~ Col>JS.i.D~J2G!> iAl Ti*h~ ,4rJ.4LfSiS,
~nkJin Research Center
- A Division cf The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-324 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE:
,A.u~'t..i.AR't '8:.o ii...~*r-lr...)
CONCRETE STRUCTURES 3- :::.Tcii?1 'i:~i.-CS~.2..0. ~ PLANT: 'PAL\ S.~t:::>>ES v CONT'Ra._ t<;'~CJ,..,, 1c:~a. GQ.. ij, ~Wl\C~GcAR.._ Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive lscale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading !Ranking* Cases Live l l.4D + l.7L 2 l.4D + l. 7L l.9E 3 1. 4D + 1. 7L 1. 7W
.75 (l.4D + .75 x l.7 T
- 75 x l.7 R
... :* .;~ 4 1 7L 0 0
- 75 (l.4D +
- 75 x l.7 T .75 x l. 7 1r
- 75 x l. ( :E
*O 0 5
I\. ~';'l 1 7 T \ T"> ~L..\1 **J:* '*t* 6
- 75 (l.4D + .75 x l.7 T
- 75 x l. 7 R
- 75 x 1. ~w 0
1.1.')/l\,J..1l. 7L) '.9..: ~ *.c. -.* .. 7 l.2D l.9E ....
"}
8 l.2D
- 1. 7W 9 ID+ LI T 0 ~ C!:I A-~*
I 10 fnl+ L T 0 R,.. \wJ 'X. ll D+L To. 1.5? a -~ 12
~) Ta. l.."Z.5P ~ R9- 11.2sEj Yr. +11:11+ y'lll - --
13 i D +LI R.~ ~ hr +(5]+ J 'V.ii Ax. Ta. Po.. Ref; SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete)-
~ -0 Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977)
*Method used in design{wolrkimaing stress h _.-
. u t te strengt ....-
*_!.cads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors
. different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- The FSAR states that; forces or pressure on structure due to rupture of one pipe, is considered. However no specific details are found.
** Wind velocity used is by the Reg. Guide 3~0 _mph as. referenced ~n the FSAR\ 360
- 1. 76J ~A~ ~Cte.$ 1\0 ..,,\~,1'\i\-1C.c...-i\*.\ \\\le mp~ is i~equired oc:;J.:;, OWef 'OfP-"t' G\o,fle ~clS
*\ \
l!'o'I:' purposes of the SEP RJ!*Tiew-, eemanstra._ cion ..*ha ..~ scructur.:U. integrity is
~tained fat: load cases io <i....i 1'3 (per cu:ren: crtceria) e1ay be caasidcr~d as pi:oviding reasonable assura:ic3 chac chis struc:ure meecs Che incent or current: design criceria. .
~nklin Research Center A OMsion of The Fianklln lnslitute TER-C5257-324
. COMPARISOtl OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE:
A\.,;X.l&...1Ae*t 6u;\.O;#J~ CONCRETE STRUCTURES ~?Ei.;;T ~U~\.. A::;o._ PLANT: P ~L \ 5~I::> E'S c u.;;..;c.:..£?e:'Te) Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive !Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading !Ranking Cases Live l l.4D + l. 7L 2 I * . l. ~E .. 1.i;-I
.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 ~:.ii '!:
- 7§ u :1:. 7 &. .75 x l.~
, 7 T) 0 0 5 ':i.<.;,;
I I * ~ =;t t:>-o-1.-'\I 6 . 75 (l.4D +
- 75 !~ :1::3 'i' * ;is x l.,7 a0 . 75 x l.tT-0 t1.2'i/n.LJIL. 7L) .l'j 7 l.2D l.9E 8 l.2D l. 7W
~ !TI 9 *, ID+ Ll 10 D+L \ \. Wt- i.) Ax*
D+L aa 11 Ta
- 5
. ... - -* - *~-
12 k~*!\)I Ta
. * :ZS ~
a
"!\ 11.25E I Yr+ 'f.3 + ~n
@:] Yr +Ii + Y.n 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 {wor~ing stress
- gn ultimate strength./
.~oads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
e Encircled loads are *those ac~ually considered in the des.ign. When load factors
. different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also --, . encircled. .
j
,.*, Wind velocity used is 360 mph as referenced in the FSAR, 360 mph is required
* ..* by the Reg. Guide l.76.
For purpcses oft.!".~ SE? !\ev1.P~ *. de:ioustrjtion thac st::-:..:c:urnJ. ince~rity is
. tulint:i.ined for lo.:id c::.:;us 10 Q.nQ \~ (~er C\\rl:'C:lt c::i.::eti_;;). ~:.:ly - ~e
=sidered c:s prov1ciin"'. **rn.:ison,-:bl;,.. '*su~,,~c<>_ ~ "' .:i.e. i:..~
- '} i.:. --- .... _ **
* *
- s::l.~cture =.:'."!~cs the
. in~l!:it of currenc dcsi bU crita=i.::..
- L. oul.1 ,..;-\1.ssiLc: <LoAo APPltcA'BLi?'
~n~in Reseatc~ ~enter
*A Division of The Franlclln lnSIHute TER-C5257-324 .
.* '*~
COMPARISON OF LOADING CO~BINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE:AUX!Lir,RY' i3LD9. STEEL STRUCTURES (Plastic Analysis) SPENT F"lJEL PooL ( '=-~~;~) PLANT: P~ L..i5i\ OE:S Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading Cases ~ive 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 ~ 0
- l. :3 R o* i. ~1.,.c;I l<~.t2t>j 6 1"3 -l. 3 ~ l-l-R.. l.b 1.:i...,.l 0 0
. ,,_ . ,_ *' ;~
7 In+ t] ~ ~- [!:] A'*)
,. .,.*.;,
.:* :~~.
8 D+L
'\;..
.,"' v"*
':.~
9 D .+ L ~ a
....-. _*~
*-:.<* 11.25! 1* *~+-"+'\
~
10 l.2s* Pa
- '.- .T~
. :~ ~~-;*.:;~~--)
15" ... **-- ***-- . - ---- *---~-- --**--- ------
~:**::::**..~
B 0
'\ ~
*:~
-~ .~ 11 .. '+"+\i, Ref; SRP (1981) SECT. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (steel)--**--------*----------***-----*-*-----**--
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
**, i 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 *~esign criteria.
~nklin Research Center A DMsion of The Frankiln lnslilUte
*--r-- ----
TER-CS257-324 ~
- A - ..,.-
COMPARISQrl OF LOADING COMB INATI !3N CRITERIA STRUCTURE:A'vx'iL1A"R.y s~o4. N/E:W 'FVEL A-I~~
~
CONCRETE STRUCTURES PU<vlf' Rccl'-\S~ ,~\I~
* . l~A-oWASTt; fi<EATMe-1\J\
PLANT: P~L\S~DE.5 A-~&-A-Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechani:cal Phenomena Loading Ranking _Cases Live l l.4D + l. 7L
... 2 l.4D + l.7L l.9E 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 ::0 .75 x 1. 7 R
- 75 x l.~E 5 ... L) f,2.g.
II 1* .2.'iC;::,-:-11 1*2.~ ....*.. .{ 6 . 75 (l.4D + * -ZS ;ii; J :z :c0
- 75 x l.~ .75 x~*I
.J 11.2~1~ ...;a. 7L) ,, .z.s" *2'5'
*.* i 7 l.2D . 1.9E 8 l.2D l.7W 9 In+ LI "\. fR:1 [!]
*--10 ml+ L ~ R~ rw:1 Ay.~
11 D+L TQ. . 1.. 5.P a Rq_
,.Q.. ! I G+~~
~5 12 j.,?..5P. 1.2SE
. a Ro..
~:;:y-
~
13 B .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.,...,
~cads 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.
~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 3&0 mph '°;\51 referenct;!.j in tl,le FSAR., 360 m,1~.!i is requifed.\ _
by the Rag. Guida l. 76; fSA\Ct,.sk;te..S n<> '2~\11\;.c..c.,.1\~ \\-t. \CXLU.o::,c:,\\)e..-*~f\ c~~e \O"..O.S .
!'or purpos~~ of. ::!".e SE? R.eviev, c:!<?=s_t:r;t:io::i ::h.::?.t: ~c-i.:c::".lr:!..l illt:c~tir:
~t.:iir:.e<l r.ot" .l.::'.:d c:~c,l \() anc4 \3 (per c*-~rrc::.t: c==-::e::-ia) :::..w ~P 7 is
~sid2r:d .::.5 p;o'\.*iciin~ r.rs:LSan::ble a:::~ur:mce :h~c. :;.ilii scru.::tu=c ;ect:s ':he J.D.te~t o.t currl!nC. d~sii?J. crit~ria.
~nklin Research Center A Division ol The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-324 . *. -*~*: ::;
--*:r.:; COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: 11.JTA"-.Z:
s~-.:..:.~..;e.s-CONCRETE STRUCTURES IG.vc.".e""c.1..0~~2.S: r-o~ S~~ 'h~~- WAT.::.£. ?.: OW\?:.) PLANT: F'P..L \ 'S A.t::.E$ :01::>c.H*Aet:C ~\re.;.;:t.:.R.~ 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 4
- 75 (l.4D +
- 75 x 1. 7 T
- 75 x 1. 7 R 0 0 1 71
.75 (l.4D + .75 x l. 7 'f .75 x l.7 lt
- 75 x* l.~
5 1 7 T.) *o 0 1.2*
*"--7 \i:) ~'-ll 6
- 75 (l.4D + .7§ ll lc7 T
- 75 x 1. 7 R . 75 x l.~*T 0 0
. ;.:
1.27r~. 7L)
'*~
7 l.2D l.9E .. 8 l.2D l. 7W 9 ID+ ti *\. fEJ. 10 IDJ+ L ~ ""
'- lD
'\ ~
~-
11 D+L l.S ap 12 l<P'*!~t)) i. as p a
~ 11.25Ej \_~_) + \
~----*--*-*-* \-* +
\+\
13 ID+ ti "\ \ --*-* **-** -*- --~-- 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. ~.Jh~ 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 S1_S1'r\..c::~,-J- h..ie. \oi~ 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.
e n k l i n Research Center
/\ Division of The Franldln Institute
--------------****- . ****-----*~~--'--**--- ---- --~~~-
. _:.;
.. : :~~i TER-C5257-324 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE:
-.-~26 i ;.J E. S~\\.OtiJ4 CONCRETE STRUCTURES AUX.. r.eec w;...l'G;e.,
PLANT: 'PAL IS ~DES ?.JM? \:1-l.:.u:.~...:RE G:...:.~*i) Combined Gravity Natura1 Impulsive Scale Loading Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading !Ranking 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 0 0 1 7l
. . .J' ;z;
*;
- 75 (1. 4D + 3 !f ii:. jl ii
- 75 x 1. 7 R-
- 75 x l~
0 0 5 1 7 T\
- l. 'Z.1; ll.'l..;1:,.0.+~r \. ?'
6 Q
. 75 (l.4D + * ;z3
'11."2."ill'I -"* 7L) ii ;i, ;z; 0
- 75 x 1. 7 R-
- 75 x l.
\.~_,! .
r*]
,).!
7 l.2D l.9E 8 l.2D 1. 7W 9 ID+ ti ~ ~ rm -- . *-~ 10 fiil+ L ~- !l',,
~ A::t. . .
l..5f a 11
~
D+L
'Ta..
12
~~ To..
. l..26fa (\0..
j1.25E I !Yr + Yj +Ym t] Ro.:. - ~ Fr+ yj + yml A*x 13 ID+ To. to-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"
* !-oads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- Encircled loads are those aC:~ually cons_idered in the des.ign. Wh~ 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 R~g *. Guide 1. 76.jFSA~:>'\o:-\-c::s (\0 S.~f\1-~(b-i\~ hve.,\rod.so\\r~f"lXiG.it\ c-cc..nc:.. \a:0s loz purpose~ of the SEP Rev1eu-, de11X112St:ra~ic11 t~c 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
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 provi~ion may apply.
Some listed provisions may apply only to elements t!!.~.t _d~_E~~---~x~~~-!.!! __________________ _ 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
*. *.* 1 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.
~nklin 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 *
- . :~
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Fnmldln lnllllute
,*,{:-
TER-C5257-324
*;- *~
1 * - ;
*ll.l MAJOR -FINDINGS OF AISC-1963 VS. AISC~l980 CODE COMPARISON
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Fronldln lns~tute
-\
..(
._:~:r*----~---*---**.:-..*---*-*-
*- *-:-<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 Structural Elements 12!!.Q. ]:.ill. Potentially Affected Conunents 1.5.l.2.2 Beam end connection See case study 1 where the top flange for details. 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 ' .'* .*:_ 1 --.;.1 fasteners plus tension
. 'i along a perpendicular plane_
. -:-:.{
. -: New provisions added 1.9.1.2 1.9.l Slender compression unstiff-
... :.;
and ened elements subject to axial in the 1980 Code, Appendix compression or compression Appendix C c due to bending when actual width-to-thickness ratio See case study 10 exceeds the values specified for details. in subsection 1.9.l.2 1.10.6 1.10.6 Hybrid girder - reduction New requirement added
. ,j in flange stress in the 1980 Code *
. *j Hybrid girders were
. I
.~ not covered in the 1963 Code *
. *. See case study 9
.--~
for details.
-so-
. ~nklinOf Research Center.
A Division The Franklin lnsdtule
"",'***-"--""-*M-~*---'- ......- *_..,,.. ____ oO,o_,__ -** *** ~***-*-------*-*
~~--.....: .*. __.. ' ... _*, .. _ - ._,_. ___ ... _-- . *- .
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 Structural Elements Potentially Af.fected Comments
!ill. !ill.
l.11.4 l.11.4 Shear connectors in New requirements added composite beams in the 1980 Code regard-ing the distribution of shear connectors (eqn *
.-,J 1.11-7). The diameter
.*. ~
*. .-.~i and spacing of the
*** j"
, .... :: i
. *: ~ -~ shear connectors are also subject to new controls.
l.11.5
- Composite beams or girders New requirement with formed steel deck added in the 1980 Code l.14. 2.2 Axially loaded tension New requirement members where the load is added in the 1980 transmitted by bolts or Code rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members 1.15.5. 2 Restrained members when. New requirement 1.15.5.3 flange or moment connection added in the 1980 1.15.5.4 plates for end connections Code of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or' H shaped columns 2.9 2.8 Lateral bracing of members A O.O < M/Mp < 1.0 to resist lateral and* c O.O > M/Mp > -1.0 torsional displacement See case study 7 for details.
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnslitute
-- *:i
--l
.. 1 TER-C5257-324
.. j
.*;
':.*. :J
*:* *,~
.. J
>1
- *\
.i 11.2 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON
-~
.i'
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklln Institute
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)
;" *.* "J
'~1
- :.- .i Scale A
**:*.*_*.j
. -~
. '\
Referenced .**** ..1 Subsection ACI ACI Structural Elements
.;
,~
349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments*
. --~
*.?
7.10.3 805 Columns designed for stress reversals Splices of the main
. -~ -~ ~) with variation of stress from fy in reinforcement in
**lj
**.. ~ compression to 1/2 fy in tension such columns must be reasonably limited to provide for adequate ductility under all loading conditions.
11.13 Short brackets and corbels which are As this provision primary load-carrying members is new, any existing corbels or brackets
*:.'i 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
- 11.15 Applies to any elements loaded in Structural integrity shear where it is inappropriate to may be seriously consider shear as a measure of endangered if the diagonal tension and the loading could design fails to ful-induce direct shear type cracks. fill these require-ments.
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnstltute
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 Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.16 All structural walls - those which Guidelines for these are primary load carrying, e.g., shear kinds of wall loads walls and those which serve to provide were not provided by protection from impacts of missile- older codes; there-type objects. fore, structural integrity may be seriously endangered if-the design fails to fulfill these requirements. Appendix A All elements subject to time-dependent
. and. position-dependent tempe.ratlire variations .and* restrained so that thermal strains will result in thermal stresses.
For structures sub-ject to effects of pipe break, espe-cially jet impinge-ment, thermal stresses may be sig-nificant (Scale. A). For structures not subject to effects of pipe break acci-dent, thermal stresses are unlikely to be significant (Scale B).
~nklin Rese~r~h Center.
A Division al The Franklfn lnslilute
-----~----------------*-*** . - *---*-*-*---* .*.. ' '-**-~-*.".,..,...__ __ .~---.~--*****- ...
~'.'i1 '.:;'.: . ! TER-C5257-324 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of COde Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrad~ Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection ACI ACI Structural Elements
-~ 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments
,;.J
. -:..1 Appendix All steel embedments used to transmit New appendix: there-
- ' .:.:*=:.:---1
. _*,. *:.~ B loads from attachments into the rein- fore, considerable
,*:1*
forced concrete structure. review of older designs is warranted.
-. ::~ Since stress analysis associated with these conditions is highly dependent on defini-tion of failure.
planes and allowable stress for these special conditions,* .. past practice varied with.designers* opinions. Stresses may vary signifi-cantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures.
- ...55-
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franldln lnslltute
*J
.*'J j
.... .-,., *:i TER-C5257-324
. *. *1
.. :~.1
.i
- . .
- :1
.. l
.~ ~ ' -J 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
~nklin 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
*-~
~nklin Research Center A Division of The FR1nklln Institute
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! Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3421.5 Containment and other New concept. There is no com-elements transmitting in- parable section in AC! 318-63, plane shear 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 reinforce-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 I- de signs could show some significant decrease in overall prediction of structural integrity *
. . . :1
-i
;'1 CC-3421.6 1707 Regions subject to These equations reduce to
_j
., peripheral shear in the Vc = 4 ~when membrane region of concentrated stresses are zero, which com-
-~
forces normal to the shell pares to ACI 318-63 [Sections surface 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).
~nklin Research Ce~ter A Division of The Franklin lnslltute
TER-C5257-324 . *_..;"; i 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 Structural Elements .. :* :." *.*~ . 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments
.. . .. ;. ~ CC-3421.6 Previous code iogic did not (Cont.) address the problem of
-;~
.., punching shear as related to
**: diagonal tension, but control was on the average.uniform shear stress on a critical section *
,1:
~
See case study 13 for details.
~
CC-3421.7 921 Regions subject to New defined limit on shear torsion 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 6~. Previous code superimposed
- .....~;J only torsion and transverse 5 *1
.* :~. . * -~~5 shear stresses *
*.' CC-3421.8 Bracket and corbels New provisions. No comparable section in ACI 318-631 there-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.
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Frankiln lnllilute
.. ~
TER-C5257-324 J
;
ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION tII, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont~) Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments
. *:*i cc- Where biaxial tension ACI 318-63 did not consider
-~*-~ the problem of development
-*1
.:*. :;~
3532. l. 2 exists
-.: ~-:--.:~
length in biaxial tension fields. - .*- ~ *._.d
-~- . :*_J
_- -J
- j
-.:;
. ~
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklln Jnsdlute
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
.,; ,: l
. .. *~
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 *
- e n k l i n Research Center A Division of The Fl'llllidln lnslftule
.. ~-'"-***---~----'- ... **-~---- ***-- ,, ...~_,_._;__..
TER-C5257-324
. . ' . -.~
S.UMMARY NUMBER OF CODE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR PALISADES CATEGORY I STRUCTURES ACI 318-63 AISC 1963 ACI 301-63 ACI 318-63 SCALE RANKING vs. vs. vs~ vs. ACI 349-76 AISC 1980 ACI 301-72 ASME B&PV SEC. IIl (1975 Rev.) Div. ? 1Q~n Total Changes Found sz* 33 37 39
.~ ~ ... *.;
- A or Ax Not
'111 M
c: Applicable to 0 Z: + 4* 11 0 3* o.-j .,.; Palisades
- I .i..l O" ca Ill 00
~
M
.,.;
.i..i B 64 10 21 27
.i..l Ill ti]
0 .c Ill
- z: .i..l >
M C:
- 0. :I .....
Q~ c 6 4 16 4
~
Ill
.i..l
<ti M 00 Ill.,.;
*A 6 8 0 5 Ill i:Q
.c:
.i..l
.i..l ti]
0 M Ill
- I > A 0 0 0 0 .
E-< ~
.....c: x SCALE RATINGS:
. : .: :j 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 inunediately apparent. Scale Ax code changes require analytical studies of model structures to
..:. *~ .
*.. : assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon
., margins of safety.*
Scale c Change - The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited und~r the former criteria.
*These changes are related to specified loads and load combinations.
Loading criteria changes are separately co'nsidei::ed elsewhere.
. ~nklin Research Center A DMsion of The Franklin Institute
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 assig~ed. 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 ~x.r indicating that they do not conform to current criteria, update such loads. ,,,. * 'r-:(:\* 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.
j
.1
. 'i
... -1
. ;
* ~nklin Research Center A Division ol The FrankHn Institute
-----------*--*-*-----*--*- ---- ,,; .. **-- -'-- -- ~ ...'. . j1
- . ......;
*_j
.i
~. :.
*- ._, TER-C5257-324
;";!
**1 i
LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined . New Code Old Code AISC 1980 AISC 1963
- a. composite Beams
- 1. Shear connectors in 1.11.4 1.11.4 A composite beams
- 2. Composite beams or 1.11.5 --** A girders with formed steel deck
**. *: ~
.. *';
- b. Hybrid Girders
.. j
.j
- :;J Stress in flange 1.10.6 1.10.6 *A Compression Elements AISC 1980 AISC 1963
.* :*: *1
~' With width-to-thickness 1.9.1.2 and 1.9.1 A ratio higher than speci- !\ppendix.c fied in 1~9 .1. 2
- Tension Members AISC 1980 AISC 1963 When load is transmitted 1.14. 2. 2 A by bolts or rivets Connections AISC 1980 AISC 1963
- a. Beam ends with top flange 1.5.1.2.2 A coped, if subject to shear
- b. Connections carrying moment 1.15.5.2 A or restrained member 1.15.5. 3 connection 1.15.5.4
~. , . -
*Double dash (--) indicates that no provisions were provided in the older code *
.. i
. ~nklin .Research Center A DMllion of The Franldln Institute
. **.t ,j
.. *. i
._.,.~
. -1 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.)
TER-C5257-324 Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Memeers Designed to Operate AISC 1980 AISC 1963 in an Inelastic Regime Spacing of lateral bracing 2.9 2.8 A Short Brackets and Corbels ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 having a shear span-to- 11.13 A depth ratio of unity or less Shear Walls used as a ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 primary load-carrying 11.16 A
. 0:
member Precast Concrete Structural ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Elements, where shear is not 11.15 A a member of diagonal tension Concrete* Regions Subject to ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 High Temeeratures_ Time-dependent and Appendix A A position-dependent temperature variations Columns with Spliced ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Reinforcement subject to stress reversals1 7.10.3 805 A fy in compression to 1/2 fy in tension Steel Embedments used to ACI '349-76 ACI 318-63 A transmit load to concrete Appendix B Containment and Other B&PV Code ACI 318-63 A Elements, transmitting Section III, In-plane shear Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.5 Region of shell carrying B&PV Code, ACI 318-63 A concentrated forces normal Section III, 1707 to the shell surface (see Div. 2, 1980 case study 13 for details) CC-3421.6
* ~nklin Research Center A Division of The Fnmklln Institute
. ___....:...-~:-...----*------ .. --;----* .. '(' .
TER-C5257-324 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Region of shell under B&PV Code ACI 318-63 A torsion Section III, 921 Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.7 Elements Subject to B&PV Code, ACI 318-63 A Biaxial Tension Section III, Div. 2, 1980 CC-3532.1. 2 *-- Brackets and Corbels B&PV Code, ACI"318-63 A Section III, Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.8
.~-l ... 1 **1
. -- .-._.J
*.: ;J
... **.*~
*~
. .1
~nklin Research Center II. Division of The Franlclln Institute
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) *
. \
*......- "*1:'i
' - . -.~;
-~ - '-i
,_.::: .i
- >~-~~*.
_.,*.:I
.* :. -~
.._{',
.* .,~
;
... ~:.
*tt
~nklin Research Center
/\ Division ol The Franklln lnsUtute
APPENDIX A SCALE A AND A CHAi.'lGES x DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO PALISADES PLANT , .. ' j A-1 e n k l i n Research Center A Dlvislon ol The Franlclln lnsUwte
.. ~* ------- -*-*-*- __ ,____ ., __ ..
a
- . -~
... ; ~
.*_,,;
'* *.:1
.- * .i
*j J
*-~
. - .: 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)
.i l
A-1.l
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Fninklln lnsdtute
. ----~----~**-~-'------ ..
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.l 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Structural tension, except for pin steel used in connected members Palisades cat. I structures is A-36. Thus , Fy < 0.83 Fu Therefore, Scale C for Palisades
- Limitations Scale Fy ~ 0.833 Fu c
-1
.l 0.83~ Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu B
.**. :* >.:'.f Fy ~0.875 Fu A 2.4 2.3 Slenderness ratio
,* i 1st 1st* for columns. Must satisfy: .. Para
- Para*.
*..*']
~ . )
1 r Scale Scale C Fy < 40 ksi c for Palisades
- 40 <.Fy < 44 ksi B See case study 4 Fy ~ 44 ksi A for details.
2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, Mv Scale C or S shapes and similar for Palisades. built-up single-web .shapes See case study
.*. -i subject to compression 6 for details.*
Scale Fy ~ 36 ksi c 36 < Fy < 38 ksi . B Fy ~ 38 ksi A
~nklin Research Center I\ Division of The Franklln Institute .
A-1.2
- . r-*__, __. -.- *--------
-----~--
,l AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 .llil Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.4.l l.5ol.4.l Box-shaped members (subject to bending) Box-shaped mem-Subpara. of rectangular cross section whose bers not found 6 depth is not more than 6 times its to be used in width and whose flange Palisades Cat. thickness is not more than. I structures; 2 times the web thickness _therefore, not applicable New requirement in the 1980 Code 1.5 .l. 4.1 1.5.1.4.l Hollow circular sections Hollow circular Subpara. subject to bending sections not 7 found to be used New requirement in the 1980 Code in Palisades Cat. I struc-tures; therefore,
.. : . : *.~
not applicable l.5.l.4.4 Lateral support requirements Box section for box sections whose depth members not
. is larg!!r .than 6 times their found* to be used width in Palisades Cat.
I structures; New requirement in the 1980 Code therefore; not _applicable 1.5. 2.2 l. 7 Rivets, bolts, and threaded Cat. I struc-parts subject to 20,000 tures are not cycles or more subject to such cyclic loading; therefore, not applicable 1.7 1.7 Members and connections Cat. I struc-and subject to 20,000 cycles tures are not Appendix or more subject to such B cyclic loading; therefore, not applicable
., ~*-~ ~
A-1.3
~nklin Research Center
/\ Dlvillon of The Franklln lnllltull!
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Conunents 1.9.2.3 Circular tubular elements Circular tubular and subject to axial compression elements are not Appendix found to be used c New requirements ~ddeq in Palisades to the 1980 Code Cat. I struc-tures; there-fore, not appli-cable 1.13.3 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) Appendix Web tapered members Web tapered D members.are not New requirement* added found *to be used in the 1980 Code in. Palisade.s .;.:- Cat. I struc-tures; therefore, not applicable ~ : A-1.4
~nklin ,Research Cente~
- A Olvislon of The Franlclin lllltitule
*-* .~
. . . *~
- ... _. ~
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
.~
' THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE)
AND
*. ,.i
.. 4
, ..::..<1
*-**;
---:\~-;
*;;
*:t
;
.* . *. '. :~
. i
.;
;
. ]
A-2.l
~nklin Research Center A Division of Tho Franldln Institute
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON
.--i
. *----1 Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying members 9.1, 9~2, or elements of the structural
&: 9.3 system are potentially affected.
most specif i- Definition of new loads not normally cally used in design of traditional build-ings and redefinition of load factors and capacity reduction factors have altered the traditional analysis requirements.* 10.l All primary load-carrying members and 10.10 Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.* 11.1 All primary load-carrying members Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.* 18.l. 4 Prestressed concrete elements No prestressed
**;
.; ;,
and elements outside
._ ~r 18.4.2 New loadings here ref er to primary contain-Chapter 9 load combinations.* ment; therefore,
- -1 not applicable *
. ;. *- ~. -*-1
-__ -_: * :~-:1 Chapter Shell structures with thickness No shell struc-
--*-1:l 19 equal to or greater than 12 in ture except
.:J primary
-.l This chapter is completely new; containment;
-***1 4
therefore, shell structures designed therefore,
- by the general criteria of ol_der not applicable.
codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter. This chapter also refers to Chapter 9 load provisions.
*Special treatment of loads and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
A-2. 2 _
~n~in Research Center A Olvislon ol The Franlclln 1111dtute
Er*---~------------
'.t Referenced ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Appendix All elements whose failure under c impulsive and impactive loads must be precluded New appendix; therefore, consideration and review- of older designs is consid-ered important. Since stress analysis associated with these condi-
* ~
tions is highly dependent on defi-
- .. :~
*-j nition of failure planes and allow-
. .. 1
.-~ able stress for these special condi-
..J
_.:; tions, past practice varied with
- .~i designers' opinions. Stresses may v~ry significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures.
*:.J
~~
-;
*.":.;
"*i A-2. 3
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Fianklln lnllllllte
.-~ *1
~: !-l
- **.~,:- ::~
APPENDIX A-3
*~
. *.'*'~
. ::l
~
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)
)
A-3.l
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnslilute
. .:..~ ~ -.
ACI 318-63 VS. AMSE B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Referenced Section Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3230 1506 Containment (load combinations Definition of new and applicable load factor.)
- loads not normally used in design of traditional buildings.
. -.. -~' ~. *-~ :: Table 1506 Containment (load combinations Definition of CC-3230-1 and applicable load factor)* loads and load comb inc1 tions along with new load factors have altered the traditional analysis requirements. CC-3900. Concrete containment* New design All sec- . criteria. ACI tions* in 318-63-did not* this contain design chapter 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.
A-3.2
~nklin Research Center f\ Division of The Franklfn lnllitute
- 1
- ~.~~ ..i
*.. - ::~
APPENDIX B SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS
- '-....~ -
***.*j
- ~
.. *l B-1
~nklinat Research Center A Division The Franklln Institute
*.*:1 APPENDIX B-1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
'. :*.-*?. *=
- -:~~
~1
~
"':~
*~1
.*<:'-.:~~:-~1 B-1.l
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Frenldfn Institute
-----~------
J1
~ '
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.l.l 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Limitations Scale tension, except for pin connected members F < 0.833 F c y- u 0.833 F <F < 0 .875 F B u y u A F y -> 0.875 F u 1.5.1. 2. 2 Beam end connection See case study 1 where the top flange for details.
-i
. - .: -'1 is coped and subject to shear, failure by
-;
shear along a plane _:; through fasteners-, or
- -:1 . '~
shear and tension along
._, and perpendicular to a plane thr-ough fast-eners 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.l.4.l Box-shaped members (subject New requirement in the Subpara. to bending) of rectangular 1980 Code.
6 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 l.5cl.4.l 1.5.1.4.l Hollow circular sections New requirement in the Subpara. subjec~ to bending 1980 Code 7 1.5.l.4.4 Lateral support requirements New requirement in the for box sections whose depth 1980 c6ae is larger than 6 times their width
~-=
1.5.2.2 l. 7 Rivets, bolts, and Change in the require~ threaded parts subject to *men ts
-20,000 cycles or more B-,.1.2
~n~in Research Center A Division cf The Franklin lnsdtute
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
*..*. ~
Scale A (Cont.)
.*-;;-; Referenced
- . . .:I:.
.. ;.* Subsection
.-~- ; AISC AISC Structural Elements
.~ 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.7 1.7 Members and connections Change in the require-and subject to 20,000 cycles ments Appendix or more B
1.9.1.2 l.9.l Slender compression unstiff- New provisions added in and ened elements subject to axial the 1980 Code, Appendix C. Appendix compression or compression See case study 10 for c aue to bending when actual details. width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.l.2
*::j 1.9.2.3 Circular tubular elements New requirements added and subject to axial compression in the 1980 Code Appendix c
l.l.O. 6 1.10.6 Hybrid girder reduction New*requirement added in flange stress in the 1980 Code. Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. See case study 9 for detai,ls. l.11. 4 1.11. 4 Shear connectors in New requirements added composite b~ams in the 1980 Code regard-
.;
ing the distribution of
**:.-1 shear connectors (eqn.
1.11-7). The diameter and spacing of the shear connectors are also introduced. l.11.5 Composite beams or girders New* requirements added with formed steel deck in the 1980 Code l.15.5.2 Restrained members when New requirement added 1.15.5.3 flange or moment connection in the 1980 Code 1.15.S.4 plates for end connections of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns B-1.3
~nklin Rese~rch Center A Division of The Franklin lnslilUle
I AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
._ ; .. **. :J Scale A (Cont.)
Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements Potentially Affected Comments
..ill.Q. 19 63 1.13.3 Roof surface not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free drain-age or adequate individual
.- i drains to prevent. the accumulation of rain water
-:.1 (ponding) 1.14.2.2 Axially loaded tension New requirement added members where the load is in the 1980 Code transmitted by bolts or rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members Slenderness ratio See case study 4 Scale 2.4 2.3 1st Para *._
1st. Para. for columns must satisfy for details. Fy ~ 40 ksi c e. 40 < Fy < 44 ksi B Fy ~ 44 ks i A
- 2. 6.
- Flanges of rolled W, M*, See case study 6 Scale 2.7 or S shapes and similar for details.
built-up single-web shapes subject to compression F < 36 ksi c y-36 < Fy < 38 ksi B Fy ~ 38 ksi A 2.8 Lateral bracing of members See case study 7 to resist lateral and for details. torsional displacement Appendix Web tapered members New requirements added
- D in the 1980 Code
' .~
~nklin Research Center B-1.4 A Division al The Franldln lnslltute
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
.. :*:~ \j Scale B
*.J
., *~
Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Conunents 1.9.2.2 1.9.2 Flanges of square and The 1980 Code limit on rectangular box sections width-to-thickness ratio of uniform thickness, of of flanges is slightly stiffened elements, when more stringent than that subject to axial compres- of the 1963 Code.
- . :,.-1
- .**~
sion or to uniform compres-sion due to bending 1.10 .1 Hybrid girders Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. Application of the new requirement could not be much different from other
"' ~
rational method.
*** 1.11. 4 1.11.~ .Flat soffit concrete slabs, using rotary kiln produced aggregates conforming to
~ightweight concrete .. is not permitted in nuclear plants as structural AS'lM C330 members (Ref. ACI-349).
1.13.2 Beams and girders supporting Lightweight construction large floor areas free of not applicable to partitions or other source nuclear structures which of damping, where transient are designed for greater vibration due to pedestrian loads traffic might not be acceptable 1.14. 6.1. 3 Flare type groove welds when flush to the surface of the
. . :~'. solid section of the bar
-i
...~
1.16.4.2 1.16.4 Fasteners, minimum spacing,
*. :j requirements between fasteners 1.16.5 1.16 .5 Structural joints, edge distances of holes for bolts and rivets B-1.5
~nklin Research Center A*Division of The Frankiln Institute
-*~**--....;..-*------* -* .. *. - -***---- -*--- --**. --- - - ----**-.-**-'-
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.)
.Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected CoJlUllents 1.15.S.S Connections having high New insert in the 1980 shear in the column web Code 2.3.1 Braced and unbraced multi-
- Instability effect *on 2.3.2 story frame - instability short buildings will effect have negligible effect.
2.4 2.3 Members subject to combined Procedure used in the axial and bending moments 1963 Code for the interaction analysis is replaced by a different procedure. See case study 8 for details. B-1.6
~nklin Research Center A Divbion of The Franklin lnllitute
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.3.3 1.3.3 Support girders and their connections - pendant operated traveling cranes The 1963 Code requires 25% The 1963 Code require-increase in live loads to ment is more stringent, allow for impact as applied and, therefore,. -._._.**.: conservative.
-.-*. to traveling cranes, while the 1980 Code requires
-**-;- 10% increase.
*. 1 1.5.1.5.3 1.5.2.2 Bolts and rivets - projected
' area - in shear connections Fp = 1.5 Fu (1980 Code) Results using 1963 Code Fp = 1.35 Fy (1963 Code) are conservative.
l.10.5.3 1.10.5.3 Stiffeners in girders - . New design* *concept added spacing between stiffeners in 1980 Code.giving at end panels, at panels less stringent require-containing large holes, and ments. See case study 5 at panels adjacent to panels for details. containing large holes 1.11.4 1.11.4 Continuous composite beams, New requirement added where longitudinal reinforc- in the 1980 Code ing steel 'is considered to act compositely with the steel beam in the negative moment regions
*'j
'.(
. 'l
- ~
-:.1 * ~nklin Research Center B-1.7 A Division of The Franlclln IMlllUle
..' ;~
.-:.:1
*.f
- ~
. l
", j
~ ~/~~~
--* :.4
.j
.. ~
APPENDIX B-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
- _-* 1 B-2.l
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
____ _:__*-----*-**-**~-J--- . .. -** - *****- .... -*. ACI 318-63 VS. ACI. 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE CO~ARISON Scale A Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 7.10.3 805 Columns designed for Splices of the main rein-
- *-~
. -: -"-:.! stress reversals with forcement in such columns
. i
-.* .* 1 variation of stress from must be reasonably limited
.-'t fy in compression to . to provide for adequate
.. *.. "i
-**., .. **1 172 fy in tension ductility under all loading
. ~ conditions
- A Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying Definition of new loads 9.1, 9.2, & members or elements of the pot normally used in 9.3 most structural system are design of traditional specifically potentially affected buildings and redefini-tion of load factors and capacity reduction factors has alter*ed the traditional analysis requirements.*
10.l All primary load-carrying Design loads here ref er 1 l' and members to Chapter 9 load
..! 10.10 combinations.*
J 1 11.1 All primary load-carrying Design loads here refer
.] members to Chapter 9 load
."J; combinations.*
11.13 Short brackets and corbels As this provision which are primary load~ is new, any existing carrying members 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.
B-2.2
"'ftnklin Research Center A Division al The Franklin Institute
- =* **::
,;, *: ~ **:J
*;
*. -~*.:.~:d
. *j
*~
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.13 may be seriously (Cont.)* endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements~ 11.15 Applies to any elements Structural integrity loaded in shear where it is may be seriously inappropriate to consider endangered if the design shear as a measure of fails to fulfill these diagonal tension and the requirements. loading could induce direct shear-type cracks 11.16 All structural walls - Guidelines for these
- those which are pr-imary kinds of _wall loads w~re load carrying, e.g., shear not provided by older walls and those which codes; therefore~ struc-
.*, serve to provide protec- tural integrity may be
*.*.-.;_
tion from impacts of seriously endangered if missile-type objects the design fails to fulfill these require-ments. 18.l. 4 Prestressed concrete New load combinations and elements here refer to Chapter 9 18.4.2 load combinations.* Chapter 19 Shell structures with This chapter is com-thickness equal to or pletely new; therefore, greater than 12 inches 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.
B-2.3
~nklinat Research Center A Dlvtslon The Franklln Institute
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Chapter 19 Additionally, this (Cont.) chapter refers to Chapter 9 provisions. Appendix A All elements subject to New appendix; older Code time-dependent and did not give specific* position-dependent guidelines on temperature temperature variations and limits for concrete. .The which are restrained such possible effects of. that thermal strains will strength*loss in concrete result in thermal stresses at high temperatures should be assessed. Appendix B All steel embedments used New appendix; therefore, to transmit loads from considerable review of attachments int.a the older designs ~s reinforced concrete warranted.**
- structures Appendix C All elements.whose New appendix1 therefore, failure under considerations .and
-; impulsive and impactive review of older designs loads must be precluded is considered important.**
**Since stress analysis associated with these conditions is highly d~pendenton 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.
- B-2.4
~nklin Research C~nter A Division of The Franklin lnsliture
... ; .*
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced
*.*.. ,;
Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 1.3.2 103(b) Ambient temperature control Tighter control to for concrete inspection - ensure adequate control upper limit reduced 5° of curing environment
'.;.:-: (from l00°F to 95°F) for cast-in-place applies* to all structural concrete.
concrete 1.5 Requirement of a "Quality Previous codes required Assurance Program" is new. inspection but not the Applies to all structural establishment of a
.. ~ concrete quality assurance program.
.. ,.;i
- :i" Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Any elements containing Use of lightweight con-
>-.* _steel with fy > 60,000
}?si or lightweight crete in a nuclear plant not likeiy. Elements
- concrete containing steel with fy > 60,000 psi may have inadequate ductility
- .. ,'. or excessive deflections
*'*".'l at service loads.
.: ...::*.~* :~~
-,:1 3.2 402 Cement This serves *to clarify
.* . *_,>~t intent of previous code.
-: :** :1' 3.3 403 Aggregate Eliminated reference to
***,*;1 lightweight aggregate.
*.:*A
-~ 3.3.l 403 Any structural concrete Controls of AS'!M C637,
.*,j covered by ACI 349-76 and "Standard Specifications expected to provide for for Aggregates for radiation shielding in Radiation Shielding addition to structural Concrete," closely capacity parallel those for ASTM C33, ";<standard Specifi-cation* for-*Concrete Aggregates."
B-2.5
.;.**
-enklin Research Center A Division al The Franklln lnJlitule
.. ----*~-----~..J.. ___ _
... ,. : ~ ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
;.*-i
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Conunents 3.3.3 403 Aggregate To ensure adequate control. 3.4.2 404 Water for concrete Improve quality control
-~
measures.
. , 405 Metal reinforcement Removed all reference 3.5 to steel with fy > 60 ,000 psi.
*~
... Added requirements to
, 3.6 406, 407 Concrete mixtures
& 408 improve quality control.
4.1 and 501 & 502 Concrete proportioning Proportioning logic 4.2 improve~ to account for
. st;atistical. variation and statistical quality control.
' : :~
4.3 504 Evaluation and acceptance Added provision to of concrete 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. 5.7 607 Curing of very large Attention to this is concrete elements and required because of the control.of hydration thicker elements en-temperature countered in nuclear-related structures. 6.3.3 All structural elements Previous codes did not with embedded piping address the problem of containing high tempera- . long periods of exposure ture mat-erials in excess . to high temperature and B-2.6
~nkiin Research Center A Division of The Franldln Institute
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Ref ere need Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected _Comments 6.3.3 of 150°F, or 200°F in did not provide for (Cont.) localized areas not reduction in design insulated from the allowables to account for concrete* strength reduction at high
**: l (>150°F) temperatures.
7.5, 7.6, 805 Members with spliced Sections on splicing
& 7.8 reinforcing steel and tie requirements amplified to better control strength at splice locations and provide ductility.
7.9 805 Members containing New sections to define
.~ . "J deformed .w.ire fabric requirements for th.is new material.
... .~i'~
7 .10 Connection of primary To ensure adequate
;
7.11 load-carrying members and ductility. at splices in column steel 7.12.3 Lateral ties in columns To provide for adequate
.'* . *-~ '
7.12.4 ductility
- 7.13.1 Reinforcement in exposed New requirements to through concrete conform with the 7 .13. 3 expected large thick-nesses in nuclear related structures.
8.6 Continuous nonprestressed Allowance for redistri-flexural members. bution of negative moments has been
.. :*:. redefined as a function of the steel percentage *
. i
. **~
9.5.1.l Reinforced concrete members Allows for more subject to bending - stringent controls on deflection limits deflection in special cases. B-2.7
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B {Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 9.4 1505 Reinforcing steel - design See comments in
- . .....i i
strength limitat~on Chapter 3 summary.
. :*. -. *~
***:-J Slab and beams - minimum Minimum thickness 9.5.l.2 through thickness requirements generally would not
.. {
*-:;.; 9.5.l.4 control this type of
; structure~
9.5.2.4 909 Beams and one-way Affects serviceability, slabs not strength. 9.5.3 Nonprestressed two- Immediate and long time way construction deflections generally not critical in structures designed for very large ~ live l~adings1 however, 1911' design by ultimate requires more attention to deflection controls.
' 9.5.4 &: Prestressed concrete Control of camber, both 9.5.5 members initial and long time in
~*l addition to service load
**;
deflection, requires more attention for designs by
" *l ultimate strength.
1
]
10.2.7 Flexural members - new Lower limit on B of limit on B factor 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. 10.3.6 Compression members, with Limits on axial design spiral reinforcement or load for these members tied reinforcement, non- given in terms of design prestressed and pre- equations. stressed See case study 2
. B-2.8
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklln lnsUtute
-- **- - *--* --*~-----**4**********'*
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Conunents 10.6.1 1508 Beams and one-way slabs Changes in distribution 10.6.2 of reinforcement for 10.6.3 crack control. 10.6.4 10.6.5 Beams New insert 10.8.l 912 Compression members, Moment magnification 10.8.2 limiting dimensions concept introduced for 10 ._8.3 compression members. Results using column .' ~ reduction factors in ACI 318-63 are reasonably the Ji .*.1 10 .11.1 915 Compression members, same as using magnification
- For.slender columns, 10.11.2 916 slenderness effects moment magnification 10 .11.3 concept replaces* the so-10.11.4 called strength reduc-10.11.5 tion concept but for the 10.11.5.1 limits stated in ACI 318-63 10.11.5.2 both methods yield equal 10.11.6 accuracy and both are 10.11. 7 acceptable methods.
10.12 10.15.l 1404-1406 Composite compression New items - no way to 10.15.2 members compare1 ACI 318-63 con-10.15.3 tained only working stress 10.15.4 method of design for these
... 10.15.5 10.15.6 members.
10.17 Massive concrete members, New item - no comparison. more than 48 in thick
. ~
** B-2.9
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklln Institute
------~---~--~-~ -------*--- -* -----,- --*
~i
..~
.* . .:J
~
i
.. --------~
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.2.l Concrete flexural members For nonprestressed 11.2.2 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.
- 11. 7 Nonprestressed members Detailed provisions for thr.ough this load combination 11.8.6 were not part.of ACI 318~63. 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. B-2010
~nklin Research Center A Division of Tho Fninlclln lnslitute
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.9 Deep beams Special provisions for through shear stresses in deep 11.9 .6 beams is new. The minimum steel requirements are similar to the ACI 318-63 requirements of using the wall steel limits. Deep beams designed under previous ACI 318-63 criterion were reinforced as walls at the minimum and therefore no unreinforced section w~uld
- t**-:P)~
have resulted * .*. ~*-
*_ * ;_:,_:::r! 11.10 Slal:;>s and.footings New.provision for shear through reinforcement in.slabs
.;_:.::d 11.10. 7 or footings for the two-way action condition and new controls where shear head reinforcement is used.
Logic consistent with ACI 318-63 for these conditions and change is
.*. ,. ***""i*.
*-.... not considered major *
' . .. .:~-; ::~: :* _*-: -~>:. :~l
- >1
'/1
.__ .;!
-~
B-2.11
~nklin Research Center A Division cl The Franklin lnsdtute
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural-Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.11.1 1707 Slabs and fo~tings 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. lLil.2 Slabs. Details for the design through of shearhead is new. ACI
.. *, ~
11.11. 2. 5 318-63 had no provisions for shearhead design. The. requirements in this j 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.
11.12 Openings in slabs and Modification for inclusion footings* of shearhead. design. See above conclusion.
*".j B-2.12
~nklin Research Center A OMsion of The Franklln lnsdtute
' .. ~ *.' .* .~:1 * ~:* . :1
. -* i ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
. . ~ -* :1
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
. *:*;
Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.13.l Columns No problem anticipated 11.13.2 since previous code required design consideration by some analysis. Chapter 12 Reinforcement Development length con-cept replaces bond stress concept in ACI 318-63. T~e 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 318-6~.
12.l.6 918 (C) Reinforcement Modified with minimum through added to ACI 318-63, 12.1.63 918(C). 12.2.2 Reinforcement New insert in ACI 349-76. 12.2.3 12.4 Reinforcement of New insert. -
* **_r:' *:~ . ' - **~..~ special members Gives emphasis to special member consideration.
12.8.l Standard hooks Based on ACI 318-63 bond 12.8.2 stress allowables in general; therefore, no major change. B-2.13
~nklin Research Center -
A Division of The Franldln Institute
... :-.--~*----*- ...:..: . *--*~-----...:..-*--
-.:;'
- _.-..:** *--~
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.)
. Referenced ..
Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 349-76 Wire fabric New insert. i2.10.1 Use of such reinforce-l2.l0.2(b) ment not likely in Category I structures for nuclear plants. 12.ll.2 Wire fabric New insert. Mainly applies to pre-cast prestressed members. 12.13.l.4 Wire fabric New insert. Use of this material for stirrups not likely in heavy members of a
- nuclear plant. e.
13.5 Slab reinforcement New details on slab reinforcement intended to produce better crack control and maintain ductility. Past practice was not inconsistent with this
. ,).i in general.
-~<1
**.j 14.2 Walls with loads in Change of the order of the Kern area of the the empirical equation
.. "/ ~
thickness (14-1) makes the solution compatible with Chapter 10 for walls with loads in the Kern area of the thickness *
. . .;
B-2.14
~nklin Research Center A. Division of The Franklin lnslitule
........ _;
. ~
. -~:1
- (*~**:
._.. *l
- . _: 1
. '>1
.. ,i ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76.
.*,1
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
. -~
*' "l
- ' *~J...-::_:j Scale B (Cont.)
Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 15.5 Footings - shear* and Changes here are in-development of rein- tended to be compatible forcement with change in concept of checking bar devel-opment instead of nominal bond stress con-sistent with Chapter 12 *
.. :*.... ~ .. * ..... , Reference to minimum 15.9 Minimum thickness of plain footing on piles thickness of plain foot-
- _,)
*-: ing on piles which was in ACI 318-63 was removed entirely.
16.2 Design considerations for New* but consistent with a structure behaving the intent: of previous monolithically or not, code. as well as for joints and bearings *
.17 .5.3 2505 Horizontal shear stress Use of Nominal Average in any segment Shear Stress equation (17-1) replaces the theoretical elastic equation (25-1) of ACI 318-63. It provides for easier computation for the designer.
18.4.l Concrete immediately after Change allows more prestress transfer tension, thus is less con-servative but not
.*: considered a problem.
B-2.15
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklln lnsllb.lle
-----*--'--------**--------~-
e ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63. Potentially Affected Conunents 18.5 2606 Tendons (steel) Augmented to include yield and.ultimate in the jacking force requirement. 18.7.1 Bonded and unbonded members Eqn. 18-4 is based on more recent test data. 18.9.1 Two-way flat plates Intended primarily for 18.9.2 (solid slabs) control of cracking. 18.9.3 having minimum bonded reinforcement 18 .11. 3 10.11.4
- Bonded reinforcement at
.supports New to allow .for consideration of t;he
- redistribution of*
- negative moments in the design.
18.13 Prestressed compression New to emphasize 18.14 members under combined details particular to 18.15 axial load and bending. prestressed members not 18.16.1 Unbonded tendons. previously addressed in Post tensioning ducts. the codes in detail. Grout for bonded tendons.
- *~
*.-'~
18.16.2. Proportions of grouting Expanded definition of
-*. ;~
materials how grout properties may
- ._ - -~
be determined. 18.16.4 Grouting temperature Expanded definition of temperature controls
""""' when grouting.
e B"'."2.16
~nklin Resea~ch Center A DMsion of The Franklin Institute
- -**--*-*---------*--*~**--=*-~~~-'--* ...... ----*-**--*-----'-'-- .
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Conunents 7.13.4 Reinforcement in flexural slabs 10.14 2306 Bearing - sections ACI 318-63 is more controlled by design conservative, allowing a
.. *. bearing stresses stress of
. :. ,.\~
l.9(0.25 f'c> = 0.475 f'c < 0.6 f'c
- 11. 2.5 1706 Reinforcement concrete mem- Allowance of spirals as
._*. . ':;
bers without prestressing shear reinforcement is new. Requirement, where shear s*tress exceeds 6<PJi";', of 2 lines of web reinforcmerit was.removed.
- 13. 0 / Two-way slabs with Slabs designed by the to en'd multiple square or rec- previous criteria. of ACI tangular panels 318-63 are generally the same or more conservative.
- 13. 4.1.5 Equivalent column flexi- Previous code did not bility stiffness and *consider the effect of attached torsional members stiffness of members normal. to the plane of the equivalent frame.
17.5.4 Permissible horizontal Nominal increase in 17.5.5 shear stress for any allowable shear stress surface, ties provided under new code. or not provided i
.;
~. :: 1
-. ;
B-2.17 enklin Research ~enter A Dlvlsion of The franklln lnllltute
.. ~
.* :: . -~*,. APPENDIX B-3 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON B-3.l
~nklin Research Center A DMsion ol The Franldln lnslllute
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 3.8.2.l 309b Lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) bases 3.8.2.3 can be proportioned when proportioning of concrete "working *stress concre.te" mixes on the specified is used 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) 3.8.2.2 309d Mix proportions _could ACI 301-72. (Rev. 1975) 3.8.2.3 give lower strength requires more strength tests
*. *:; concrete than ACI 301-63 for evalua-
*~ tion of strength* and bases
.. ':, the strength to be achieved
- .:...-~~
-* . .! on the. standard deviation of
~ . . .j_
~) strength test resu1ts.
-~~
\
~;
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975)
.: ;*-~
/.*-;
17.3.2.3 1704d Lower strength concrete
*.. *--: could have been used requires core samples to have
*... an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single
- *.. result less than 75 percent
_;-J 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.
B-3.4
~n~in. Research Center A Division al The Franldln Institute
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
. -***l Scale B (Cont.)
Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural.Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 17.2 1702a Lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 1703a could have been used 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.*
15.2.6.1 1502bl Weaker tendon bond ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) possible 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.*
15.2.2.l 1502el Prestressing may not be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives 15.2.2.2 as good considerably more detail for 15.2.2.3 bonded and unbonded tendon anchorages and couplings. ACI 301-63 does not seem to address unbonded tendons. 8.4.3 804b Cure of concrete may not ACI-301-72 (Rev. 1975) be as good provides for better control of placing temperature*. This will give better initial cure. 8.2.2.4 802b4 .concrete may be more ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) nonuniform when placed provides for a maximum slump loss. This gives better control of the character-
":': istics of the placed concrete. -- B-3.3
- .: ~nklin Research Center A OMslon ol The Fl'l!llldln lnslitllle
... ---- - __,.....__ _,_,. __ ._...... -* ,,_ *-*- ... ----- -- - ---~- ----
--~ ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 8.3.2 803b Weaker columns and walls ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) possible provides for a longer setting time for concrete in columns and walls before placing concrete in supported elements. 5.5.2 Poor bonding of reinforce- ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) ment to concrete possible provides for cleaning of reinforcement. ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section. 5.2.5.3 Reinforcement may not be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) as good provides for use of welded deformed steel wire fabric for reinforcement. ACI 301-63 has *no corresponding section. 5.2.5.l 503a Reinforcement may not be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 5.2.s.2 as good when welded steel provides a maximum spacing of wire fabric is used 12 in for welded intersec-tion in the direction of principal reinforcement. 5.2.l Reinforcement may not have AC! 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has reserve strength and more stringent yield ductility requirements. 4.6.3 406c Floors may crack 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." B-3.4
~nklin Research Center A DMsJon of The Fnmklln Institute
' r--~c-*.,._~---*-*-------****-----* '.*J
- Scale B (Cont).
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 4.6.2 Concrete may sag or be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) lower in strength provides for reshoring no later than the end of the working day when stripping occurs. 4.6.4 Concrete may sag or be
- ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) lower in strength provides for load distribu-tion by reshoring in multistory buildings.
... **.; Low strength possible if ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975)
- .~.~< .. -t~1 4.2.13 reinforcing steel is requires that equipment distorted runways not rest on reinforc-ing steel.
3.8.5 Po~sibie to have lower ACI 301-72 (Rev*. 1975) places* strength floors tighter control on the concrete for floors.
- 3. 7. 2 Embedments may corrode and ACI 301-72 (Rev. *1975) 3.4.4 lower concrete strength requires that it be demonstrated that mix water does not contain a deleterious amount of chloride ion.
3.4.2 Possible lower strength ACI 301~72 (Rev. 1975) places 3.4.3 _ __.. tighter control on water-cement ratios for watertight structures and structures exposed to chemically aggressive solutions.
*-.-~--~~)
1.2 Possible damage to green ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) or underage concrete provides for limits on result.ing in lower loading of emplaced concrete. strength
- .e B-3.5
~nklin Research Center
. A OMsion ol The Franlclln lllllilule
->---=~- . . - - - - - - - * - .
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Conunents 3.5 305 Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 gives a minimum from better placement and slwnp*requirement. consolidation ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits minimum slump which could lead to difficulty in
- placement and/or consolida-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. 3.6 306b Better streng~ resulting ACI 301-63 provides for use from better placement and 'of single mix design with consolidation 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. 3.8.2.l 309b Higher strength from ACI 301-63 bases propor-better proportioning 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. B-3.6
~nklin Research *center A Ohltsion al The franldln Jnslitute
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale c (Cont.)
- Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 4.4.2.2 404c 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 rein-forcement, no bond will
-develop *
. - *. :1
.. 4.5.5 405b Better strength and-less ACI 301-63 provides for chance of cracking or keeping forms in place until
- . . sagging the 28-day *strength is attained. ACI 301-72 (Rev.
1975) provides for removal of
- e
-'* .-. -:~ forms when specified removal
.s.trength is reached.
4.6.2 406b Better strength and less Same as above but applied to chance of cracking or reshoring. sagging 4.7.1 407a Better strength by curing ACI 301-63 provides for longer in forms cylinder field cure under most unfavorable conditions prevailing for any part of 1 i 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. B-3.7
~nklin Research Center A DMsion of The Franldln lnsll!Ute
. *- :**:,. -~
.*. *****~
... ~-:*.~
.e
. ~
*.;
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) i
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 5.2.2.1 Better strength, less ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has 5.2.2.2 chance of cracked rein- less stringent bending forcing bars requirement for reinforcing bars than does ACI 318-63. 5.5.4 505b Better strength from ACI 301-63 provides for more 5.5.5 reinforcement overlap in welded wire fabric. 12.2.3 120ld Better strength from ACI 301-63 provides for final better cure of concrete 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. 14.4.l 1404 Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 provides for a from better uniformity 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.
- 15. 2.i.1
- 1502-clb Higher strength from ACI 301-63 requires higher
~-
higher yield prestressing yield stress than does bars ACI 301..,;.72 (Rev. 1975) 15.2.L2 1502-c2 Higher strength from ACI 301-63 requires that better prestressing steel 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 *
.. l B-3.8
~nklin Researc~ Center
.A Division ol The Franklin lnslltute
*ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON .
- ~ . :... :-~
Scale C (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 16.3.4.3 1602-4c Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 requires 3 from better cylinder tests 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. 16.3.4.4 1602-4d Better strength, less ACI 301-63 requires that less chance of substandard than 100 yd3 of any class concrete 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. 17.3.2.3 1704d Better strength could be ACI 301-63 requires core developed 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 *
--~
--- B-3.9
~nklin Research Center A OMskin of The Fninldln lllllilute
.;
_:l APPENDIX B-4 ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON B-4.l
~nklin Research Center A Division o( The Franklin Jnalltuie
-- . -j 1
- >:**j
- 1 -~ - ~
** __]
. :. ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III,
<::1 DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON
..i
--;. Scale A Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural .Elements 1980 318-63. Potentially Affected Comments CC-3230 1506 Containment (load combina- Definition of new loads not tions and applicable load normally used in design of factor)* traditional buildings.
Table 1506 Containment (load combina- Definition of loads and load CC-3230-1 tions and applicable load combinations along with new factor)* load factors has altered the traditional analysis require-ments. CC-3421.5 Containment and other New concept. There is no elements transmitting in- comparable section in ACI plane shear 318-63, i.e~, no specific section addressing in-plane ,-" ,_ ".:; shear *. The general concept used here (that the concrete, *e 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 *
.~nklin Research Center A Division ol The Franklin ln1tllute
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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3421.6 1707 Peripheral shear in the These equations reduce to region of concentrated Ve= 4~ when membrane forces normal to the*shell stresses are zero, which com-surface 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. CC-3421. 7 921 Torsion 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 ~- Pr~vious code superim-posed only___torsion and transverse shear stresses. See case study 13 for details. e B-4.3
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin lnsdtule
ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III,
.* .'~ 1' DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON
. . .:~
- . .i
.>.j Scale A (Cont.) -. . ** ...:;
~I Referenced
- Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3421.8 Bracket and corbels 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 *
. :f. Structural integrity may be *~- *' *.::'.~ ;3 seriously endangered if the
.>:;<.1 design fails to fulfill these "*:.:::::~--~~ requirements.
' - -~
- < -/~~-7#.
cc- Where biaxial tension ACI 318-63 did not. consider
-~532.1.2 exists the problem of development length in biaxial tension fields.
CC-3900 Concrete.containment* New design criteria. ACI
, - .. : 318-63 did not contain design
. --:*1 '
All sec-tions in criteria for loading such as this impulse or missile impact. chapter* Therefore, no comparison is possible for this section.
-- *-.. -. *::-~
;:
.._ *. --~
. - :*~
*Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report *
. -~ :~
. ~ .
B-4.4
~nklin Research Center A Division of The FrankJln Jnslitute
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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected comments CC-3320 Shells 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. CC-3340 Penetrations and openings Added to ensure the consid-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. Table 1503(c) Containment-allowable ACI 318-63 allowable CC-3421-1 stress for factored concrete compressive stress
. compression loads was 0.85 f'c if an equiva-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 com-pressive strain at ultimate strength *
.)
. :~
- - j cc- 1701 Containment and any Modified and amplified from 3421.4.l section carrying trans- ACI 318-63, Section 1701.1.
. :: verse shear
- 1. $ factors removed from all equations and included in CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 17.
B-4.5
~nklin Research Center A OMslon of The Franklln JnsUlllle
-*--*---=----~--'---*----'
.* *. .*z
~ .*. !
.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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected comments cc- 2. Separation of equations 3421.4.1 applicable to sections under (Cont.) 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 reduction~ therefore, change is not deemed to be major.
CC-
- 261D(b} Prestressed concrete ACI 318-63, Eqn .26-13 is' a 0
3421.4 .2 sections 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. CC-3422.l 1508(b) Reinforcing steel ACI 318-63 allowed higher
- fy if full scale tests show adequate crack control.
*B--4.6
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklln Institute
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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected comments CC-3422.l The requirement for tests (Cont.) *where fy > 60 ksi was used would provide adequate assurance, in old design, that crack control was maintained. CC-3422.l 1503(d) All ordinary reinforcing ACI 318-63-allowed stress for steel 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. CC-3422.l All ordinary reinforcing ACI 318~63 had no provision steel 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.
.B-4.7
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
.----*--~-*-J*~*----*--*----~--
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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected comments CC-3422.l The logic of providing a (Cont.) control of design parameters at the centroid of all. the
*-*.:*! bars in layered bar arrange-ment is consistent with older codes and design practice.
{~ 'r*,, .... CC-3422.2 1503(d) Stress on reinforcing ACI 318-63 allowed the
' bars 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
'i reasonably similar to the older code.
CC-3423 2608 Tendon system stresses ACI 318-63, Section 2608 is generally less conservative. CC-3431.3 Shear, torsion, and ACI 318-63 does not have a bearing strictly comparable section; however, the 50% reduction of the utimate strength require-ments on shear and bearing stresses to get the working stress limits is identical to the ACI 318-63 logic and requirements. B-4.8
~n~in Research Center L
~ Division of The Frnnldln Institute
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 Structural Elements
. -~ 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected comments ': .---~ - -~ ... ~j Table Allowable stresses for Allowable concrete compressive CC-3431-1 service compression loads stresses are less conservative than or the same as the ACI 318-63 equivalent allowables.
cc~3432.2 l003(b) Reinforcing bar ACI 318-63 is slightly more (compression) conservative in using 0.4 fy up to a limit of 30 ksi. The upper limit is the same, since ACI 359-80 stipulates
.7 max fy = 60 ksi * . ~
CC-3432.2 1004 Reinforcing bar Logic similar to older codes. (b),. (c) (compression) Allowance of 1/3 overstress for short.duration loading. CC-3433 2606 Tendon system stress Limits here are essentially the same as in ACI 318-63 or
- *~
slightly less conservative~ . '.*** ACI 318-63 limits effective
-- ~
pres tress to O. 6 of the* ultimate strength or 0.8 of the yield strength, whichever is smaller. CC-3521 Reinforced concrete 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 B-4.9
~nklin Research ~enter A Division of The FronkJJn Institute
*. ~: *..
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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected comments CC-3521 in the equation as o.9.
(Cont.) 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. cc- 1701 Nominal shear Similar .to ACI 318-63*, with
. "3521.2.l *stress 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.
,. :-. *~ CC-3532 Where bundled Bundled bars were not bars are used 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. I I ** B-4.10
~nklin Research Center A Division of The FrankUn Institute
*.;. *-
*., .*..".:'1 l
_._;
.i
.. _:;! ASME B&PV CODE, *SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON
- .. ,. .. Scale B (Cont.)
- .~. .~ .:~ --.1 Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments cc- 918 (C) Where tensile steel is Similar to older code, but 3532.l.2 terminated in tension maximum shear allowed at zones cutoff point increased to 2/3, as compared to 1/2 in ACI 318-63, over that normally permitted. Slightly less con-
- j servative than ACI 318-63.
This is not considered critical since good design practice has always avoided
~ar cutoff in tension zones.
cc- 1801 Where bars carrying stress Development lengths derived 3532. l. 2 are to be terminated 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 Abfy/~ with 4> = o.as L = 0.0394 Abfy/~ No change in basic philosophy for ill and smaller bars. CC-3532.3 918(h) Hooked bars Change in format. New values 801 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.
B-4.11
~nklln Research Center A Division al The Franklin lnsUWte
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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3533 919 Shear reinforcement Essentially the same concepts. Bend bf 135° now permitted (versus 180° f9rmerly) and two-piece stirrups now permitted. These are not considered as - sacrificing strength. Other items here are identical. CC-353'4.l Bundled bars - Provisions for bundled bars any location were not considered in ACI 318-63. Bundled bars were not commonly used before the early 1960s. Later codes provide identical provisions. CC-3536 Curved reinforcement Early codes did not provide detailed information, but good design pr!'lctice would consider such conditions. CC-3543 2614 Tendon end anchor Similar to concepts in ACI reinforcement 318-63, Section 2614 but new statement is more specific. Basic requirements are not ch_anged. CC-3550 Structures integral Statement here is specific to with containment concrete reactor vessels. The logic of this guideline is consistent with the design _logic used for all indetermi-nate structures. B-4.12
~nklin Research Cent~r
/\ Olvlsion of The Franldln Jnslflute
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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Conunents CC-3550 ACI 318-63 did not specifi-(Cont.) cally state any guideline in this regard. CC-3560 Foundation requirements There is no comparable section in ACI 318-63.
; .*:
These items were assumed to be controlled by the appropriate general building code of which
. r - *,".'..:*** ACI 318-63 was to be a
- .- -~
i reterenced inclusion. All items are considered to be part of conunon building \sl design practice.
)1
. ""*-~
- 1
** ..::~]
-!j
'-.* ~
*.. * '*~*;*1 B-4.13
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franlclln lnstilllie
. :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 Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Conunents CC-3421.9 2306(f) Bearing ACI 318-63 is more conserva-and (g) tive, allowing a stress of 1.9 (0.25 f'c> = 0.475 f'c < 0.6 f'c CC-3431. 2 2605 Concrete Identical to ACI 318-63 (allowable stress in logic. concrete) Appen-dix II Concrete reactor vessels ACI 318-63 did not contain any criteria for compressive strength modification for multiaxial stress conditions. Therefore, no compar~son*~s ~ 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.
CC-3531 All Rather conservative for ., ..: service loads. Using ~ of 0.9 for flexure,
. __..*;. .--: u = 1 *5
~ 0.9 ta 1
- 8 = 1.67 to 2.0 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 B-4.14
~~klin Research Center *
- A Division of The Fninklln lnstltule
__J
APPENDIX C
.*.i COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES . ." *'I
- ' **- :. ~~
- J:;
*' *.-:1
**. :~
.*:;
- .--.-~
*- ~ -.:*~
.. ***~
.:*.: ::~
~nklin Research Center A Division of The franklin lnsatute C-1
' .. . ~----*- - ... -*** ..
;
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 2 .
A Division of The Franklin Institute By Date I Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date The Benjomin Franklin Plllkwey, Phit... Pa. 19103 MD oc:r: SI 11.J//,tJ). P/i'I
*cA~E.
-me. c..,U~..wa.~ ~t"'~\c;, .-r- st. . ~,.~ ~t:U.l s-'o~ec! *-. * 'i~ea..1"" .
'~ ~~c.~fL.A. \."'- s~ l.'5'. t. '2.. . of t~<- f\ l ~<:. code_
~ \"\. ~ \'\Co~ Q.~ l<i8o* ~ ~
~" -= o. 4o ~ - - - Ct) .kuJ -. -U.& ~e~ Cl.~
ef~ ."... 't'~i sr-~ l"hc.....~
\.-'cwt.\;(.'-, ~-n tkt. \'\:!o Cid.c.. o. ~ ~ t.;.t.'2.2 ic,,
\~t-ro~c.sul ~~ tk.o...t ;
. 1 0
A-c. b~ e"""1 Cl;n\.."t\.(.~ Ulkc.rt. ~ t;;r 1~ il. c.ore.4.. .
~ \ ...... !';)~~ ~~~ lol~ ~ .,_~aak'. occ.~.,..
h<l $,~ "-~ ~ ~~ ~l -ti..._.~~) (ff" ~ 0..
'.**)
c,.__~ of She4-r a_Q,,'""'d 0- t~ ~ t k ~-~
- ~ ~ o...~ a... .
te"r~ J .\ .. oa < ~, Ol\..-c.t..e. a..~£.C.- ... " . ~*... :~ o 1Pa *r.. :. ~ ~ ~..;~ ~- . *F" :;O.:io*i=- . . .
'L~ . __ - - *a * -0 1 -~-----
- v
- A IAlhc."'c. tt.....:. ~~ G\.-t"UL. t.. ~ ......:. *....... ""'ek ~
~U.<~..,~~~-~~.I/
fCc.f<<--<..;d ii._ t\...<.. l'i~~ ~"W\c.-~ a-1.. r;;. C. 1.S. l.'2..
~ c:.m""e.~ a.~ ~~ :.i. ~ t:iu:a..~7 -r:-~
~c- ca-. he... ~ ~ . .
O. 3o fl,,- ~ + o.Sq fJ~ ~ (2.) w'-'tAG. A-v- a-4.. At "'~ -tk '""~ sA~ av.....a .....er ~ on.c.u ~~- .
.J.n 6"1"dc.~* -t ~ -tk e.{fuZ" o j f..~ ~k. cha-.?- J 3 sc.t;. cf eAJ,.; M~~ , ~ !tj~ i cae./f~, f".
wc..-e.. tuiA..- ~ ( (,J,{.._ 1-~ l°"'JL- 4-11 '?f. ~ fUSC strJ
/Jl~) we.~c.. ~. . .
-rhc Ye.S~ ;,b~ ~ u.1t~d* e~ (1).( tz..) a..bcrv<
,;,~~ ~ i:t..e.* t'f3a Cod'- r~- ~
-re~""°e.t.!:. o.5 Sh~UlY\. ~ t\...<.. foiCaw4 Ta.bu.ea...~'
~~) sG~ee.. -A-
~nklin Research Center Project Page .
C5257 c-:_ 3 By Date Date Rev. Date
.....; A Division of The Franklin Institute - i , Th~ Benjemin Franklin P..,.._, Phi~ Pa. 19103 tv\,D OC.T. "81 tc/'il
.. -j BE~M El'iD cor:~!EC'.'T!O~' 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 PCT. 1963 CON: t CIFIO c:nDr~ 360fl0 0 60000. 12.00 1.00 o.74 112suo. 104400. 40. 36(100. 60000. 12.00 1.50 o.74 112eoo. 131,401). 22. 36ono. f;l)OOO. 24.00 1.00 (1 .-14 345600. 104400e 10. 36000. 60000. 24.00 1.00 2.4R 345600. 206EIOO. 40. 36000. 6COOO. 24.00 1.50 0.,74 345600. 1.3 "400. 61. 36000., 6(1000. 24.00 1.50 2.ae 3456(1('1. 23Gl?OO. 31. 3600(1. 6QOQ0 0 24.00 2.25 n 0 74 345600. 17~400. 4fl. 3600C. 6COv0 0 :?.+.oo 2.25 ?.
- H! 345600. 7.83800. 18.
36000. 601'\00. 36.00 1.00 2.48 51i1400. 208800. 60. 36000. 60000. . 36.00 1.00 4c81* 51S4(10
- 348600. 33.
36000. 60000. 36.00 1.so 2.,46 5.10400. 2388fJO *. 54. 36000. 60000. 36.00 1.50 4. !11 518400. 378601). 27. 36000. 6000.0. 36.00 2.25 2.4n 516400. ,283800. 45. 36(100. 60illj()o 36.00 2.25 4.81 51A400 0 4231'00. tA. soouo. 7U0l10
- 12.00 1.C'O o.74 240000. 121300. 49.
50000. 70000. 12.00 1.50 o.74 240000. 156600 .. 35. 50000. 10000. t?..00 2.25 o.74 240000. 209300. 13. 50000. 70000. 24.f'Q J.oo o.74 480000. 121000. 75. 50000. 70000. 24.00 1.00 2. 46 480000. 243600. 49. 50000. 7000(l. 24.oo 1.50 o.74 480000 *. 156800. 67 *. 500fJO
- 10000. 24 .. 00 1.50 '2.48 480000. 270600. 42 ..
50000. 10000. 24.00 2.25 0.14 480000. 209300. 56. 50000. 70000. 24.00 2.25 2.48. 4ROOOO. 331100. 31. soooo. 70000. 36.0(J l.OO 2.48 120000. 243600. 66 .. soooo. 7000,,. 36.00 1.00 4.1'11 720000. 406700. 44. 50000. 10000. 36.00 1.50 2.48 120000. 278600. 61. 50000. 10000. 36.00 1.50 4. ~1- 720000. 441700. - 39. II 50000. 10000. 36.00 2.25 2.48 720000. 331100 *. 54. 50000. 70000. 36.00 *2. 2 '5 4. R1' 720000. 494200. 31. 65000. 80000*. 12..00 1.00 Ou74 -312000. 1.39200. ss.
.: 65000. R0000 0 12.00 1.50 0.,74 312000. 179200-. 13.
65001). 80000. 12. (10 2o/.5 0. 74* 312000. 23'l2QI'\. 23. 65000. aoooo. 24.00 1.00 o. 7.~ b2*HJ00e 139200. 78. 65000. 80000. 24.00 1.00 2.., 4R 624000. 278400. 55. 65000. aoooo. 24.00 1.so o.-74 624000. 179?.00o 71. 65001). eoooo. 24.00 1.50 2 o4R* 624000. 31A400. 49. 65000 *. soooo. 24.00 2.25 o.7-4 624000. 239200. 1)2. 6500(1. eoooo. 24.00 2~25 2 48 0 62400(1 _. 3701\00. 39.
., 65000. 00000. 36.00 1.00* 7..46 936000. 278400. 70.
>> 65000. 80<'00. 36.00 1.00 4.81 936000. 464R00 0 so.
65000. soooo. 36.00 1.50 2.48 936000. 31!l400. 66. 65000. 00000. 36,.00 1.so 4.81 936000. 504ROOe 46. 65000. POOOO. 36 * .00 2.25 2Q48 936000. 3784(1(). oO. 65000. ~oooo. 36.00 2.25 4.01 93b000., 56.4801)., 40. NOTES: 1~. A[,T,Or/ABI,E. LnADS !1RE GIVEII PER HICH OF' liEB THICKiJF.SS 2* PC'!= !'ERCE'1T Of l'Hc; RE[*UCTIDl* Of PF.RCEIVF.D ~ARGIN Of SAFETY
- ~>;:*;1; -*-**--**-~---*--**-*----*--***- - . ...... *------*---.....
- I~-~i?
'M ~n~in Research Center Project Page C5257 4
- * * :--.:i
. *.'.:-.._:;:'..]
.....:I A Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben~min Franklin Parilw.y, Phila.. Pa. 19103 By Rt</r---to Date
\0 /81 I;!//: ";
Ch'k'd Date Jo_/ti Rev. C-Date
. *<]
- .!
. **.:~ ~ . . *'.~ />.;j CAse.. STvcy Z C.QMPABll\IG SHORT cou.lMNS 25~
A~: b2.S IN'2. By 318- 6'3 AMC> 3Y.9-76
~.:p G.25 IN~
. > *" '-h.- tf-#11 = 6.2.Y IN"
" ... _.,. .- i1*.. CLOSE TO 1% Ps
?i:\1 SHORT COLUMNS
- _**..-. j SEC.. 1'10~@ (AND IL!02 ACI. '318-.69.)
. ;
fc. = 3,ooo +/- I PS I ) , ., P-= .. e-s [Ci:t~C2s f~*+-rs.Pgl] ( ;s = .Lfx yo,ooo =16,oco PSI
= .ss[62SIN~(.2.S('!,OOO}t 1~,ooo(.01D
=- .as [ 62S (750 +*160TI = l..j s 3. ooo ,.. csi:Fw1c.E L.oPti:>)
- I. ay '31.\q-7<, sec. 10.:;.s Pll =- cf> .so[ss f~ (A~ - Rs~> + 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. D. L. ~ L. L. t."+i'l.7
- 2. = 1.5 s
*! =#
THEN SERVICE LOAD = 1,02'3, 000 - 660,000 1.s s - INCREASE OF
- 660 - ~ 8 3 x 100 % = '36. 6 %
L.(83 F..:i~ S~ .. ~.."\ <:~L\Jt""\tJ"> ~~ Pli.'~" 1 <:1u~ co DES we.ee
. l'-'\\J C. H !'W\ oi<! e; . <:.o l\J S'E ~ "AllV e
,~--------------------~-=---~~:--...---~~~--~...---~------_.;....;...,,.._,,..,..........,,__~_....J~--- __
1.
~ ' *1
__ ,_,____,___ ~--..:----** . * -- ___ _i___.._.:_ ______ --- -
*-- ---------- ------------. ---------~ - --*--*-------------*
-:i
~nkHn Research Center Project Page C5257 c-A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjomin franklin Pori<w.y, Phola.. Pa. 191 OJ By R'</r--1D Date
*ol '31 Ch'k'd
;;;;:_.<,!J Date
/.J *>,
Rev. 5 Date e CASE STUD.\ S~-m p\e Campa.rTSO"l\ Bdw.e.~ 5treY\5~ ( U\*H,..,,o..te) <A-nd A\-rer"l"lo.t~ ( Wo'r"\c:.lr\~ ::st°t"esc;) D.e~ij-ns Sa.m~\-e Sec:+eo-n
* . \i Al\owo..\:i\ Stresses
*.. ,~j 4---13---l
-.:~
/i-n " - Jrr.\.de
'*=i
*3
**:~
T , .. 60 " /-:, ... ~ CoY"crete : ( -fc =3,ooo 3coo
.,1 fc =-
lb
\35"0 ./ "Y'.='\)
-~;
-:i 11 6
. ~ ..... . j
*. 'lt°; 4' Re mfo rel,.,~
l..,**-*1 . l I ~* r , stee\ trr~de
- Lt. o
( .f~ ~ A*o, oao
- 1-b/tn.,_ .J f'S' ~ J. 0 i 000 ( bfi'-n2}
*;
As-= Lo..!to b?.r-s = l~*bb 1112. I. By 5tre-n~~ D-es.1'9-n
*I I~*"'-*
( There 'ls o.. lr-m"Lt of .0218-' f .- - . 01234 Sut o... (( re<Asun~ble " oles:c:ri Ii l<. S"l .* TS . hoJC of this.).* q,.. = , . o\ 234 (~) -=
- 1. '74-S- \
3 I . j M\) = .q [ (I g *) ( 5'"7 "J 2 ( 3 i</lr'\"J..) (
- I (:.tt s) ( ( ~ . 64 c. If:,lf..S)]-=-
- ' °;.
2.li +5" 0 I/ jc. u~
-~
As~mil'\~ /.._ . L.. -::: D* L ) . . I*+ ?t-1-1 = 1*5S'"(D+L)
. Tue -rnomeY'lt -+1-\e'l"I rs e9uivo.\eYit fo °' I( se ... vic e 11
* .* "ll'lomen+ . . ~K_/i
= r- °::2 ~!<.
o f .l 3, ~ 50 / I* S-5' I ~; I ~ 0
..:..; ________, ___ *--*-*--- ..*--**----------.---- .... ***-**-*-*-- -*
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 c- 6 I
Oat Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute Th~ Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phola.. P1. 19103 10/s1 f,)!!;} /11)8'/ 1[. fi-ndi-n~ -\-\,e \o~fron of the 11evtro.I o..'lels X (= \<d) l<i? x ( X) - q (12-b(,)(~1-x) So\ vt-Ai / x. -= \{cl -= JI . '11 ' {II
-the l'nome"'t O\r'YY\ = j~ = 2-I* 2.J = 4~-C\ I y 2 ( ~. "3 s ~<../ iYll.) ( l gII) ( ). I . 2 7., ) ( 4 q . 'l I~) == / 2..1 q00 ,, /<
12-66 m"l.( w ~/m"l.)(4C\.'\I) - \i,.bto~~
- .,~*. >
~
( <<:Si o ver-n 5)
.. * ..:**1
. . .~
. :.:-")
- -.*.*.'...*.. ":j
- /~-~_::\~
I. Co1'c\vs\on : for R.ec.+o..""Jv \o.(' Be.Gt-ms , Th~ wor~m~ s;-,.~.s Des:l:~-ns ( Corrimo"fll1 vsed when -folloWl>"ld .+h-e e~rlie.I"'"
. :~
AC.!. ~lg c.odes) vJer-e . C.on"::>~dero..b\/ -mof'e
*-1 C.On seY-VO.til/e. .. .~
. *-.-; '
. *- -~
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 7 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute
. - - '~ . The Benjamin Franklin P*kWllY. PlulL. Pa. 191 OJ ~."D .sEP-r:, "6'\ ;;:A//// 1~/?'/
' . -~
- .~
CASE STUD! Ref AISC Subsection J., L\ Co lu-m"flS
I"""' +lie plo..~e. of be..,.,dm~ of c.o I umns w h1d1 would olevelop o. flo.sirc hm~e o.t ultf"FY'o:te.
I0 Cl\.d~& J ~e sle'YlderY'less f'o..tio *~ ShC4ee "'"t
")'.c.-ee c\ c. c,---
whefe Cc=~ J~ F= 2~ *x 103 \<51 f"~ = y le \cl s+res~
--J.
r L 7S6*b K'ef AISC Code Svbsect"lan 2. ~ Co lu-m-ns
\\
I."1\ tlie plo.:ne of be-ndl11} of colUmT\S tvhld, i.vovld olev~\op <A pl°'-s+lc hl)'\de at Uf+T.,..,,q,te
.*. /oadm~ , The. s\eY1<:\erness ra.i'\o . shcdl 'Ylol- *
~~ee.d r 10,, * * * "
-J_r
~- .:
L I 2..0
.~ .
. -* ----*'**-**< _,.,; .. :.. _. ..:..,~--*. -- .
~nklin Research Center Project Page A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjornin Franldin P""'-, Phila.. PL 19103 Bv MO C5257 Date SEP,-, S 1 I Ch'k'd f'//f:t/.
Date
;://"
Rev. C- B Date
'W\-\\c:.'h o~ the:. t"wo coJc.s '1~ t"-'c..~o""C. "f"C.~t-tic:.t.Wt
""" e;< -r~ J~pe~ds d't\ t~L ..JieQd * ~tv-c-..i-C~ of
~C. $l~~
- u..~e.J. -{n- t"'c.. <:.o~""' ""'L I) Both c.odes ~Ive ~ - 12.0 r
Cc. - = \'20 Fd-=- 4o KSI
;z_) '"'~ 1980 Cede. 'i~ s z "'""o~ <:.d-r\S<<.:<"1.1~ whe~
.J.
--;::-=lilt=
-, S-6 . '
-thenJ F'a- :. ~ '1
.J F<f 1<st.
I Seo.le
----.©
- _\ ....
- -:j
._*: *.....~ ~
.. ,* . ~,
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjllmin Fronklin Porkway, Phda.. Pa. 19103 CA~E: STUD! k'ef AISC 1.10.s.3
" T..,, glrdeY-S de~\~ned 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 CoY1+°'-lvi'.i°YI~ lo..rge holes .1 o..,.,J a.t F°'"" els o..djl'..C~"Y'lt +o pa."rle\s c.(ft\i"o..IY1l"Y\d- IC\.r~e holes shed\ be Suc.h -th~+ fv does -noT
~)<.Ceed -the VIA-lue ~]'\JeYI II below Wher'e Cv =
5"1 3'1-4 + (a./h t
= 5"* 3Lf -+ (a.f~ )2" wh~*11 °fh ) I. o
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C-* 10 A Division of The Franklin Institute The BenjUnin Franklin Pmkway. Phil.>.. Pa. 191 OJ By HC 5EPT.
Date ICh'k'd fil /.J!l,f{ Date Ji. k; Rev. Date Ref AISC [q63 Code. . Svbseclio"'fl 1.10.s.:3 II l'he SfO-ClY\~ between s-\- I ff-e-n-eY' s a.t
~""d pa..""e\ s C\."l\d P'--ne.ls Co-nfo.Ml1-lo..r~e holes sho..11 be such~
"t\,e s-ni a. II eY- f°'-""el dlmeY\Slon or h sho..11 llot 'Xceed
°'
II
/looot.
~fv
,*_:. =}
- .. *.i
*: *.j L--------------------------------**-*--*
---- *-~ ..:,.._.,_.____________ -**-.
~nklin Research Center . '
Project Paga CS257 C- 11 By Date Ch'k'd Data Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The 8"njomin Franklin Plllkway, Phila..'Pa. 19103 MO 5~Pi. 3\ ,.
.~**7 !;
I'.,/, , ~.,,. I I~,/*.},
~*/C f?~F A ISC Sub sedl'oTI I* 10. s. a
- V'=2'+o K'I~)
l!i'XAMPt.."E h-= ,~,,
-t.-::: I ~75/f b°&';
Aw = ~8 x ~ = 2~-. s Tn-z.. V = ~o\-0 l<ipS r ju- = -- ..l.4o
-= q.06 KSI
- 2.0'
.JS, rS'
..from I* iO. S* 3 IG'\G3 G::iJe Llooot 11000 ;<.
3 /g * =. q.3-T-n G\ or h "}
.J-{v- j q.o6xlooo W*hi<:h. )s +'he di~\o.-.e~ .f<o"""' t~c. e.-:nd. o ~--l.hc. ~~ ..,..d..e.<
~ ~<- .f iY"!,t t-<o..""'iiue..-Me -=.tC~ic.""'-e.-<".
By c~-nslde. ...\~ t..t...~ te-l~rtl ..fi& Q..~ o.s sreclfied lYl l'l80 Code !1~b s e..ctum \.lo.5'.3
-fi.r = q.oG !'st - h ::. -62' .::: I~ I ~ ~ =~~=~*bis t *37S wk :: 4-5.3~
+(O.fh).1..
'1- + 5 .3+
(: bl8);z,,
= i 7. '1 g
- ,: __ j 4-5000~ - 4-SiXO x; 17. qg -=:
- 6l?~
Cv- F~ (:{/t::)* 3~ CIS l).i.
'Fv- - i.gq F-a-
-Cu- ~ .'t-'1-
-- - 3f, *x** 1b'l"~b = ~.S't Ks\ ¢ fro7Y'\ ~ble IO*.?.(;; tk.
.,; .2*i~
~.::
AteowQ.\o.Q~ s\,c;.a..~ ..:it-tc.~~ rf.J -g'."<a Ks( (che.t.~.ser-\ ...ttiA. '1a...~,)
\--.owev~.r_, _Qowe.r t\.-.a.""- f.J o J * '1.o (p J<. ,>i.
. .L Sca.E'.e s_ {.sv ~'~ e.:;<.o..-.~
._.:.,,;,,~-*--------*--h*------- **-- . .**.* ~
..*..*. *.~
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 12 By Date Rev. Date
' *~ *:; A Division of The Franklin Institute
. ;
llie Benjunin FrMldin Pukw.,, Phila., Pa. 19103 M.0
, . ,Y,!
';- j
- I followm(t +wo fr~vres show fV lfo.ri'ovs I/a.Ives of' A IH a:nd f~ .
B/ \:::-no""'"'~ -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 .
-- .j
r-- . * * * : * *" I~.*. :--* ' *
' *, . ' ~*
***** . .'1..' .. c*..*.
*:.. ' ***** : ** 1 ,,:....~** **
, ! /**
I* ** .*..
~* ..
l' F'1:: 3G,. o 1-<~I fl fu' *
. (~SI) n 01 N
01
- - - - - - - - Flf, A/H:. 4.0 fv' I All/:. 4.o 0
~~ l..
n I
... - ._. .... :.....~ ... -**
iI ' I Fv = oo.o l\SI SfRE~ LlMIT 20 t
.4*fv= 20.D l<$I i**
- Fv t Fu:' !
( K5I) 10 Fl1, NH= 4.0 r-----~-------. 0 200 600 4W A/T n I 0 ID I-'
.i::-
* ! ~
-* .. -*--*-- -~
~nklin Research Center Project Page .
C5257 C- 15 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date
*;*: ... :; A Division of The Franklin Institute /?. . * .. --*. The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phila** Pa. 19103 MD .SEPT. 1 81 J .,,")(_.(; **:. :';
1..*.*:: CASE STUD'( - b-Ret AISC SecrToY"I ;;2 *1
-me Width - thic.k-ness
- ro.tlo fOr"' f\o.-n~e of ro \\ed w, M1 or S sh~pes a.--nd sl-m1\o.r bvl\'t- vp s:m~\e.,. Web s ha..pes h.C\.t- woulq 6-E!.
s v 'oJ ec\ ec\ to c.G-mp ressla~ ~volv~Yl~ hrn~e r 0 TI>.t't oYl Under v l+-Tmo.te.. loo.di-fl~ s~o..11 'Y\ot
-e~ceed +he fo \low'rn~ vo..\ueG :
F~ K~I bfh 3b g,!;" 42.. z.o 45 I . '-t 7.0 I. S-0
- rs- 6.6 bO (.3 6~ {.o
" -rhe wTd+h - +hie kness r~ti"o of sTrnllo.rly C(j'Yl'\pressed flo."'6e phtes 'f"h box
- sec+lolls und
- c.over f lo.'tes sh"ll "Y1ot -~ceed /1 tcro Fa-11 t: 'l< o..mf\e ~* b/t 6 - I '{,Q F4-
*r- v'J 36 31.1 so 2.b*q
- - <~1
- ... :* -~ 15" 2.2.
.:*.*- {00 1q
----*--~*---* ---*----------~ .. -****--=*---'-***--*
~nklin Research Center Project Page av
. CS257 Date ICh'k'd Date Rev.
c- 16 Date A Division of The Franklin Institute se-PT. "'31 .**1~ ' / . : /*_ .. The ee..;...... Fronlclin Pan.-y, P!lila., P1. 191 Ol ~c -:--~~?': ; -' .1 I
- .* .._: -rhe de~th - ~lc\<"Y'ess. ro.+10 of webs of
'1'Yl~~rS su~eded +o pla.s+lc bndm~
Sho..\\ -not -elCCed ..... " d/t == 41~ (I -1.y.£:..) wheY\ L f.O. "l7 Jr~ Pia p~ F~ d/t
. <- ~ . 3G 6~*7
- ------~
1-- L:. = o.o
~
5"0 ;-g.3 47.6
.* 7~ ;<.(li *.
100 4 I. 2. .. :----.:~
":;.j '
when _e_ d/t. :: 2.f;J r ) D~J..7
.../f~ P}.
*: --~
-......... ~ .
~:/. *jl*,
j Fit d/t
-~
36 42-8
- *... :~
so 36. 3
- -- . ~
IS' 30
. l 00 25.7
._____ L.__ _ _ _ ____;____;__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
.* .*. -~ .
~nklin Research Center Project Page
. --- ;
CS257 c-- 17 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute ::.t=~T, !?I The Benjamin Fronklin Parkw.y, Phila., Pa. 19103 1-v\!::i I
£;?1.j/ /.J 'rfl Ref AISC Sec.-t'io'Yl 2 *b
" Projedl'Yl~ -e.leme-nt., +hG\t wovld be .subjeded
+o c.o--m pre~laY\ ~val vIn~ plo..s+le h(i, ~e rota. t1 <m under ultTYl'!"tc. loo.diYI& sho..11 f\a.ve. wld-tt, -
t~lck:ness. ro...t!o Y10 ~reCA.ter ma-n +he fo 1lowm~ : 11 by; 4 f g, 5 /<oiled Sho..1;)es
~/q f. 3 2 Bo~ SecHoYlG
\\
~he depth - tl,1ck'Y'ess rC\tfo of - bea:m
*C\.""~ 'fil<'der webs svb,feded +o plo..sfTc..,
beY\d 1-n~ I/ 15 ~ lv~-n b'I the follow?ti(f
-for-rnv lo. ,* .. :;: . p
- ~
-1/ L 70-(0o-
£.f 3. ~ cy vJ p~
- .. ---..:...:.;;
... ~-- -=:; *-~~-~*-*.1 Re"mar k'S
.. -.,_.*.;..l
- _; ,__ _
-rhe !Cll,3 Code -r""ke mm ~CC.OUTlt "YhoJer!o..l .:-_* :*~ --~
for A~6 of f<t =36 !<SI or less ( noie +ho-t
-th~ wo c.odes foy- F~ = 3£).
c:Are +1-ie same
;
; ~~
-;
.-1 If -the stNActvre wta.S Je5"l~ned usTrid 1'Y1C\tercctl
.-*_.*:~." -~i ho..vm& hl~Ylec yield / -the des1jl"I ~~ht ~at
.be c:a.~iabee.. \.4..'Y\.c!c:v- r't"e.Sc"l\t ~1~~w.e""'t.s.
r; ~ 3' l<st © 3( -<rd <3~ 1<s1 F(J- 2. 3& l<Sl @
..
- li
- '::.J
.: l
- ~ ~nklin Research Center Project C5257 Page C- 18
. *. *l
, *.~
A Division of The Franklin Institute The Beni-min Franklin ParloNy, Phola.. Pe. 19103 By I-'\ D Date SEF'I. /8\ I Ch'k'd
/!_)/,.)
Date lq/?J Rev. Date C.ASE- STUD! -'f-Ref A-ISC 1qgo Code Sec:+coYl )..q ~i-e ro..\ ll "mem brs 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. vo.\~e deter-m~.,.,ed
-fro"""
.* M
..J!.cr -== 13.75""
+2s W~eY'l . l*O /Mr> -o.~
y-'1- F~
. *. . '.'l
~
or .J.cr- - 137S whe..,, -0.5 2 > -1*0 Y"d- f~ Mr
.**~
1.1 i.
- ~
..lc.r/r~ F}: 3' kS'I 5"0 7S' /00 I)~ )-.s 6.3*2. 52.s- 43. 3 38*7S
~;
. ), M 13. 7S
-*5"
~
- /-1.0 Ylr 3g. 2. ~7-S- \c?* :i
,_J__ _ _ _ _ _ _..;..__ __.;..._ _.;..__ _ _ _ _ _~---------*--*-
~nklin Research Center Project Page CS257 c- 19 By Date .Date I Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben~min Fronklin Parkway, Phila.. P& 19103 "1D s-e~T. /81 / ..)/.~~~'
Ref Al SC ll:f6"3 Code. SeclToYl 2*~ ~tero.\ 8,.."'-clY'lrj-VJh~"r\ ~~ '°*'OYl"l~'V\t de.ff"fl(-\-(oY\ I<; Ca"YY'p~tble. WT-th -+he l'\g'O Code)
-the forn'l\J Jo.. for- Jlcr/ rca- beco"'WleS '.
3S <t; - bO + lt-o Mf 1:L_
' xo..m'p\ e. _fJ. Cf'
.1:1 MF r~
[ (OQ O* bo
-,5" 40
'C'QIVC: L. u'Slou ~
~e fT~vre w hie~ -follows ( Jl.crjr l/S. M/Mf'.)
'"d1'car,.rt:4'c.t (11 A-~<.. seed.(~"~' ks~) (t M S'co..le.
o<~.(J. IV\ . o'> Mf /-I @ No+e \he . ~Vm7Y'O-r(J l's bg.-sed OY\ 'Y'Y'o. +er!<>.I wTt-h
- F~ :=36 ~ other 'YY\0tei:-!~l should
-. -;,.:* .:~j be e'f.o-.mlY\ed cm ~ CAse by* . Co. S~ bo. sis.
-; - *. ~ .
~nkHn Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 20 By ,,,.
Date Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Park_,,, Phila.* Po. 19103 M.D 5EPT. S'I
.*.:1 l..cr rd-
.. _*--*--'OCL .. ----* .....
LI 1+ \Jsm8-1--_ _ _ _._,__ _ _*/10- --:._. *.! 1'16;a coce-
.--~
f "'3 SI f =-so K'SI
. -l,o- .._, _ _ _ _ ,_ _____ ,,
-1 -.S' 0 . 5'
. :J
.i L___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .....L _ _ _ _
-- -- -~-
~nklin Research Center.
Project Page . C5257 c- 21 By Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franl<lin Pori<wcy, PhilL PL 19103 RA SEPi i?I C(TSE: STUDY - '8 - Compar\soY\ of Sec+io"Yl 2. 3 .J Calvm-ns ( ~lSC.,, l'i b~.) wi#i s~ctron ..{. 4 J Columns (A 1SC.. l't '80)
/\\SC 1'180 Sle-nder Yl ess rcdi o -For 7-n eo'Y)+'inv os ** fra,,mes where Co\umns In Col'l\-i'nuos side.wo..y l's ""'ot prevented_, T's -f'rC\me5 wheY'e S1deswo..y Ts li-m'i°ted 67 Fof"')'fHJIO.. ( 20 J -not pre vevi\ed) 'Y\o+ IIm *t ed
+o OYl.1.y 10 . Gut . \.1,.,,1red
. 2..P + 1:. L.. 1.0* by Foi'"m.vlo.:s ( ~.q :. :. . to.) o.-nd*
Py 7o r Ci* q - 1. b) <J1 "e"" below a.Y\d l....r 'l"\ot +e ~'lCCeed Cc ,1 *
-rh ~s lr,.,..m -slenderness as :JIVe-n belovJ I. Ro.-tro 1=..r ~. 10 Ovv\d °'~!a.I too..d '°Y\o+ -to ~Ced a.s Py for .:ir = 0. A\so limited by fCrmvl<A. (i6) ~*lv'eYl below.
- 2. For co\u-m >15 T'Y\ br~e.E'd i. lhe. o..xl G\l loC\d tY1 frC\mes -fhe * "Wlo.. x'I YY\vm Co( UmY\S l'Y1 bl"l\Ced fro..mes o:;< i o.. \ . IooJ p ::s }.-,""II Y\ o1
- Yiot +o e'IC cee~ o. S-'5°' Py
*.'.;
... -e-xceed O*~ . Py*
**: *. ~
.. *. ~
. ( See . Cl\se STvd7
- 4 oJso, * * -For- <;:;l~nderness ro-+lo.)
~nldin Research Center Project Page C5257 A Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben~min Franklin Paikw.y, Phila.. Po. 19103 av RA SEP7 Date ICh'k'd Date
°'f./ :(;;.:..£! !c/t'J Rev.
C- 22 Date 3- l\) Slenderness ro.tro 3 a.. o. S\~-ndef'"Yless ro.-tr o 4 -not 1-o -e~ceed I £.o ...Q
\'"'
'ho+ +o eicc~ed . C.c
..*. **' s where.
b) -rh e o..\\ o\.Vo..'b\' 10\.-\-.e'<'l\\\ y vn.supported drs+a..Yice for F'y =- 3b KS i ~ M
.lcr = ( bO -4o) Mp '('! ' Cc - 12~. 1 tormulo. (lb) But_ .e.cr 4: 357 3 .b. The . _lo..terl\ll y UY'*supported
- c. ) 'ho+ +o e'.Cceed clisto.Ylce Jlc.r "t\o+ -le e'l<Ce~~
'fh-e -fol\ OWIY)~
- !:::::_ - Ii7y + 2. 5 ( 2 i a. J
' . : J*;
. .l
.I ry S"
Whe11 +I* 0 )' 2j_ / -o.S-
. *.~
!'J\p
. 1
. ~~
.- ..i - 1375'""
Fy
-- 0.'<\ f CllSe .
. -~---
~nklin Research Center Project Page A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franl<lin P..._. Phila.. Pa. 19103 By Rlt C5257 Date
~Er*r'ft Date lq/"(}
Rev. C- 23 Date e 4 (Cl.) I7'+et"O..Ctlo-n ~rmu lo.s -fOr S!->-i~le curVC\-h.u*e. l\re. f"or"WHJ\O. ( 2"'2...J f;rmv \"' C.2 *t -2..) _M__: B-g.(L) L 1.0 __E_ + Cm M Mp Py !: 1-0* Pc,. (1-L) M Pe m M f Mp l\. nc\ fOr'rYl v IC\. ( ::l.. ~ ) O..'Y'a Forinulo.. (2-4-3) 2..
~ ~ l* o - H ( /p1 ) - J ( iJ'py) p + M L \. o ~ Mf Mp P'/ l.18 Mp - ..,
V"'\ ves of .BJ q) H o:nd j wh~ Pu ; (. 7 A Fo.. lrs1ed IY'l ta.b\~"5 l\6 a.. P** -= 2 3 A f ~:f' .
-0 nct'rOYl of s\e~aerness
- ra.tlo .' '2...
~-nc\ F'} -Fo.. ~\v'e.Yl by (I* S"- I ) C\nd Fe 5NeYl In Sed-ean !* b* I lb) I-ntet'"°'c-tTan -ft>,mula.s -£,r t1 -m = Mp ( brl\ced m the.
c:{oub\e curVC\tufe. o..re Wea.k *
- Gir~ct'lan )
For"rl\U\C\. ( 21) fYl .f Mp -£,r o/p/ L 0.1 S == L (.01 -(o/ry LJFY] Mpf ~p ( p/ 3\bO Mrvl 'f .\.\i-\.\S . IP/ )5=. /.o F . ( Un 6ro.ced In W0..k dl/'ecFiim)
*- '"*' -for Pjp~ /' 0.15""
G\. Y\cl For' mu IC\. .*(12..) . o.) Fof' s'm~le curvcd*vre ()
- b .: CW\ f.: l
- 0
_ti_ *-~ 13- <q-(.L) ~ 1. 0 '
. ~ *.
Mr Py b) -for double Cur VC\.1-ur-e
*-:; .
tv'\ L Mp a*Lt = en\ ~ O* b
~. ':~,:'
- .. *~.* .* ~
- ._:*/
* ~nklin Research Center Project Page.
By
. C5257 Date Date Rev.
C- 24 Date
-1
.. *. A Division of The Franklin Institute
~A
* ) 1
*... oj The Benjainin Franklin Patkwll)', Phila.. Pa. 19103 SEPi '6/ 1:-A'"I 1
..* :*1
*1
--~
for C01'Ylpctrlso>'\ of *'ese. spe.clf\CG\t(cn1s .1 ~ro..phs of
- ~-;:~
P/py vs M/Mp O\r"e drct.vJ"r1 ~Y- sle-nder'Yless ra.t'lo of '30~70 o,:nd ICO. Ty pie.a.I Cclum-r\ /Lf 'vF /So V.iith Fy = 36 ksl hGl:S been . ~ken 0.'5 an ec;a:m pl-e
. -*~j fOr"' our"' purpos-es Sepamte 8ro..phs o.r'e c{r~wn -fOr
."': ~1 s~5le cucv<Xt-ure ( o. b .= C.,,., .f: (. o) a.nd dbubl-e..
/::1 Cu..-vo..-ture. ( o *4 .f:: C.m f: o. b ) c.o.. ses .
*._:':;
For- fr<A'n"IC:'S with s~des wo...y ( Cm = o. 85") a.I\ owed ...
~ro..phs of %~ vs ~/Mp o..re dro..vJ YI for""
... ~
~
Two +ypes of colv,.,,.,, s 14 v..F I S"o o.nd 12 v.F 4 ~
.. : " ... ~~
-**.~ .
'-"'~ ~ == 36 l"l'\ 1-he weo. k It CaY'\
ksl,.. duec+lo"YI
- C.olol'\-nS l\ssumed he. * *1t\*fe.\'re.J.. *from +he ~r""fhs.
+o be. bf"o.ced t'1C\.t m a.II ca.secs ; -#le ..,.,,a.Jor cho..Y\5e Ts tl,e. (!mrt of a.llcwi:\.ble (,t)Ct'o..I (oo.dJ w~rd, 'ls mcrea..s-ed frorn O*S" P7 -+o 0*7S" Py ~r tNr\br~ c.olunrns ( S1deSv.Jo....J ctl lowed _) l\nd 0 b Py +o. O* gs- Py -JC,... b~ce~ .
1 co!u-m11s. But" +he ~cc..ep+C\.hle de~l"3n re3 ~on.* 1in bot+\ c..cdes Is CA.liYlos+ so.me. For s'rn~le c..urva.-\vre we Y)otice fOr k.Q = 3o ~e. FOr)t\vl"'- r (1*4-2.) (r"'e -fOr- Cm::.i.o Ts b.Q\ei14.J -r-h.e lln~J ~Q
;,;.
'i fo'C"'-mulc\...()..3) bur -fOr :. 70.1. --r-hey overlo...p l\')'\d ~r ~.Q._: (00.1 lhe. f;,r.,.,,ulo... (..l.*4" --l) -for C.n-r-==- l .*0*
Is <Above. th~ ~rmulo.., (.i.~ ll"ne;* "Thus ~f" M -= 3a 14~o c.octe b1ng ">"riore c011servo..-TI11e..)
~ h"il-e. -fOr Ke_r .::: I oo ..J * \Cf(,~ c.ode Se.ems .
+c be. ~ 1'YI Or'"e_
e C.CY\ ser vv..tiv'e . bes+ CA5 r:.,1._
*n'ls c.ho..Y\~e <:0.11 -thus be. dC\ s<;ifreJ
.,!. ch°"Y\~e.
- -***--.:....--~*-~*-*----*--* .:~ ..
~nldin Research Center Project Page
*cs2s1 C- 25 A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Park-. Phila., PL 19103 By RA Date 0
SEPi '6'I J!/4.J/ Date
/.;. 'i/
Rev. Date e Fy
- 36 ksi i,..l
- 30 14 vv= JSO SI!IGL.E Cl:"R\"An:R.E 1963 Code 1980 Code Formula (22) : !. B:-G_(P /Py) .i 1. 0 (2.4-2) L + _.-cm,.,M,,,__ !. 1. o p p p er (1. - p->~
e 0.6 < c c 1.0
- m.-
Formula (23) M !t !, l
- 0 - H(P/P"1 ) -
- J(P/Py) 2 <2
- 4- 3 ) Ppy + l. l!t8,'L' -" l. O, !t !. M....
p 11 TYPICAL .EXAMPLES
~O+----+-------------------------...--- .......--~-------,
I
.. ,,,s o*'- o.'7 c.A o.~ 1.a .-:** ' 1>1l11p
____ _ _ L
- '. I
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin P.,._, Phila.. Po. 19103 Project By RA C5257 Date0 Ch'k'd SE.PT 1ll /,~>I.~'
Date Page Rev. c- 26 Date F
- 36 ksi ~
- JQ* 14 .....150 y T" 1963 Code 1980 Code Fomula (21) ':!
- MP when P/Py !. 0.15 p C M O (2. 4-2) -+--m-..,,.. __ !, l.
p p er (l - p->~
- .i MM !. l.18 - l.18(P/Py) !. 1. 0 e
*p p M Formula (22) ~'I !, B-G(P/Py) !, 1.0 (2. 4-3) py + l. lBMP !, l. 0, M !, Mp
.. M !.~
JI. Jl<JI,, T'lPI CAL EXA.'fi'LES I!
.Jl<M.
)I
'-!I II.
..e I.II r ~---J.---
Py
- *A ~
1'!90 CoDli!' Wl'll"I' Cm"~. !., Foru.,1.11.-'1 ('i..'fo -2) I. <M! - 0,1.
..;....._ ___...____ ._
~nkJin Research Center.
~. *. ;;
Project Page CS257 C- 27 j....B_y.:....--------~~~;,;:~D~a-t_e__"T"~C-h'~k7'd-:---~D~a-t-e-t"~R~e-v-.----~O;a:t:e"i~ A Division of The Franklin Institute
~E ?i f;P~t/:
1 The Benjamin Franklin Plllk...y, Philo.. P*. 19103 {(A 3'1 F
- 36 ksi ll
- iO 14 .,,,- lSO SI!>CLE: Ct.'RVArtlRE y T 1963.Code 1980 Code Formula (22) ; - !. B_--G(P/Py) !, 1.0 ....!'..... + _ _,.,mCM.,,...-- !. l . 0 C:?.4-2) p .,
p er (l - f"H1;.
!1 !. 'ii e o. 6 < cm. < l. 0 p _M_.- < 1 *O !1 < M_
(Z. 4- 3 >
..~~., !. 1.0 -
2 Py + l.lSMP - * ' * - -., . Formula (23) H(P/Py) - J(P/Py) TYPICAL EXA.'IPL!S l*O
.. :_;'. OJl
..E,
*~
._ .. _.i C.oOli C..IMI
~-_:**.:~ P7 &JI* .
- ..-: *: -:~:~
;~ :i 0.1
-**:;
- )
1
*-- o-: -~
~1
- ~
. 01 .... I o.a.. Oo'3 o.'t o.s O.'- 0.7 o.g 0*'1 l*O
'l MIMp
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Fronklin POlkw<sy, P!nla., Pa. 19103 By RA Date SEPT'g1 l,;;:J-x.:.'
Ch'k'd Date
.,// :- '
;. /
Rev. C- 28 Date
. **i "....:*i - . *.. ,.. :~
F y - 36 ksi .,. l l . ;o 14 ....... 150 COL11LE C'.Jlt\'..\n-.U: 1963 Code 1980 Code C M (2.4-2) _P_+ Cl !. 1.0 Formula (21) M
- M.
p when P/Py
< 0.15 p
er p (1 - p-l~1p 0.4 < c
.1!..
M
< 1.18 - l.18(P/Py) < 1.0 e
- "' - o.11>
p (2. 4-3) p M Py+ 1.18.1> .::_ l.O, M !. Mp Formula (22) : !. B-G(P/Py) !. 1.0
. - j I'
M !. Mp JI. ll<M. TYPICAL EX.~!PLES Ir Jl<M.
)J
\:I M,,
;
.i! ~o P-t .
. -~
o... *- -COlll: Ll"llT . 0.1- *-
-a+---~*.-,---~~~---~~a----o.~t---o-.~----o.~&---~-1----~~v=---o~.7~---:,.o M/Mp e*
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 29 By Date Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute SE.PT ~I 1
The Benjamin Franldin p.,.._, Phila., Pa. 19103 RA ;,,~<ri F
- 36 ks1 ll . 100 14 ,,,, 50 SWGLE: Ct."R\'ATURE:
y, r 1963 Code 1980 Code
....L+ __cm...,,..
It __ !_ l.O Formula (22) : !. B.-G(P/Py) !. 1. 0 (2.4-Z) p p p er (l - p->~ e o. 6 -
< c111-< l. 0 Formula (23)
M M"' !. 1.0 - H(P/Py) - J(P/Py)-
' (2. 4-3) :y + l. l~ln ,i 1. 0, lt r
!. !ii p
TYPICAL EJOOIPL:ES rrr /j ftl f1 !r
. . ~ . !.f, .. JI, Jl<M. .
1.0
.J!.
Py o.~ Co DE LIMIT
~-
I o.i O*'I o.co o.s Oo't Q,J
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 c- 30 By Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Park-. Phi~ Po. 19103 P,A '-:~;:} ' . -.~
F
- 36 ksi y .,.
ll - 100 14...... 150 IXlli'BLE Ct.'RVA'IURE 1963 Coc!e 1980 Coc!e p C:l'. !, 1.0 (:?.~-:?) -+. Formula (:!l) M ., M? 11he11 P/Py !, 0.15 Per (1 - : >11>
- e 0.4 !. Cci !. o.&
JL < 1.18 - l.18(P/Py) < 1.0 M - -
?
1 (.
.4-3) .!... + __ M_ < 1.0, M < M...
Py l.1~1p - - .,. Formula (22) : !. l!:-G(P/Py) !. 1.0
" M !. Mp TYPICAL EXAM!'LES 1.0 P'f
.., 1qi9 CODI!. UMtT
* **1 OS 0.1 0
*.** .J~
~. "'..::~
.J
*-i l
*;;
o.s
~l----~--------.;._----
o.4
----:-~--~~:---------0~.~:-~.,:.;~--~1.o I
o **I o.~ o.a o~ o **'1 L----------------------------~-**-**--*
~nkHn Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 31 l--0-v-f(__/+__________.:::S~f~P~oT-at-,~--~1;~.:~;,~;.~~.~~...-.--,~,~~,~~~:~;1-:R~e~v~.----~o~a:te:-'1~ A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Paikwoy, Phila., PL 19103 1 F
- 36 itsi l.,.l . 30 \ 2. ....... "5 SIDESWAY ALLOWED y
1963 Code 1980 Code Formula (21) M
- MP when P/Py !. 0.15 MM !, l.18 - l.18(P/Py) !. l.O p
cm:o.as Formula (22) : !. 8.--G(P/Py) !. l.O p M p (2.4-3) Py +l.l8Mp!,l.O, M!_"? M!. ~ Formula (23) ~ !. l.O - H(P/Py) - J(P/Py) 2 TYPICAL ElWIPl.:ES 1.0 -,------~------...,..----------r 1 1963 Code Also Imposes the Following Limit o.~ 2P l p + 70Y !, l. 0 Formula (20) y 0:1
"*S' ..
~nklin Research Center Project Page A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Fronldin ParkwGy, Phrla** Pa. 19103 By
,C<A-C5257 Date
~c..~'i' J. "-"!
- ';;
I/'J;'!., ' Ch'k'd
,~
Date
..'ff/
Rev. C- 32 Date
..l kl
- 30 F - 36 i<.,;i
'J .,. 14 'I/:' 150 SID?SYA'i ALLOl/C 1963 Code 1980 Code Formula (21) M
- M when P/Pv < O.l5 p . -
11. M
< 1.18 - l.18(P/Pv)
- * !. 1.0 cm!'!
p (2.4-2) _P_+ !. 1.0 p ? er Cl - p-H'ii e c,,,,..o.BS' Formula (22) M~ !. B-G(P/Py) !. 1.0 p M !. ~ (2. 4-3) p M p-+ y l
- lBMP !,LO, M !. 11>
Formula (23) : !, 1.0 - H(P/Py) - J(~/Pyl2 p
.. *M<:M, '
TYPICAL ElW!?t.ES
. !~
M. f[lM.
;
.:J ..e.. 1.0 P'/ o., . 1963 Code Also Imposes cha Following Limic l
<t.i 2P I p- + 70 r!. 1. O Fomula (20) y
**'l 0-'
' o.f; o.t I &3 COOG
~ o.a UMll o.
~I
_j 0 .., o.'fo o.$' O*' 11.7 o.f o.q M/Mp 1.0 ______L.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - . . 1 .
- (*-*-**--~---------**'
.*. ~~1
'.: ~,:,J
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 c- 33.
8 Date Date I Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin PorioAy, ?hila.. Pa. 19103 ~f<A 0 Ot..T 1" I ;;/'*>
. __ :;~:~ (A SG STVDI -~ -
-; --~
.:-*:*. i
>L~ Co""'p"rl so~ of Al SC - l ct 80 :;;ecfco"Y) I . I0 . 6 w<i41
-*.. *.:t~
~*:'.:::.
Al.SC -1q &3 Sec+ran (. lo. b _, Reductco"Y) ~ Ffa.,.,~e. ._)3 Sfre:;;s) . HY br~d qirders 0Y1ly.
- Th~ on I'/ cho."'~e be-tweeY'I t~-e -hvo codes is +he Tnrr-oduc.tTo/\ of fi,r'lr'vlo... ( j. iO -b)
~r co.se of .h1bf."ld ~1...Je( /. ,*~ +he tciso code..
-Formulo.. ( 1. 10-s) of 1q go Cade. w\th Fb 1)1 ksi Is .1.d~Yl-+ica.\ -1o fOrmulo... ( 12) of. *IC{ b3> .with Fb .
* * \..,, P5i .
- Hy br-.ld ~ir-der. deslj11ed In l't b3> t.Vovld be . des\~-ned rl"1 a.cc..ordllnc.e. wr+h . Formulo... C12.)
Whlc~ is fctel"ltTCG\.\ +o ( 1-10-5) iY1 (Cf8o Co4e.. But o... hy br\d ~Trder desl,jYJe:\ in O\.c.cardo.'Y1C.. w<+h lq 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 ~r"o..f\J5 of reduc.tton . fu..c-tor ( ~ ) Vs. Ar~ of v.iet:> ~ {trea.... f Flo:~ ro.Jro l=b (Aw/Af)) usl~d rormulo...s C1*10-s)
*:*j ) O..'Y\d C I (,) -fci r . grve~ "°' = o * ~J o* ~ J o-.N:\ o, 4 evvJ
~ ~\Ve'f\ -R.(t l"O\i-Tos ( 162, 17 ~ ~ 1fi. ..J;y- Fb~ 2,s-j6;
. ~ ; .. ,. J 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 tY\~ . 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_.
.:<*~-';'~+.~!1
*,. ?~---:~~
~nkHn Research Center Project Page c.:.
~--.
- .. *.: ~
~
-~i A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franlclin Park-. Phola., Pa. 19103 By RA CS257 Date Q<!.1" '~I ICh'k'd Date I Rev.
f??.z; ;-:. /'/ 34 Date
- . -;** -~
.*.: ..;3
..:l But -fOr 0.4$' < J... ~ o. 7fi'. ,, f"or-mvb. C. l
- I 0 -b) o.r Fo~mulo.. c I* 10-S) Covld he Ul'1serva.tlve. o..s
*. -~
C6mjX\re.d to '0.°' other- depY'\c\(n~ on Yi /t *r"affo
*.iJ
-far *~*Ne'r\ R * .Rut -f'r o< / o. /S- .J ~ 0-'l"(J-
**:.i
.**1 Ca.se,, Foo-mvlo... ( l *Io -s) (5 -mo(e co~serv<At'iVe
- ma.ke -rh~ -fO 11 ow~ Jvd~W\-e~t i
;,
Thus we. CO.ri 6"Y\ -+"' ern . OLD -ftil"tnV~S ~ Sco.Qe..
.,.":'*:;
.*: .. ~1 ci) f ormulOI.. ( I "L) I { q b3 Code...
L o.~
')
Fb .f l=b [ l*O - O* ooos Aw(~ -~0 ) Af J F_i, G\Y\c\ A w1-Hi 'Fb i'Yl Psi . ~aw Av.JI r~ti-a b) FoPmul~ C \. l0-5) lqao eode /Af f"~ 6 Fb CI* O - o.ooos~(Jl. - ~ )]
.Af -t. "Fb ;
w~ 'l=b IY) ks\ oA*s +o New formul o... o.1s B foY'mul°'- ( \ * \O -b) \ q go code.
'1 Q.l'S c "Fo' ~. f b r \l.. + c~ JC-3d.. _rA3 J J l \~ -+ .i c{!VJ )
. Af e
--"-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~--~*** .... :--------*-* :._....
~nklin Research Center Project Page C525_7 C- 35
.* ,.** .;,,1 A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjomin Fronlclin Plllk_,, Plula.. Pa. 19103 By RPt Dam oe.;' 'l I Ch'k'd
!'i?r:v' Oat~
J!/ I* it; Rev. Date e AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE. COMPARISON
- 1. o -----=-=-"=-=-=-:!-":-==-=""-~-=-=-~-=-=-O:--=-=-=-=-=--=-::-=-=-~-=-=-:-=a-==-=-=-o.-=:-9-=-9
- ..::.* ........ :;;
,*.* .. -.'t.
*a= 0.6 a:
0 u z: O*S' 0 u (l .. 0.3 c a: a.is: I o.o-1.--~--1------+-,..;....-"".'_ _,_____-:1: 15'0
,_ 0 WED/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDIHG STRESS '" 25KSI ALPHA11 0.3, 0.6. 0.9, H/T RATio" 162
.. ~
.*.:.;. .
.1
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 36 By Data Rev. Data A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkw.,, Phila.. PL 191 OJ .RA 1
'0Ci ~f AISC 1. 10.6 1963/1980 CODE. COMPARISON a = 0.9
---- ------- ---- ------ a= 0.6
.,. c::
. ' ~
0 o.s--
*.. -~
...cc z:
--a ---= 0.3 0
;:
- I Q
a: o~ O*O-.J.----.-1----'l..j.0---~6~0----:8+/-0---~IOO
- ..:. -__.;.
0 20 WEtl/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS a 25KSI ALPH/\=0.3, 0.6, 0.9. H/T RATIO s 172
*-'~
*. ;J
.. *1
*-*=
.-~
- :1
.--.}
.. .~
. -.~
_:__::__L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~-----------------* -**
- ~.-~."_:_ _*_______ _
_:_,.. _:._,_~--*-*
~nldin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 37 1--~~___;..;~~~~--;-::~--::-'."~ . .
By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date W' A Division of The Franklin Institute n If> ,-,,_, ' Th~ Benjamin Franklin Pan...,. Ph1la.. Pa. 19103 1<....A <0c.; b 1f><..t'.* AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON I 0-:l'l""__.._.__,...,..,......,....,.."="-=:--==-=~=-~-=-=-:-:-=-=-:-:=-=-=-=-=-=:-:-=-:=r I - - - - - - a = 0.9 o.g a= 0.6
----.-- *a" O;J **
o.:z.
- o. n-ll-..--"""""--+---+1---t-i----;1----i 0 10 .lo* 4o so ,o.
WEB/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS ~ 25KSI ALPHA*0.3, 0.6. 0.9, H/T RATIO
- 182
*,;
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 38 Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Data A Division of The Franklin Institute
,,,., Benjamin Franklin Porkway. Phila .* Po. 191 OJ By RA OCT'<( I ;/::>-~* J'///j AISC*l.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON
- 1. 0 _....,._,.,,_"":_:""::_:-_=_:-_:-::_=-::--=-=-=-=-::-:-:_=::_::-::.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-:"'(J:--=.=0:-:.-=9-=-::"':-='f a ,. 0.6 a* 0.3.
o.o-l-----+---~-+-----+----:-1 I. 50 100 150 200 -* .... 0 WEB/FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS* 50KSI ALPHA*0.3, 0.6, 0.9, HIT RATIO z. 117
*.... :_._ _ __,_---'-*-......:...--~--- .. ----~----*-**-
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 39 1---=-----------~~::.::D~a-te---,-.~Ch~'~k~'d:----D~a-t-e-t~R~ev-....;;..--~D~a=t~e-t~
A Division of The Franklin Institute hn d ~ The Ben;.min Fronldin P.,._, Phola.. Pa I 91 OJ *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 II 0-~ a ,. 0.,3 o.:z: o.o-l----ao1----1f-----t..----+----; 0 . :i.o 40 'o so 100 WED/Fl.A.~GE AREA RATIO BEHDING STRESS
- SOKSI ALPHA=0.3. 0.6. ~.9, H/T RATIO m 127
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 40 Rev. Date
*.~- ]
A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Porkway. Phila.. Pa. 191 OJ By QA Date
'7) c. 7 I ~I Ch'k'd
/'/,J;,'c}
Date AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON 1.0 . - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a a 0.9 Q.8-t-
- ---- - --~-- -------_.,.
a .. 0.6 I I i 0 1-o.&..Li
. ' u
*.:;
~
I . :1,_,;
-a 1-u
- i c
a:: o.r. a '" 0.3
.<.~ I
,J
*~
; -~,i
.. ~ -***~
,-.. -:.::~
,:~(.Ji
- ,~_:jt o.o-+1 ---+---+---r---+-----r----t
.. :;1 ;<"l *-.;;,
0 10 .20 30 'lO SO
. .~j WEB/FLANGE AREA RATIO
<~~-~., BENDING STRESS ~ SOKSI ALPHA=0.3, 0.6, 0.9, H/T RATIO 2 137
*-,'j
-~,:
.,:i.,
. : *.J_"
____L_______________________~---------~-----------------_._
~~ --
.. -~*~*-., .... *- ..-..__ :_____ ---*---"---**-*-*
~nklin Research Center Project Page c-A Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben;.mn Fra,,-Parkway. Phda., Pa. 19103 By R.A C5257 Date s E PT I Ch'k'd
'6) /.)//..t*;
Date
;c_h, Rev.
41 Date e CASE: STUDY . ComfQrison of Sed(o-n ( I . q. J. z.) ClY\d. Ap peYldlx c. (A-ISC lq~o) wi-lii Sedco:Y' ! . q. I (Alsc, rqb:s) ; w1cHii-th1cki,ess fl\flo cf tn'lsiffe'Yl-ed ele-ments Sv~reci- +o o.x'lo-.\
~pl"SQ°on o."r'-d c.~ress(O'Yl du -to bendmd.
I..,., bot~ sectTans *+he... 11-mit of width -
~lcbess (O.flo Is ~iileYl ~r-* +he f,llowOi~
various cctses. CASE I : s'""5le .- l\Yl~le. struts j double -C\Y13le struts
\\I rth. *s e .p<Arato rs CASE 1! Struts Compr!sln~ double o.')'\3les 111 can-iu.et j a.'Yl~les or plc..tes proJectTYl~
- f'roYY'\ ~1,..ders.,.
colV"n'\ns~ Of"' o+Yiel"" C..ompreSS(<m 'J1°'embrs ; I . CO"YY\pre.ss(on flo-"Y\~~
- on plo..te ~lrders of bea.'IYlS j S'+'i'if'ene<S CASE: ][ : stems af +-ees rY\ A-\.SC 19 so .I ,I a. C::'-o't"d\""Y\~ ti) the. sreci f icQ.t.M.s ~
~e * °'-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 s+~ess~ -
* °'"<a. red0cec:\ bf a. ~or- fused on
-9,r-mula...s ffi\/en \..,, a.pp~d~ C .
. wh1c.h depends on yield
- s-tress. C Fd ) ~
... :,.,:._; '
~he w1d~ - ~(ck_,,-e.ss . r°':tfo.
.. :i .*.::1
'i ..
**1
~
-~
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Beni-min Fr1111klin Porkway, Phil4., Pa. 191 OJ Project By fl.A C5257 Date 1
I Ch'k'd SE.P1 <{I ;;,*}?:*:.,.-: Date
*-:~ .
Page I Rev. C- 42 Date
*. ;:
. *. *-: ':~
*J But l\C.C.ardini to A-ISC.,1 l'l b'3 Specl-frc,"tloYIS,
. ~~*- *-~
*-.~
Wh~n Comp~es~lon 7n~b-ef'S e)cc.ee..q -fh.:e_ a..l\ owo..ble. ...... J
. . *:._;
.-ji,
~~
\iJ\o\ th - -th1c.k.,,-e.ss ro..+ro ,) -\-~... "member i6
--~-~-A
- ~*{
'*;41 o..~c..epto..'o\-e. if ~t S'G\ti'Sfies -th. o...l\ ovJo..bl-e... st-ress
-~-:.1
*, _*.:: **', relucf'e"MeY'ts wl+h o... PoA~ of wee:\#, 1e.,
. ~*c" ~
effec.1-Ne.. w1dB, -me~ts . 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.
~.,.. +-r plcoJ o.~~le fv-io vo..\u.es secf'(on Cl"r\c\
r * **
- _.* *.. ~
\ sec.tto-ns * ~'lveY1 In. AIS~ Ma.,.."'"o....Q.
**5 f'C\.f hs -f\£Ave *beeYJ. plotted 1=or-Reducf'6rt F'~c+or- *VS Widi+) -thick11ess rC\ho.
Reduc..+Tl\'r) ~<A.c.tor- for. A-ISC; /Ci'30 cocf._ Is rused on ~r1nulas 5T11en 1-n c"ependl'x C ct'Y'\c;f for
. A-\ s c. _, (CJ 6 ::, ,. . red vc-f con
- fo-c.--to r T5 -the.. re\+~ 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 +~e ~r°'-phs ; +~e cho..~~
-fOr CG\,Se I °"~ 07..se. il.. o-.+ h'r~ her-
"' \.Vid~ /thickness rot(o would be. a.. C cho..~e. 1
** 1 ~
- Speclf i~+(o'l\$ wer-e. ~re. GU'Y' serv-~+N-e... TY\
LCf63' c.ode .* ~t" -ir- Co.se1[ +he c~~e rYl s'pecrti~t~ rs A ~~~-e. a..s rt i5 'n'\or-e.. (ari.Ser lfC\.t\\1-e. TYi tq ~o C.octe..J o..+ ht~her"'"
.e ~ Td th - th kkns-s r'C\tc o .
- J
.***1
. . .. *- ~
~nkHn Research Center Project Page C5257 c- 43 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben!Omin Franklin Pa~. Plula.. Pa. 19103 RA ~£pi'*?) /'-~" !
,;/.:./,. l~f/
,.-~
FY""36KSI ANGLES SEPARA~ 1.a-,..~~--r---,----.-----r--1--1 0.8 R E D" u c 0.7 T I 0 N 0.6 F A c: T 0 R a.s 12 i-4 1e: t8 29 22 24 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATJ'.O
.-,;. .
Page
~nklin Research Center Project C5257 C- 44 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date
.._ ~l
. *~
A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjomin Franldin Pari<w.y, Phila.. Po. 19103 RA Sf Pi' '(I f'J( /:' _;;-/:-;
**:.. '~*:
. ~-?
... - :~ FY""50KSI ANGLES SEPARATED
*-~1 *** _-:..;
R E D u c T I a N F. A c T 0
.~
R WIDTH-THIC<NESS RATIO
~nklin Research Center
~ **..; Project Page CS257 C- 45
.:* .~.; *1 A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Fronldin Pan.-,. PhilA.. Po. 19103 0
~RA Date S~Pr)
Ch'k'd {/ f"""
/;7.:V*
1 Date 1~);:1 Rev. . Date e
* -* .\i
.* ;.* ':.~
FYa36KSI ANGLES IN CONTACT R
.E D
u c T I 0
. :*.-:-j N
... *.;
*::*~**.:**2
.. *.:~ F
~ A
-.-** . :,~
c T 0 R 14 ta t8 29 22 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATJ:O
. - -~
.'a
*~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin P""'-* PhilA.. Pa. 19103 Project By R.A C5257 Date
~EfT'r&I Ch'k'd
*];::*z*'.
Date
/.:/.f';
Page Rev. C- 46 Date FY-SSKSI ANGLES IN CONTACT
.R E
D u c T I 0 N R A T I
. '_ ~ o*
12 18 18 20 24 WIDTH-THIC<NESS RATIO
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Pork-. Phila.. Pa. 19103 By P,A Date Ch'k'd SEf T I i'I I ~~
//!;d Date
/.J/?'1 Rev.
C- 47 Date e
- FY=36t<SI: T SHAPES R.
E D u c. T I a N F A c T o___.....-..o a. 4.....J.--_;l--.--+--'T-+-r---l---T""",_1-1r11
- R 34:
~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~
WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO
- .,. .*~
- J" .. -
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 48 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute
£EfT 1l"' /l#.M ~~!fl 1
The Senjomin Fronldin Parkwmy, PhilA., Po. 191 OJ :RA FY""59KSZ T SHAPES
*.a R
E D u c T I 0 N
.F A
c T 0 0.2~._...........,.-h--r-r-h-T""T".,..+T"T..,...-r-i-l~r-rtTTTTt,,-riM R 17.S 22.S 25.9 27.5 39.'1 32.5 36.9 WIDTH-THICKNESS RAT:I:O
*.1
*1
-* . -~
- ___ ...:.:..,~.,.;._,.;_.__~.---* -. ..*. *~
- .\
..-..~
. "i
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 c- 49 A. Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Fronklin Parkldy, Phtla., Pa. 19103 By PA-Date
~T 'l!
0 Ch'k'd
;:;i.**
Date
,/_/ . 11/i'J Rev. Date e
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 be~s _, where. lcrr~\tudh,a.( rell'\fo,.cln~ sfee\ G\ds with beo.m
- Acc...or-d~~ 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 w~et e lo-n~i+udi1"1a.I re14rc.ii'\~ 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 re~'ioYIS,,. . -fo c.o..lc.vla.te. t\ie
- 01-0.I kori)CYl+o.J *
~eo.r -to be. re sis+~ 6'/ *.sheo.r ca11.,,ec.tors betw'e'Yl l\'Y\ \nfe.rior svpport a11d a.ch ~JJ~Ce>i+ pol"nt of c.0'11 +Y-"-fl e ;< ur e Whereas tY\ ATSC !'iG3 speclfieo.tloYlS J
-+he *hrtG\\ horr~Ylto..\ sliea.r +o kle res&s-red between
-the poInf 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 ~:fil/e"Y) as +he smc:A.11-er
. ~:
voJ ue. af f'or'W\ul o.. Ct g) o..nd (IC\) Vh = . o. gs -f~:;_Ac.. (tg') O..Y'd vh:: A-s Fy (ta.)
' :z.. '
**--....:>* .* -----~ ..... ** -****
~nklin Research Center Project Page CS257 *C- so By f? Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute 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 \q~o ; For,,.,vlQ. (I. il-3) o.<nd Cl* ll -4) ~.... 'the posltNe -mo.,.,.,e-,,t r"e~lon. tv1oreover m AISC. " I Cj G3 , +h~re Ts 1'10 Cons I dero.tTon
. - -~
of rem{orc""~ s.+eel M c011crete ac+m3 Compositely wt+\, -the sfee\ beo.m m YH~sa.+Ne 1r10111e-nt re.slo11s.
. ,' !his Pmplres thC\t Tn eompufl'Yld +he S'cfio11 'Wlodulus at -the points of 11eao.*tlve beY'dm~ / 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.ccordm~ +o AlSC.., 1'1~o. But 1+ rs not o-.llowec! -fo I. 1-ndude reinfol"CIYl3 stee.\ .m comput'i'n~ -the sec. tTon ')y\odu Ius -for +he o..bov'e. Co. se as
**:.-:_ *.:)
per +iie specl{ieo.tToY1S of A1sc.. ll\63. Thvs
....\
be'Wl~
. *_- *-*~ deslj71 crH*edo.. rs liber"o.lized IY1.
*.i
~
A1S C. lC\SO. Sirice +he ~uo.ntifico.tloY1 of -th Ts
**. :3 IT be ro.\ cr't. te rio.. Ts vn k-now"Y), -th Ts ch C\.n<Je
.**. :>l ..... i co..~ bes+ b-e.. clC\.SS lf1d °' s £.: A"Y\y .
- -~ :j
- ; Co-mposlte. beo..m desl~11-ed cts per Alsc \'1f,".:J
*..., sp~ctfrco..t!ons Wiii show more. ')-)\o.,.,..,ent Co..'P°'c:rt-y w~e11 ~\c.ulo..te.d ~ccor"diYi3 +o AISQ. ..
IC\ 80 Spec";".f1 co..tiOYJS.
*.: _____.____ ~ __ .;_ _______ --...:.-----~....__.'
., . *;
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 51 A. Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben;omin Franklin Pan.w.y, Phila.. Pa. 19103 By r.w*J/,
k~ Date I ~IR'! ~ Ch'k'd
!t./ ... !:)
Date L*/ g I Rev. Date e
..... *j ' .; **~:~ ~
CASE: SiUD"f - IL. - lhe o. \\owo..ble perl phero.\ 'Shear S+re~<c; ( pu"'flch1t1~ Sheclr ~+re-ss ) 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 limited +o 1.Tc. where -m_ sh"-11 be ~lcula.tec:I
*'j as +he We(~nted *a.veret~e of Ud, 0-1"-J VC.YY\
.... ~*-~. 5~~
'The AC.I 318'-{,3 Code Sec+rcm 1707 s+ct-tes*-+ho..r
-the. ul-\-ima.te Sheo.r S+re"'ca+h UU sho.. ll 1'1ot "e.'J(ceed .Uc, - 4 ~-
Comf'O'rlY\~ -the . a.bo'\/e two c.a.ses +he.
-fol\cwl-A~- Ts C.onduded ;
.. * ......;
. *. ; ~*
)
.When : s ca.et.
I. Membrc\'ne stresses o.re. c.ompressNe.
*** 1 3 \&"- 6-:::. Ts ll"lor"e C.oY\SerVCltive (_c..)
2* Mem bra.ne. s+resses o.re. -+eY\sl'\e 3\~ - b3. . T's less CPn Ser Ve\+\ l/e, * (_A)
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 C- 52 A Division of The Franklin Institute Th~ Benjamin Franklin Poricwoy. Ph1t... Pa. I9 I 03 By
~~ ...1 l'Pit Date Jn*
Jc,.,. I Ch'k'd
~f:./1*1!J Data 1.,,/ gr Rev. Data Sc.Q..~
- 3. M-em br~:ne stresses air-e. cef'o 31~ - .6~ 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 sl~n eo~ld be \-ess con servo..tlv'e (A) 3\8"-b3
- -~
.:~.
. ~--~--.:..._._;;. __. ___ --...;_..:......~---.:- .... __ ., .. *-* -..... ..-.-~~----* -- --*
. '* .l
. i
'i
- l 5
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257
.. ~ ~
- .. ~~
-~
*~
~.
A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Park..-y, Phila., Po. 191 OJ By f'l!t(I) iii' * .,, ~ J Date
/_?. <(!
Ch'k'd r?'i</MO Date 10/':l l Rev. C- 53 Date e
**~
. :~
- - _.f,,*, (ASE STUDY
. : ~
- B ~ PV AsM E: Code Sec*hon ]I D lv"i Si' o'Yl '2. ,, 1'180 ( ACI 359-go) PO\ro.. CC.-3421*1
.s+o..-tes -tho.t -the. sheo.r stre;s +~keYI 6)'
C.oyicrete resul+!tt~ from pur"e +orslo11 sha..tl
.......*~
..* -e~c-eed 15c.t w he.re
;
Uct = I + -fh +fm blf' c. ,. - :..:~ While +he AQ.l _31g-b,5 Code Sec.+<an 1707 ITm t-Ts +he ul+r-ma.i-e $\.ie.o..(" .. S-treY'\~th .. *~ o From +k-e.
- o..bove. -hNo cases +he
.fol low IY'I~ Is c.011 cl uded ;
Meynbl"'at'le s+resses o.re. c.om pre sslv'e 318 - 6 3 rs 1'Ylofe C.O'Yl serv'o..i'T11e _.; .
- 2. M~"Y\".'\bra:ne s+resses a.re. +e"Y'lsile 3\8-63 Ts \-es -s, CPY\Ser"la...tlv'e.
~nklin Research Center Project Page C5257 54 A Division of The Franklin Institute Tht> Benjomin Fronklin Pork.way. Phila.. Pa. 191 OJ By fl/l /II . I Date
!;;/*/;
/ l.* .
ICh'k'd
- p. Y../l'-4 !)
Date 10/31 Rev. C-Date Seo.~ 3.' Me.mbrO.'Y'\. S-tresse5 o.re. ~ef"O 318"- 63 Ts more con Se~ va.tNe (~)
- 4. He-mbro.ne s+v-esses a.re oppos11e lY1 5(~11
*31g""-63 Could be less c.onservo.tlve (A) * ...-*-****i - -. . 4
.:.:*:~-/i*~ .
. :.~_,j
***~*A
- '. *~~.. .1
*~
***-1
*~
. *-* ..}
*_-: .:j
APPENDIX D ACI CODE PHILOSOPHIES l
-:~
.. 3 D-1
~nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
*.,; ,. '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. I
*Service loads are defined as those-loads which are assumed to occur during the service life of the structure.
~nklin Research Center II Dlvi*lon of The franldln IMlilute D-2
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 -~tructure. Load Factors Also, by this meth~d, 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 in~orporated 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 *
. - __ -'-1
- ~
Where research results have confirmed analysis and intuition, the_ code has
. **~ . provided for limiting steel percentages, reinforcing details, and controls--
..-. ~
all directed as guaranteeing ductility. In those aspects of design where ductility cannot be achieved or insured, the code has required added strength D-3
~nklin Research Center A. Dlvlsion of The F11111idln lnslilule
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 e.
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.
* .. 'i
_:~ . 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
*.o-4 *
~n~in Research Center A Division ol The Franklin lnllitute
~*_, j .
stressed sections and in fact proportions members so that redistribution will occur. In addition to strength, a design* must satisfy serviceability
- * ~. hh~ requirements. In some designs, serviceability factors (such as excessive Ii] deflection, cracking, or vibration at service load) may prove to be more important than strength. Computations of the various serviceability factors
}~*--i are generally at service load levels; th~refore, the present code uses elastic ~~'i concepts in its controls of serviceability. Factors of Safety
. :::'.'*~
- ..-. <1 Factors of safety* are subjects of serious concern in this review. For
*1
_:~ working stress, the definition of the factor of safety is often considered to
.4
' :. l be the ratio of yield stress to service load stress. This definition becomes
*. t 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 ' ~I present code, a factor of safety is included for a variety of reasons, each of which is i~portant 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 about 1.5 to 2.4 for reinforced concrete structural elements * . U/~ ranges from
. **-)
.-.\
*. -~ l l
l
. **i
. *:1
*** 1i
*Factors of safety (FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the relation MS = FS - l.
D-5 ftnklin Research Center A Division al The Franlclln lnslllule}}