ML18046A184

Day Response to IE Bulletin 80-11,`Masonry Wall Design'.

ML18046A184
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	10/31/1980
From:	BECHTEL GROUP, INC., BECHTEL POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML18046A182	List: ML18046A181 ML18046A184
References
12447-047, 12447-47, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8011260102
Download: ML18046A184 (19)

Text

PALISADES 180-DAY RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN By BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION ANN ARBOR POWER DIVISION Job *12447-047 October 31, 1980

Palisa~s 180-Day Response

• Job 12447-047 October 1980 PALISADES 180-DAY RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALLS AND THEIR SYSTEMS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE B.ULLETIN A. Wall Inspection B. Wall Plans with Identification Numbers

3. RE-EVALUATION PROGRAM A. Wall Function B. Wall Configuration

c. Wall Properties D. Construction Practices E. Re-Evaluation Criteria

4. RESULTS OF RE-EVALUATION S. REFERENCES APPENDIXES A. Re-Evaluation Criteria B. Masonry Wall Details i

Palisaw 180-Day Response Job 12447-047 October 1980 PALISADES 180-DAY RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11

1. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared in response. to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, dated May 8, 1980. It has been prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Consumers Power Company's (CPCo's) Palisades Nuclear Plant.

A total of 66 masonry wall segments have been identi-fied to be within the scope of the bulletin. A masonry wall may be composed of several segments. For purposes of identification, total count, and re-evaluation, a masonry wall segment has been defined as a uniform, straight run of wall between support or termi_nal points.

The total number of masonry wall segments identified above differs from that submitted in the 60-day response. This difference is due to a review of the design basis of specific building structures and safety-related equipment associated with the walls deleted from the scope of the bulletin.

2. IDENTIFICATION OF MASONRY WALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE BULLETIN Safety-related systems, components, and structures have been generally defined as those listed on the Palisades plant Q list. The boundaries of seismic analyses per-formed in the course of responding to NRC IE Bullet!~ 79-14 have also been used where applicable in the determination of whether an item is safety related.

CPCo h~s designated masonry walls within the scope of NRC Bulletin 80-11 at the Palisades plant. CPCo has also performed a search for masonry walls in safety-related areas not shown on the design drawings.

For purposes of identification, proximity is defined as within an arc length equal to a masonry wall height from the base of each face of the masonry wall extending to the floor. Furthermore, in plan view, proximity is defined by lines normal to the masonry wall extending

.from the ends of the masonry wall. Proximity does not extend beyond compartments.

1

Palisades 180-Day Response

~ Job 12447-047 W October 1980 The masonry walls do not generally support a struc-turally significant amount of equipment.

A. WALL INSPECTION I~entification of masonry walls within the scope of the bulletin was completed in July 1980. This included a review of design drawings, the plant Q list, and a walkdown of safety-related areas of the plant.

A detailed inspection of masonry walls within the scope of the bulletin was completed in July 1980.

This inspection group collected, verified, and recorded information regarding the as-built con-dition of the masonry walls and structurally

• significant attachments. The presence of safety-related items in proximity to or attached to the masonry walls was also documented.

In some instances, ALARA considerations required that time spent near a masonry wall be minimized and that the inspection be limited to visual observations from some distance away from the masonry wall. Th~se observations were compared with the design drawings. Confidence was estab-

.lished that the data obtained was adequate for masonry wall re-evaluation, and it is not intended that a further inspection be made of these masonry walls.

3. RE-EVALUATION PROGRAM A. WALL FUNCTIONS None of the masonry walls at the Palisades plant

• are intended to act as shear resisting elements.

B. WALL PROPERTIES The masonry wall properties used for the re-evalua-tion are derived from the masonry wall construc-tion specifications. Masonry block was specified as ASTM C 90, Grades U-I and U-II, and having a density of 140 pounds per cubic foot and an aver-age compressive strength of 2,000 psi. The minimum strengths of the wall components are as follows:

Masonry /

f' - 1,350 psi m

2

Palisa~ 180-Day Response W Job 12447-047 October 1980 Mortar, m - 1,800 psi 0

Grout, f' - 2,000 psi c

Reinforcement Deformed bars Auxiliary and containment building -

f y = 40 ksi Radwaste addition - f y

60 ksi Dur-o-wal joint reinforcement - f

80 ksi Y Reinforcement details are shown in Appendix B.

C. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES The masonry walls were constructed after most of the concrete walls, slabs, and structural steel framing were complete.

The masonry walls at Palisades were fabricated according to the standards applicable at the time of the plant construction. These standards included the following:

1) Concrete masonry units conforming to ASTM C 90

2) Mortar conforming to ASTM C 270, Type S

3) Cement conforming to ASTM C 150, Type I

4) Lime conforming to ASTM C 207, Type N

5) Sand conforming to ASTM C 144

6) Aggregate for grout conforming to ASTM C 33

7) Aggregate for concrete masonry units conform-ing to ASTM c 331

8) Reinforcing bars conforming to ASTM A 15, and mesh reinforcing of a truss design conforming to ASTM A 82 3

Palisiia_es 180-Day Response W Job 12447-047 October 1980 D. RE-EVALUATION CRITERIA Appendix A contains the criteria used for re-evaluation of masonry walls at Palisades.

~icensing commitments contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) as related to loads and load combinations are incorporated in the criteria. In addition, the criteria consider current analysis and design techniques as follows:

1) Cracked section moment of inertia for fre-quency determinations

2) Recognition of a potential plane 'of weakness at the co!lar joint

3) Stress increase factors for abnormal and extreme environmental loads

4) Inelastic design, arching theory, and stability theory

5) Interstory drift

6) Frequency variations due to uncertainties in material properties and effective mass

4. RESULTS OF RE-EVALUATION To date a total of 35 masonry wall segements have passed the re-evaluation criteria. The re-evaluation is expected to be completed by December 1980. This report will be reissued upon completion of the re-evaluation. This reissued report will identify the criteria used for each masonry wall.

5. REFERENCES A. u.*s. NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, dated May 8, 1980 B. Palisades Nuclear Plant, Final Safety Analysis Report, Docket 50-255 C. Sixty-day response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, Palisades Nuclear Plant, dated June 30, 1980 4

APPENDIX A CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS FOR THE PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT

Appendix A, Palisad.

• 180-Day Response I Job 12447-047 October 1980 APPENDIX A CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS

1. GENERAL A. PURPOSE These criteria are provided for use in re-evaluat-ing the structural adequacy of concrete masonry walls as required by NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 dated May 8, 1980.

B. SCOPE The re-evaluation determines whether the concrete masonry walls and/or the safety-related equipment and systems associated with the walls are capable of performing their intended function under the loads and load combinations prescribed herein.

Verification of wall adequacy includes a review of the local transfer of load from block into wall, the global response of wall, and the transfer of wall reactions into supports.

Anchor bolts and embedments for attachments are not considered to be within the scope of the evaluation.

2. GOVERNING CODE The governing code is AC! 531-79 as modified herein.

Supplemental allowables, as specified herein, are used for cases not directly covered by the governing code.

3. LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS A. The re-evaluation addresses the following loads and load qombinations:

Normal D + H + E D + H + W Abnormal or Extreme Environmental D + R + E' D + R + E A-1

Appendix A, Palisad~l80-Day Response W Job 12447-047 October 1980 D + H + E' D + W' Where D =dead.load of structure and equipment plus any other permanent loads contributing stress, such as soil or hydrostatic loads (In addi-tion, a portion of "live load" is added when such load is expected to be present when the plant is operating. An allowance is also made for future permanent loads.)

R = force or pressure on structure due to rupture of any one pipe (This is defined by Report SR-6, Analysis of Postulated High-Energy Line Breaks Outside of Containment, Rev 3, dated June 30, 1975.)

H = force on structure due to thermal expansion of pipes under operating conditions E = design seismic load for Class 1 structures and equipment (This is defined as the operating basis earthquake (OBE).)

E' = maximum seismic load for Class 1 structures and equipment (This is defined as the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).)

W = wind load due to a 100 mph sustained wind (The loading shall be calculated in accor-dance with ASCE Paper 3269.)

W' = tornado effects

1) Loadings due to a tornado are as follows.

These leaps are to be applied to external walls of the auxiliary building, including the radwaste addition:

a) Differential pressure between inside and outside of enclosed areas - 3 psi (bursting) b) External wind forces resulting from a tornado funnel having a peak peripheral tangential velocity of 300 mph whose center is traveling at 60 mph A-2

Appendix A, Palisad~l80-Day Response

.., Job 1244 7-04 7 October 1980 c) Missile equivalent to a 4" x 12" x 12' wood plank traveling end-on at 300 mph or a passenger auto (4,000 pounds) flying through the air at 50 mph and at not more than 25 feet above ground

4. DESIGN ALLOWABLES A. BASIC ALLOWABLE STRESSES

1) Masonry Stresses a) The basic allowable tension, compres-sion, shear, bond, and beari~g stresses shall be as given in the governing .code.

b) The allowable tensile or shear stress across collar joints is 8 psi. This allowable stress shall either be justified or reduced to 0 psi in the final re-evaluation.

c) The allowable tension stress for core concrete or cell grout is 2. 5 ~.

c

2) Reinforcing Steel The basic allowable stresses for reinforcing steel are as given in the governing code.

3) Secondary Effects In lieu of a more detailed stress analysis, the in-plane strains ( fi/H) due to interstory drift are limited to the following:

a) Walls confined on a minimum of two opposite edges: ti/H ~ 0.001 b) Unconfined walls: ti/H~ 0.0001 where ti = relative displacement between the top and bottom of the wall H = height of the wall A-3

Appendix A, Palisad1ii...180-Day Response W Job 12447-047 October 1980 B. ALLOWABLE STRESS INCREASES

1) Stress Increase Factors The allowable stresses given in Subpara-graphs 4.A.l and 4.A.2 are increased by .the following stress increase factors for the indicated loading conditions.

Extreme Normal Environmental Load and Abnormal Combina-* Load Combina-Item tions tions ( l)

Masonry Stresses())

Compression Axial 1.0 1.67 Flexural 1.0 2.5 Bearing 1.0 2.5 Shear and bond 1.0 1.67 Tension 1.0 1.67 Core-wythe interface Shear 1. 0 1. 5 Tension 1. 0 1.5 Reinforcing Steel( 2 )

Tension and compression Without thermal loads 1.0 1.67 With thermal loads 1.33 2.0 NOTES:

( 1)

For impact and jet force allowables, see Subparagraph 4.B.2.

A-4

Appendix A, Palisad.180-Day Response,

• Job 12447-047 October 1980

( 2)

Reinforcement stress shall not exceed 0.9 times the minimum yield strength, F < 0.9 f

• If the allowable stress in tge-reinfotcement is exceeded for any load combination involving extreme environmental or abnormal loads using an allowable less than 0.9 fy, it should be so noted and the wall recnecked using F = 0.9 f

• s y

( 3)

The allowable masonry stresses given are applicable to walls whose quality was controlled with proper inspection during construction. For walls without inspec-tion, the allowable masonry compressive stresses are reduced by one third and tensile and shear stres~es by one half.

2) Impact and Jet Force (or Step Pulse) Loads Load combinations which contain loads due to missile impact, jet impingement, or pipe whip may exceed the allowables, provided there shall be no loss of required function of any safety-related system and the following provisions are satisfied:

a) Reinforcing steel strains are allowed to exceed yield, provided that the struc-ture can deform in a ductile mode with sufficient strength and deformation capacity to come to rest in a stable condition. To ensure ductility, the amount of steel in a section must be sufficient to resist the cracking moment of the gross cross section and less than that which would produce flexural com-pression failure of the concrete masonry.

In addition, the shear capacity of the section must be greater than the flexural capacity.

b) In determining section strengths, a rectangular stress block with a maximum masonry compressive strength of 0.85 f' shall be used. Other allowable masonrym stresses are limited to those specified for extreme environmental and abnormal loading conditions.

A-5

Appendix A, Palisad~l80-Day Response W Job 12447-047 October 1980 c} Section strengths are based on a steel stress of 0.9 f

• y d} Maximum allowable displacements corre-spond to ductility ratios (ratio of maximum displacement to yield dis-placement} of 3 for jet force loads and 10 for impact loads or impact loads combined with jet force loads.

e} For combinations involving jet force loads, the available resistance of the wall (considering other concurrent loads} are equal to or greater than 1.2 times the peak jet force load *.

C. DAMPING

1) The damping values used are as follows:

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

b) For cracked sections, use 4% damping for OBE and 7% damping for SSE.

S. ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA A. Where bending due to out-of-plane loading causes flexural stresses in the wall to exceed the design allowables given in Section 4, the wall may be evaluated using the following procedures.

1) Energy Balance Technique a} The deflection of reinforced concrete masonry walls due to seismic loading is determined using the "energy balance technique," provided that the shear capacity of the wall exceeds the flexural capacity and the steel ratio ensures ductile behavior.

b} If the predicted displacement exceeds three times the yield displacement, the resulting displacement shall be multi-plied by a factor of 2 and a deter-mination made as to whether such A-6

Appendix A, Palisad.1aa-Day _Response Job !2447-a47 October 19aa factored displacements adversely impact the required function of safety-related systems attached and/or adjacent to the wall.

c) The midspan displacement is limited to five times the yield displacement, and the masonry compression stresses are limited to a.as f'm based on a rectan-gular stress distribution.

2) Arching Action a) The resistance of the wall t9 out-of-plane forces is determined by assuming that a three-hinged arch is formed after flexural cracking. Consideration is given to the ability of the supporting elements to withstand the arching loads.

The effects of gaps at the supports are considered. The masonry compression stress is limited to a.as f' based on a rectangular stress block. T~e tensile stresses along the diagonal failure plane in the vicinity of the hinge locations are limited to 6 ~

m b) The deflection at the interior hinge of the arch after full contact with the

~upport is limited to a.3 times the thickness of the wall (a.3 t).

c) The in-plane line load capacity along the hinge lines is equal to or greater than 1.6 times that required to resist the imposed out-of-plane loads. This factor of safety is considered adequate to limit the displacement to a.3 t.

d) A determination is made as to whether the displacement of the wall adversely impacts the required safety function of safety-related systems attached to the wall.

3) Rocking Action Walls which are considered to be unrestrained at the top and sides and have insufficient flexural capacity at the base to be analyzed A-7

Appendix A, Palisad~l80-Day Response

,., Job 12447-047 October 1980 as cantilevered walls may be evaluated by considering rocking action. For these walls, the safety factor against overturning is equal to or greater than 2 *. 0 for OBE and 1.5 for SSE loads.

6. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF MASONRY WALLS

1) Equivalent Moment of Inertia To determine the out-of-plane frequencies of masonry walls, the uncracked behayior and capacities of the walls and, if applicable, the cracked behavior and capacities of the walls are considered.

2) Modes of Vibration The effect of modes of vibration higher than the fundamental mode are considered.

3) Frequency Variations Uncertainties in structural frequencies of the masonry wall because of variations in structural properties and mass are taken into account. Significant variables include mass, boundary conditions, modulus of elas-ticity, extent of cracking, vertical load, in-plane and out-of-plane loads, two-way action, and composite action of multi-wythe walls.

The following variations are applied to the calculated frequency:

a) Nonreinforced masonry walls 0 Hollow masonry construction +10%

-20%

0 Solid or grouted masonry +10%

b) Reinforced masonry +10%

A-8

Appendix A, Palisad~l80-Day Response

• Job 12447-047 October 1980

4) Seismic Accelerations For walls with supports at different eleva-tions, the effective seismic accelerations are determined from the envelope of the response spectra for the floors between which the wall is located.

For walls supported at one elevation, the supporting floor response spectra are used.

5) Combination of Seismic Loadings The time phasing of different seipmic loadings may be considered using the square-root-.of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) method.

B. STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF MASONRY WALLS

1) Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions are determined consider-ing one-way or two-way spans with hinged, fixed, or free edges as appropriate. ton-servative assumptions are used to simplify the analysis.

2) Distribution of Concentrated Out-Of-Plane Loads a) Two-way action Where significant two-way bending is present in the wall, the localized moments per unit width under a con-centrated load are determined using appropriate analytical procedures for plates. Standard solutions and tabular values based on elastic theory may be used for the case under investigation.

b) One-way action For dominantly one-way bending, local moments may be determined considering two-way plate action. Other effects may be determined using beam theory.

A- 9 J

Appendix A, Palisad~l80-Day Response W Job 12447-047 October 1980

3) Interstory Drift Effects Interstory drift effects are derived from the original dynamic analysis.

~) In-Plane and Out-Of-Plane Effects The combined effects of in-plane (e.g.,

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

5) Stress Calculations All stress calculations are performed by conventional methods. Simplified* conser-vative analytical assumptions may be used.

More refined methods are used on a case-by-case basis.

A-10

.r- ~~!:2:~,,,,,,,,,,"',,,,,!'l',,,,,,,,,,,,,, . fl'llI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I IS* Ir I! *11?11!11fltMB*P~I H

---::!,~: ..;.:: _.....::-*,,..

e:*...:..~

,. "'~AIJ - COi.JC B_QCI( WALL. .1..JE G ABOVE EL..!04~*~*

G

......... --*---~- ~

G

~ **--** D

[

3LOCI< WALL 5:11JFQ'10JG

,.. 9011.lllt coo .. : - - . -...... '

• I:

I' 1',*

• 11

-F~=::r.:~-.::~\f"S:.::::'."...

... c.;"'7' ~ ,::..::-:- -: "

• *~~ ~ ~-- 1_-_._.1

• • • -**** ....... ___..... _____ ;I'

~-;1\:.~z;;.-:...-=.=

.l

-, ')

E

!lIi -*****--*

u- '

., = A.J t: r. ~_o,: WA.:* ::.,-

o;: '.:0.J"'.": 'J. CO'-IC. NA.L. ..*-**---*--*..a..:..:-::-

• .o_...__

• '.fI',,

I'  :-

-~ ~~-.r D. D "fl !t:.~:~-:.*;~-~-~... -~*.

. I* . . . . . . , , I I-*

-..,  !-- *** 1o& **

.. .. I Ile

• 2a;;;-*-;.-.... (V~*** ........ :.._. I I .i..* ......

.1.90~1 S.3Go*:ICl"CI,. * * *

• - .a.1**0

~

1

• t I

.. I*

n **

J.* *~

• I '

.. *.* 1

~t1*

. . I*

I ,,L.'f'C.M

• e

.. oll.

t;J.n.1..*'""*~

"'".... .,._ .,/bjr>o

..J .. C::.

eoo-11 1

l,_______~1-~_~*-*_*_*_u_** 1 __-+-_'.__:.*_:,_,_:_,_~*.~j

~-n *~* m~ _

_,;-..,.-------+-

,.. l*-1* O*

• 1.t..1,. .. M

~.--

• 11 *I I ' 11*1'*Ca .. *

• I e .. I* - " :OolT-

-*:..~*- I I

~~11* *-*--~

l i ,,,_ *. ,, __ ____..._ ~::llO~_,~

ot*o...-.'I' ..,.,':' ..,.., l

...~~.

-<...¥IC loc&A"llT

-.l.

. ..... ... -,.*var.***""' u.c. .. 1~

I *-*~~.~- .,.., ... ~,.*-o*.,.oa

........ 0*111. .. -.... ... ~

"D e.,- /It\ I l-$

---i'-----+---

r.o-c. - - ................

• - .. 0 ...... . . - -.... -

_ _ .... --~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~-tA

i~oc1< WALL RE;IJFORCllJG AT OPEIJll-IG SEC'":'"* \.J- iYc:ilCA.L. LllJ"!"EL~ f"-L.\~AOIS.i: P L-P..N 1"'

A"'t~Pl>c. ?I* Ft'9cJ1te. ~-I 7 6 5 4 2

fl"'! I I I I I I I I I I J I J 1 I I I I I I I I NOTES

' 1. CONCQn'~ Bl..Oe" 'frt&LL QlltN~CINCI

=~:::.:=~::M.~~~~~~

A~L- *A~OW,Sl H

• a-* ***'""°*c* .... ,..,..

~ICO.O'H!!loS*CGIZ..,.o.ar.QI__.

O"A&.TI....,._ 0111

~*OQCl""l"'T ~ -T' IHl"'°"ll M.L

~ ~;T ~?~~-AM I nJ - IJU.mO co.ia ...

c: .......... r ......TIC""- i:aa*N*Oi;tc.i.. a.

• • • • • ~1 MllA l*ULL Al *11.LIO Pl/ COotC QaOUT

'L~~~~~

~~~--

DET~ G G OE.T@

~

se.cr.-wa.LL MIU.O A.T s:11:001=

~

Sl!CT. -WALL MEAD A:r QOO*

• 15101 ... Q 4.0 ... 1!!. -~-DE_T@_~*-s_"_c__"_*-_"_.....

_H_"-"'__*~_CONC

__._...._"_~_o_e:_T@_e_'6_BECT.- IO"(NOM)W&L.LMI!~= .*~~~

!-------------------- -* --i

..... -......-1 ts-.1.-....

"**~ I f

D c ~Cl.'l"CM C.OI ""'llC. c

'Lo. II "u-i.aT1..; bO_.,

--:t:.";~.t*:-~-:- 1'A'feii  ;,~ &.'bo I I

• &UIO"COC~-

lllCCO-C~I

'***--c-*

~-=--=

iY

• Q:Wl'I

....... 01'*11

...... OlllgKUT-----"

f~~\~A.?E~ f&..A~:,..

OE.Tt:'i.Q':J PL.AN-~LJOIMTNINTWA.U. I OET~.15 PLAN - ecQEE.N WALL

"~f'f~'D' "

• e;,*

~ j ~ Ft~u-.e f:>*?..

6 5 4 2