ML20052H228
| ML20052H228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1982 |
| From: | Stilwell T FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Persinka D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194B093 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-79-118, CON-NRC-3-79-118, TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR TER-C5257-321, NUDOCS 8205200084 | |
| Download: ML20052H228 (175) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, ,
! AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP, III-7B) i COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 I
l NRC DOCKET NO. 50-237 FRC PROJECT C5257 NRC TAC NO. 41499 FRC ASS:GNMENT 11
, NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03 79-118 FRC TASK 321 Prepared by Franklin Research Center FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell The Parkway at Twentieth Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko May 17, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, 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.
a#~~ N l l .b Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute (' ,2, C b .~ ) C,y'e 9.j The Sengtrun Frankhn Peruwsy. PNia.. Pa. 19103 (21S)448-1000 i l
\ '
~~~^ '/
O 6 TER-C5257-321 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 REVIEW OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 SCOPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 MARGINS OF SAFETY. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 CliOICE OF REVIEW APPROACH. . . . . . . . . . 9 7 METilOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1 Information Retrieval . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2 Appraisal of Information Content. . . . . . . 11 7.3 Coue Comparison Reviews . . . . . . . . . 12 7.4 Assessmenc of the Potential Impact of Code Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.4.1 Classification of Code Changes . . . . . 16 7.4.1.1 General and Conditional Classifications of Code Change Impacts . . . . . 17 7.4.1.2 Code Impacts on Structural Margins . . 18 7.5 Plant-Specific Code Changes . . . . . . . . 20 8 DRESDEN UNIT 2 SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES . . . . . 21 9 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . 23 10 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . 25 10 .1 Description of Taoles of Loads and i Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . 25 iii nklin Research Center
~ ~ - -
e . TER-C5257-321 CONTENTS (Con t. ) Section Title Page 10 .2 Load Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 29 10.3 Design Load Tables, " Comparison of Design Basis Loads" . . . . . . . . . . . 31 10.4 Load Combination Tables, " Comparison of Ioad Combination Criteria" . . . . . . . . . 41 11 REVIEW FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 11.1 Major Findings of AISC-1963 vs. AISC-1980 Code Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . 54 11.2 Major Findings of ACI 318-63 vs. ACI 349-76 Coce Comparison . . . . . . . . 57 11.3 Major Findings of ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Subsection B (1965) vs. ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Subsection NE (1980) . . . . . . 61 I 12
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 l 13 ,
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . ~69 14 REFERDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 l APPENDIX A - SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES x DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE 'IO DRESDEN UNIT 2 PLANT APPENDIX B - SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON 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 CRITERIA FOR SEP 'IOPIC III-7.B (SEPARATELY BOUND) _nklin Rese_ arch._ Center
.- a -"
TER-C5257-321 CONTENTS (Con t. ) 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 DRESDEN UNIT 2 APPENDIX IV - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED CONCRETE STRUCTURES ACI 349-76 VS. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REIN-FORCED CONCRETF. ACI 318-63 (SEPARATELY BOUND) 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 - NOT APPLICABLE TO DRESDEN UNIT 2 APPENDIX VII - NOf APPLICABLE TO DRESDEN UNIT 2 APPENDIX VIII - NOT APPLICABLE TO DRESDEN UNIT 2 APPENDIX IX - NOT *PPLICABLE TO DRESDEN UNIT 2 APPENDIX X - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE,1980 VS. ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III, SUBSECTION B, 1965 (SEPARATELY BOUND) APPENDIX XI - NOT APPLICABLE 'IO DRESDEN UNIT 2 Ar*ENDIX XII - NOf APPLICABLE TO DRESDEN UNIT 2 O e V
~ranklin
~-Research Center .
TER-C5257-321 FOREWORD 't This hchnical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmissien (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted !n a;cordance with criteria established by the NRC. Principal contributors to the technical preparation of thic report were T. Stilwell, M. Darwish, W. A. Segraves, and S. J. Triolo of the Franklin Research Center. , Dr. E. W. Wallo, Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department, Villanova University, and Dr. R. Koliner, Professor of Civil Engineering, Villanova University, provided assistance both as contributing authors and in an advisory capacity as consultants under subcontract with the Franklin Research Center. vii _nklin Res,ea_rch _ Center
TER-C5257-321
- 1. INTRODUCTION For the Seismic Category I buildings and structures at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, this report provides a comparison of the structural design codes and loading criteria used in the actual plant design against the corresponding codes and criteria currently used for 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 oe 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 under NRC Contract No. NRC-03-79-118. i
~~nklinch.
Resear Center.
. s TER-C5257-321
- 2. BACKGROUND With the development of nuclear power, provisions addressing facilities for nuclear applications were progressively introduced into the codes and standards to which plant building and structures are designed. Because of this evolutionary development, older nuclear power plants conform to a number of different versions of these codes, some of which have since undergone considerable revision.
There has likewise been a corresponding development of other licensing criteria, resulting in similar non-uniformity in many of the requirements to wnich 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 common 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 common 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 comparison of structural design criteria in ef fect in the late 1950's to the late 1960's (when the SEP plants were constructed) with those in effect today. Other SEP topics also address other aspects of the integrity of plant structures. All these structurally oriented tasks, taken together, will be used to assess the structural adequacy of the SEP plants with regard to current requirements. The determinations with respect to structural safety will then be integrated into an overall SEP evaluation encompassing the entire spectrum of safety-related topics.
*The report addresses only the Dresden plant.
a nklin Research Center A On.e.on of The Fransen Insende
TER-C5257-321
- 3. REVIEW OBJECTIVES Tne broad objective of the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is to reassess the safety of 11 older nuclear pcwer plants in accordance with the intent of the requirements governing the licensing of current plants, and to provide assurance, possibly involving backfitting, that operation of these plants conforms to the general level of safety required of modern plants.
Task III-7.B of the SEP ef fort 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 structures. The broad safety ocjective 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 the 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 this report is to present the results of Task III-7.B as they. relate to the Dresden Nuclear Power Station. nklin Research Center A Deuseson af The Frenhan ineseuse - -
/ m a s
- l TER-C5257-321
- 4. SCOPE In general, the scope of work involved a esaparison of the provisions of the structural codes and standards used for the design of SEP plant Seismic s
Category I civil engineering structures
- against the corresponding provisions governing current licensing practice. The review includes the containment and all Category I structures within and exterior to it. Explicit ar ong the criteria to be reviewed are loads and loading combinations postulated for tnese structures.
The following specific tasks were addressed:
- l. Identify current design requirements, based on a review of NRC Regulations; 10CFR50.55a, " Codes and Standards"; and the NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) .
2.
~
Review the structural design codes, design criteria, design and 3' analysis procedures, and load combinations (including combination' involving seismic loads) used in the design of all Seismic 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 typical elements (beams, columns, frames, and the like) and should be explored over a range of parameters representative of plant structures.
- 5. Prepare a Technical Evaluation 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
*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 the scope of this review) .
O nklin Research Center A Onasson af The Frenhen Inseouse f'+
TER-C5257-321
- c. results of any comparative stress analyses perfocacd in order to assess the significance of the code changes on safety margins
- 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 ef fort as shown below: Topig Designation III-l Classification of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems (Seismic and Quality) III-2 Wind and Tornado Loading III-3.A Effects of High Water Level on Structures III-4 Missile Generation and Protection III-5 Evaluation of Pipe Breaks III-6 Seismic Design Considerations j III-7.D Structural Integrity Tests VI-2 Mass and Energy Release for Postulated Pipe Break. Because they are covered either elsewhere within the SEP review or within other NRC programs, the following matters are explicitly excluded from the scope of this review: 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. suppor ts Equipment supports in SRP 3.8.3 Reviewed generically in Topic III-6, Generic Task A-12. nidin Research Center A Ohesson of The Fransen insamme
'-~~r _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Tza-;5257-321 Other component supports (steel Specific supports have been and concrete) analyzed in detail in Topic III-6. (Component supports may be included later if items of concern applicaole to ccmponent supports are found as a result of reviewing the structural codes.) Testing of containment Reviewed in Topic III-7.D. Inservice inspection; quality Should be considered in the review control /assur ance only to the extent that it affects design criteria and design allowables. Aspects of inservice inspection are being reviewed in Topics III-7.A and III-3.C Determination of structures that Not within scope. snould be classified Seismic Category I Shield walls and subcompartments Reviewed in Generic Task A-2. inside containment Masonry walls Reviewed generically in IE ' Bulletin 80-11. Seismic analysis Being reviewed by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. _nklin_Res,ea_rch_ _ . , . Center
e .
- l i
TER-C5257-321
- 5. MARGINS OF SAFETY There are several bases upon wnich margins of safety
- may be defined and discussed.
The most of ten used is the margin of safety based on yield strergth. This is a particularly useful concept when discussing the' behavior of steels, and became ingrained into the engineering vocabulary at the time when steel was the principal metal of engineering structures. In this usage, the margin of safety reflects the reserve capacity of a structure to withstand extra loading without experiencing an incipient permanent change of shape anywhere througnout 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 conventional use of the term and the meaning which engineers take as intended, unless the term is further qualified to show something else is meant. Tnus, 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 simultaneously doubled without encountering (anywhere) inelastic stresses or deflections. On the other hand, if (under load) a structure has no margin of safety, any increment to any load will cause the structure to experience, in a least one (and possibly more than one) location, some permanent distortion (however small) of its original shape. Because the yield strengths of common structural steels are generally well below their ultimate strengths, the engineer knows that in most (but not 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 systematic evaluation program.
- Factors of safety (FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the relation, M3 = FS - 1.
nklir. Research Center A Ommon of The Frmon insatute
TER-C5257-321 4 One may speak of margins of safety with r_e_spect to code allowable limits. This margin reflects the reserve capacity of a structure to withstand extra loading while still conforming to all criteria governing its design. One may also speak (if it is made clear in advance that this is the intended meaning) of margins of safety against actual failure. Both steel and concrete structures exhibit mucn higher " margins 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 safety" 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 plants meet the " intent" of current licensing criteria 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 J
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 i structures, the SEP review concept can be rephrased in a somewhat more quantitative fashion in terms of these two " margins of safety." Thus, it is not expected or demanded that all structures show positive margins of safety based upon code allowables in meeting all current SRP requirements; but it is demanded that margins of safety based upon ultimate strength are not only positive, but ample. In fact, the critical judgments to be made (for SEP plants) are:
- 1. to what extent may current code margins be infringed upon.
- 2. what minimum margin of safety based on ultimate strength must be assured.
The choice of method for Topic III-7.B review can be discussed in terms
. of these two key considerations.
nklin Research Center A Dhimon of The Fransen insamme
TER-C5257-321
- 6. CHOICE OF REVIEW APPROACH The approach taken in the review process depends on which key questions (of Section 5) one chooses to emphasize and address first.
One could give primary consideration to the second. If this approach is chosen, one first sets up a minimum margin of safety (based on failure) that will be acceptable for SEP plants. This margin is to be computed in accordance with current criteria. Then one investigates structures designed in accordance with earlier code provisions, and to different loading combinations, to see if they meet the chosen SEP margin when challenged by current loading combinations and evaluated to current criteria. This approach gives the appearance of being efficient. The review proceeds from the general (the chosen minimum margin of safety) to the particular (the ability of a previously designed structure to meet the chosen margin). Moreover, issues are immediately resolved on a "go; no-go" basis. The initial step in this approach is not easy, nor are the necessary evaluations. One is dealing with highly loaded structures in regions where materials behave inelastically. Rulemaking 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 diat 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, af ter examinatien of the nklin Research Center A Dhemen of The Frannan insende
TER-C5257-321 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 unresolvec questions will remain. On th<s other hr.nd, 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 will be J sharply focused upon a few remaining key issues. F i i f l i nidin Research Center . A 0hamon of The Frenadin insesume
o . TER-C5257-321
- 7. METHOD A brief description of the approach used to carry out SEP Topic III-7.B follows. For discussion of the work, it is convenient to divide the approach into six areas:
- 1. information retrieval and assembly
- 2. appraisal of information content
- 3. code comparison reviews
- 4. code change impact assessment
- 5. plant-specific review of the relevancy of code change impacts
- 6. summarizing plant status vis-a-vis design criteria changes.
7.1 INFORMATION RETRIEVAL The initial step (and to a lesser extent an ongoing tas4 of the review) was to collect and organize necessary information. At the outset, NRC forwarded files relevant to the work. These submittals included pertinent sections of plant FSARs, Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8, responses to questions on Topic III-7.B previously requested of licensees by the NRC, and other relevant data and reports. These submittals were organized into Tepic III-7.B files on a plant-by-plant basis. The files also contain subsequently received information, as well as other documents developed for the plant review. A numoer of channels were used to gather additional information. These included information requests to NPC; letter requests for additional infor-mation sent to licensees; plant site visits; and retrieval of representative 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 interf acing with the III-7.B effort) . 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 nklin Research Center A Dhoon of The Framen Inseeute
TER-C5257-321 information sought was emoedded piecemeal in the documents furnished. These sources were searched for the relevant information that they did contain. Generally, it was found that informatien gaps remained (i.e., some items were not referenced at all or were not specific enough for Task III-7.B purposes) . The information found was assemoled and the gaps were filled through the information retrieval ef forts 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 (NRC's Standard Review Plan), the operative document providing guidance to NRC reviewers on licensing matters (see Reference 1) . Next, the Seismic Category I structures at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station were identified (see Section 8) . For these, the codes and standards which were used for actual design were likewise identified on a structure-by-structure casis (see Section 9) . Each code was then paired with its counter-part which 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 ll-by-17-inch pages. A central column between the codes was lef t 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 reedited without changing technical content. Code paragraphs which were found to be essentially the same in both versions were so marked in the comments column. The review then focused on the remaining portions of the codes where textual disparities existed., Pertinent comments were entered. Typical ccaments address either the reason the change had been introduced, the intent nklin Research Center A Denmon of The Fransen inseede
TER-C5257-321 of the change, its impact upon safety margins, or a comoination of suen 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 contributing 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 j udgment) known to be conservative enough to assure safety. Subsequent inves-tigation may produce evidence showing the adopted rule to be overly 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. Tu 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-ment that the designer must space end supports closely enough to preclude buckling. Thus, code requirements have been tightened, not relaxed. _nklin Research._ _ . Center
TER-C5257-321 Whenever it was found that code requirements had truly been relaxed, this was noted in the reviewer 's comments in the code comparison review. 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 as a reviewer comment. When it was clear that the code change had the potential to significantly affect the perceived margin of safety, this was noted in the comments and the paragraph flagged for further coqsideration. Sometimes the effects of a code change are not apparent. 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 in the review, the ef fect of - tne 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, a typical structural element and a simple loading were selected; the element was then designed to the older code requirements. Next, the load carrying capacity of this structure was reexamined using current code criteria. Finally, the load carrying capacities of the element, as shown by the older criteria and as determined by the current criteria, were compared. Examples of investigations performed to assess code change impacts are found in Appendix B.
- Geometry, material properties, magnitude or type of loading, type of supports--
to name a few. l
- ! Muuud Franklin Research Center 4 on on w n. n en ww.
e
- TER-C525 7-321 In making these studies, an attempt was made to use structural elements, model dimensions, and load magnitudes that were representative of actual I 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 proviLed 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 indicates, a limited ob]ective is sought in assessing the effects of code changes on Seismic Category I structures. The scope of this review is not set at the level of appraisal of individual, as-built structures on plant sites. Consequently, the review does not attempt to make qu'antitative assessments as to the structural adequacy under current NRC criteria of specific structures at particular SEP plants. Tu the contrary, the scope 'is confined to the comparison of former structural codes and criteria with counterpart current requirements. Corres-
- pondingly, 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.
Althougn the review is therefore carried out with minimal reference to actual structures in the field, the assessments of code change impacts that can be made at the code comparison level hold considerable significance for actual structures. 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 900a er.nuiin aese.rch center A cm a om. n an m.
1
- e l i
i TER-C5257-321 safety as perceived from the standpoint of the requirements that NRC now imposes upon plants currently beiro licensed. The review simultaneously culls away a number of code changes that do not give rise to such concerns, but which (because tney 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 level of code review are confined to potential or possible impacts en actual structures.
A review conducted at the code comparison level cannot determine whether or not potentially adverse impacts are actually realized in a given structure. Tne review may only warn that this may be the crse. For example, current criteria may require demonstration of structural integrity 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-considered load is large (i.e., in the order of or larger than other major loacs that were included), then it 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 objective of identifying criteria changes that could potentially impair perceived margins of safety, the following scheme classifying code change impacts was adopted. 7.4.1 Classification of Code Changes 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 s tr ess .
nklin Research Center A Chemen of The Fretudin Inseeute
TER-C5257-321 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 =argins of safety is not immediately apparent. Scale Axcode changes require analytical studies of model structures to assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon margins of safety. Scale B Change - The new criteria operate to impair margins of safety but not enough to cause engineering concern about the adequacy of any structural element. Scale C Change - The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited under the former criteria. 7.4.1.1 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 are aesignated as " Scale A," and others as " Scale C." Others have dual designation, such as " Scale A if --- [a condition state-ment] or Scale C if --- [a second condition statementl . " 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 thereby downgrade the ranking to, say, a Scale B change for that member. The
*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 Rese_ arch. _ Center
TER-05257-321 scale ranking is neither a function of member stress
- nor a ranking of member adequacy. The scale system ranks code change impact, not individual members, liowever, a numoer 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 dif ferently.
For example, assume a change in column design requirements is introduced into the code and is framed in terms of the ratio of the ef fective column length to its radius of gyration. The new rule acts to tighten design require-ments 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. Althcugh some columns now appear to be Scale A columns while others appear to be Scale C columns, the distinc-tion between them resides in the code, and is not a reflection of member adequacy. . Clearly, it is still the 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 Impact on Structural Margins This classification of ccde changes identifies both (a) changes that have the potential to significantly impair perceived margins of safety (Scale A) and (b) changes that have the potential to enhance perceived margins of safety (Scale C) . Emphasis is subsequently placed on Scale A charges, not on Scale C changes. The purpose of the code comparison review is to narrow down and bring into sharper focus the areas where structures shown adequate under former criteria may not fully comply with current criteria. Once such criteria changes have been identified, actual structures may be checked to see if the potential concern is applicable to the structure. Depending upon a number of structure-specific circumstances, it may or may not pertain.
*Tnere are exceptions, but these are code-related, not adequacy-related.
l
--~nklinch.
Resear Center
TER-C5257-321 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 can only be taken at the structural level, not at the code level. A simple example may help clarify this point. Assume a steel beam exists in a structure designed by AISC 1963 rules for the then-specified loading combination. Current criteria require inclusion of an additional load in the loading combination (Scale A change), but the current structural code permits a higher allowable load if the beam design conforms to certain stipulated proportions (Scale C change). Several circumstances are possible for beams in actual structures, as shown below. New Load 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 i 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 allowable limit It is clear from this example that the function of the code review is to point out code changes which might impair perceived margins of safety, and that assessment of their pertinence is best accomplished at the structure-specific level. nklin Research Center A Chesson af The Fransen Wesuse
TER-C5257-321 7.5 PLANT-SPECIFIC CODE CHANGES There is substantial overlap among the SEP plants in the codes and stan-dards used for structural design. Several plants, for example, followed the provisions of ACI-318, 1963 edition, in ' designing major concrete structures. Thus, the initial work of comparing older and current criteria is not plant-specific. However, when the reviewed codes are packaged in sets containing only those code comparisons relevant to design of Seismic Category I structures in a particular SEP 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, while none actually exist in any structures 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, such activities were not attempted. However, occasional reference to such documents was necessary to the review work. Consequently, it was possible to cull from the list some items that were obviously inappropriate to the Dresden 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 may be significant for structures in general but did not appear applicable to any of the Seismic Category I structures at the Dresden plant were relegated to Appendix A. The Scale A or Scale A changes that remained are listed on a code-by-code basis in Section 11. nklin Rewarch
. m-- a n- n.- C.
.. enter
TER-C 5257-321
- 8. DRESDEN UNIT 2 SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES SEP Topic III-l has for its objectives the classification of components, structures, and systems with respect to Loth quality group and seismic designation. Seismic Category I structures in Dresden Unit 2 have been identified by Reference 5 (FSAR) and Reference 6 as follows:
A. Primary Containment Includes: Drywell Tbrus, Vents, and Penetrations (reviewed in Generic Task A-7)
- 8. Reactor Builoing C. Control Room (located in turbine building)
D. Stack. Major structures not classified as Seismic Category I by Reference 5 are the intake and discharge (crib house) structures and the turbine building, although in this report the crib house is treated as a Category I structure. Seismic analyses were performed for these structures as well as for the above Seismic Category I structures. All of the above structures except the intake and discharge (crib house) structures were analyzed for operating basis earthquake (OBE, 0.lg horizontal, 0.0679 ver tical) using modal response time history analysis and were reviewed to assure that they could withstand twice the OBE seismic shears and moments without hindering the ability of the plant to be safely shut down, according to Section 12, FS AR. The intaxe and discharge (crib house) structures were analyzed for static equivalent seismic loads in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. In addition, the following structures are not identified (by Reference 5 or Reference 6) as Seismic Category I, although they might be classified Seismic Category I under current criteria: Spent fuel pool Diesel generator room (s) IIPCI pump building. ; J nklinn.Res
. ,___, ,earch._ Center
""::n-C 5257-321 Desiga load tables and loading combination tables are also supplied in Section 10 for these structures.
. -nklin
~-Research
. Center
m . TER-C5257-321
- 9. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA The structural codes governing design of the major seismic Category I structures for Dresden Unit 2 are detailed in the following table:
Design . Current Structure Criteria Criteria A. Containment
- 1. Drywell (Ref. Containment Spec. ASME B&PV Code,
- p. 2-2 and 3-1) ASME Code Section III, Section III, Subsection B Subsection NE,
, 1963 and 1964 Addenda 1980 d
- 2. Drywell access (Ref. Containment Spec. ASME B&PV Code, hatch (equipment p. 2-2 and~3-1) ASME Code Section III, access hatch) Section III, Subsection B Subsection NE, 1963 and 1964 Addenda (1965 1980 Edition is used herein for code comparisons)
- 3. Drywell access lock (Ref. Containment Spec. ASME B&PV Code, (personnel airlock) p. 2-2 and 3-1) ASME Code Section III, Section III, Subsection B Subsection NE, 1963 and 1964 Addenda 1980 B. Reactor Building ACI 318-63 Concrete ACI 349-76 AISC-1963 Steel AISC-1980 C. Puel Building ACI 318-63 Concrete ACI 349-76 AISC-1963 Steel AISC-1980 D. Control Room ACI 318-63 Concrete ACI 349-76 AISC-1963 Steel AISC-1980 4
E. Stack
- ACI 505-54 ACI 307-79
*Although the provisions of ACI 349-76 currently govern design of all Seismic 4 Category I structures external to containment, nonconflicting provisions of '
l ACI 307-79 also apply. However, comparisons of these design codes with I previous versions of ACI chimney codes are not carried out in this report. It is understood that a complete reanalysis of the stack to current criteria will be carried out within the SEP program. This circumstance reduces code , comparisons for the stack to an academic and superfluous status and negates all practical need for this work. l 1
-_nklin archRese Center .g - -4 y .
y - -
. . . _ . ,,p ie.g - - . - , .1
TER-C5257-321 Design Current Structure Criteria Criteria F. Intake and Discharge Uniform Building Code ACI 349-76 Structures AISC-1980 (Crib ilouse) G. Diesel Generator Rooms ACI 318-63 Concrete ACI 349-76 AISC-1963 Steel AISC-1980 11 . IIPCI Pump Building ACI 318-63 Concrete ACI 349-76 AISC-1963 Steel AISC-1980 O 000!J Franklin Research Center A Dmmon of The Frannhn msetute
l i e TER-C5257-321
- 10. IDADS AND IDAD COMBINATION CRITERIA
10.1 DESCRIPTION
OF TABLES OF IDADS AND IDAD 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 this section of this report. The NRC Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans provide guidance as to what loads and load comoinations must be considered. In some cases, the required loads and load combinations are also specified within the governing 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 evaluated again although they may appear as provisions of the structural design codes. To provide a compact and systematic comparison of previous and present r equiremen ts , two sets of tables are used:
- 1. load tables
- 2. load combination tables.
Both sets of tables are constructed in accordance with current require-ments for Seismic Category I structures, i.e., the load tables list all loads that must be considered in today's design of these structures (as enumerated in NRC's Standard Review Plan), and the load combination tables list all
. combinations of these loadings for which current licensing procedures require demonstration of structural integrity.
nklin Research Center A Osnman of The Frannan insomme
TER-CS257-321 In general, the loads and load combinations to be considered are determined by the struc*,ure under discussion. The design loads for tne structure housing the emergency power diesel generator, for example, are quite dif ferent than those for tne design of the containment vessel. Consequently, structures must be considered individually. Eacn 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 summarize, these requirements for each structure. A note at the bottom of each table provides the reference to the applicable section of the Standard Review Plan. 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: 4
- 1. The list of ,otentially applicable loads (according to current requirements) is examined to eliminate loads which either do not occur on, or are not significant for, the structure under consideration.
- 2. The loads included in the actual design basis are then checked against the reduced list to see if all applicable loads (according to current requirements) were actually considered during design.
- 3. Each load that was considered during design is next screened to see if it appears to correspond to current requirements. Questions such as the following are addressed: Were all the individual loads encompassed by the load category definition represented in the applied loading? Do all loads appear to match present requirements (1) in magnitude? (2) in methed of application?
l
- 4. An annotation is made as to whether deviations from present i 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.
l l 6. Relevant notes or comments are recorded. nklin Research Center A Chman of The Frannan ineense
, . ~
m . TER-C5257-321 Of particular importance to the Topic III-7.B review are comments indicat-ing that the effects of certain loadings (tornado and seismic loads, in particular) are being examined under other SEP topics. In all such cases, the 4 findings of these special SEP topics (where review in depth of the indicated l 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. i-
; Af ter the load tables have been filled out, the load combination tables are compiled. Like the load tables, the load combination tables are drawn up
{ to current requirements and the load ccabinations actually used in the design i ba, sis are matched against these requirements. Current criteria require consideration during plant design of 13 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 combinations actually considered to its nearest counterpart under present requirements. Fbr example, consider a plant where the safe shutdown earthquake I was addressed in combination with other loads, but not in combination with the effects of a IDCA (load combination 13) . The load combination tables would i 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. . For ease of comparison, the load combinations actually used are super-
! imposed-on the load combinations currently required. This is accomplished in two steps:
- 1. . Currently specified load combinations include loads sufficient for the most general cases. In particular applications, some of these are either inappropriate or insignificant. Therefore, the first step i
?' nklin Renamh Center A Dmun W Dw Femm beme l i
, , . -, - - - - - - - - - - , . I
- 4 l
TER-C5257-321 is to strike all loads that are not applicaole to the structure under consideration f rom all load combinations in which they appear.
- 2. Next, loads actually comoined are indicated by encircling (in the appropriate load combinations) each load contributing to the summation considered for design.
Thus, the comparison between wnat was actually done and what is required today is readily apparent. If the load combinations used are in complete accord with current requirements, eacn 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 combinations. However, when the number of load rcombinations considered in design was substantially fewer than current criteria prescribe, it did not appear to serve any engineering purpose to rank the structure for each currently required load combination. Instead, a limited number of loading cases (usually two) were ranked. The following considerations guided the selection of these cases:
- 1. For purposes of the SEP review, it was not believed necessary to require an extensive reanalysis of structures under all load combinations currently 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 combinations occur under emergency and accident conditions. These are also the conditions associated with the greatest consequences ' ea blic health and safety.
- 4. If demonstration of structural adequacy under the most severe load combinations currently specified for emergency and accident conditions is provided, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the structure is also adequate to sustain the less severe loadings associated with less severe consequences.
nklin Research Center A Dhmon of The Frannhn insatute
TER-C5257-321 The scale rankings assigned to loads and load combinations in tables are intended as an appraisal of plant status, with respect to demonstration of compliance widi current design criteria, based on information available to the NRC prior to the inception of the SEP review. A numcer of structurally related SEP topics review some loads and load combinations in detail based upon current calculational methods. In order that a consistent basis for the tables be maintained, they are based upon load comoinations considered in the original design of the facility or, in the case of facility modifications, they are based upon the combinations used in the design of the modification. Loads that were not included in the original design or that have increased in magnitude and have not been specifically addressed in another SEP topic should be addressed by the Licensee. 10.2 LOAD DEFINITIONS D Dead loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as permanent equipment loads). E or En Loads generated by the cperating basis earthquake. E' or E ss Loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake. F Loads resulting from the application of pre-stress. H Hydrostatic loads under operating conditions. Ha Hydrostatic loads generated under accident conditions, such as post-accident internal flooding. (Fg is sometimes used by others* to designate post-LOCA internal ficoding.) L Live loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as movable equipment loads) . Pa Pressure load generated by accident conditions (such as those generated by the postulated pipe break accident) . Po or P y Loads resulting from pressure due to normal operating conditions.
*See, for example, SRP 3.8.2.
_nklin Rese_ arch _. Center
1
. - l i
l
- l TER-C5257-321 Ps All pressure loads which are caused by the actuation of safety relief valve discharge including pool swell and subsequent hydrodynamic loads.
R3 or R r Pipe reactions under accident conditions (such as those generated by thermal transients associated with an accident) . Ro Pipe reactions during startup, normal operating, or shutdown conditions, based on the critical transient or steady-state condition. 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) . To Thermal effects and loads during shartup, normal operating , or , snutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition. T3 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 W t Loads generated by the design tornado specified for the plant. Tcenado loads include loads due to tornado wind pressure, tornado-created differential pressure, and tornado-generated missiles. Yj 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. Yr Equivalent static load on the structure generated by the reaction on the broken pipe during the design basis accident. 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 i standard format; consequently, subsection 3 of each plan always contains the
- . appropriate load definitions and load combination guidance.
l i j nklin'Res *~
- 4m a n. ea.rch
.q Center
TER-C5257-321 10 .3 DESIGN IDAD TABLES
" COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS IDADS" . - ~ _ . _ .
s j
/
TER-CS257-321 STRUC*URE: COW ARISON OF OE!!ON BASIS LCA05 CR TELL PLANT: ORESDE't 2 Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicable Included Reviewing Magnitude reviation Impact Sasis To This in Plant This Load Correspone Exist Scale Comments Loads Structure' Design To Present In Load Rankins Basts? Criteria? Basis? D Tes Yes Yes No 1.
=
l L Tee Yes Yes No 1. u F No - - -
*
- 1. 2.
N Tes Yes III-5.A
- P Tes Yes Yes No 1.
,2 F, Yes Yes VI-2.D. III-7.3 *
- p Tes No - Yes 7
. T, Yes No - Yes 2
; ; Yes Yes VI-2.3. III-7.3
- e * "T" in FSAR T9 Tes No - Tee 7 R Tes Yes NOT STATZ:t - 4 "II" in FSAR o
Tes 3.
$2.
m R a Tee No - A E R, Tes No - Yes A E' Yes Tee III.6 e e A, 5. e E Tes Yes * *
- 5.
III.6 Ig W' No - III-2. III-4.A * *
~
W No - III-2. III-4.A * * -~ 5 Y, Yes Yes III-5.A *
- A, ,.
=
j Yes Yes III-5.A =
- A, lt" in FSAA Y)
I
- T, Tes Yes III-5.A *
- Ret.. iRPtivet) Section 3.3.1 or 3.4.2 Coceents
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking s5cwn for SEP topic items are independent judsments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. D.I,.8 & F, are all included in D of FSAR (Farm. 12.1.1.3).
- 2. Flooded condition for drywell is required by containment design specifications to elev. 566'0".
- 3. FSAR (p.5.2-32) describes protective measures for limiting pipe movement at penetrations.
- 4. Magnitudes of piping and mechanical loads not stated in FSAR. Operating history should indicate if operational tranatent or steady state loeds have caused any problems.
- 5. Response spectra and damping values appear to be unconservative compared to current criteria Reg.
Guides 1.60 6 1.61 respectively.
- 6. Jet reactions and jet forces (e.g. FSAR 5.2-32) not calculated in accordance with current criteria (SEP 3.6.2), i.e. 1.0 t, uced instead of 1.26 P,.
- 7. Reviewed in generic task A-7. *ffects of hydraulic loads. Mark I containment.
d U Franklin Research Center A OMe.on of The Frenman hwnute
TER-C5257-321 STRUCTi.PE : C0f* PAR!!ON CF 0($!O1 BA$!$ (CADS RUCTOR SUILOIiG EL. 472'S' to $1217 PL#IT: ORE 50EM 2 Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design ApplicabliIncluded Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This in Plant This Load Corresponc Exist Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking Basia? Critertaf Basis? m
} D Tes Yes Yes No -
3 L Tes Yes Yes No u 1.
, y No - - - -
}4 g Yes Yes !!!-3.A
- e
- f P Tes No ggg.5,3 e e a
} T, Nati. No -
Yes - j T, Tes No ggg.3,3 e . .
.- a7a in F3AR g j R, Tes No -
Tes 5 **d" in FSAR 1. E*E R, Tes No Tee A g 3 E' Tes Yes III-6 * *
- A x
3.
.x E Yes Tee Ig;.4 e e e j 'J ' Tes Yes e e III.2. III-4.A e 3.
j 'J Tee Tee III-2, III-4.A
- e
- T Tee No III-5.8
- e f
- A x
4. e T j Tes Yes III-5.3 e s A x
"1" in TSAR 4.
e T, Yes No III-5.3 e e e Ref.1 SRP(1991) Section 3.3.4 Comments
- To be determiced per results of SEP tooics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on informattors in the FSAR or other original design doc. aments.
- 1. Roof loads have increased per SEP Topic II-2.A (greater col. leads from superstructure)1 and any increase per SEP Topic II-3.3 for perspot roofs.
- 2. Some pipes and supports typical of installation are likely to have experienced major tranatents.
- 3. FSAR (p.12.1-10-11) states tornado wind from 300 to 500 Mrs (capability) depending on part of structure.
4 Jet reacciona and jet forces (e.g. TSAR.S.2-32) not calculated in accordance with current criteria (SRP 3.6.2), i.e.1.0 P, was used instead of 1.26 P,.
- 5. Response spectra and damping values appear to be unconservative compared to current criteria.
Reg. Gaides 1.60 6 1.61 respectively. nklin Research Center A Ohaman of The Frenahn insomae
e . TER-C5257-321 STRUCTURE: REACTM SUILDIM C0f*PARJ$01 V OE$lG'4 3A$l$ LOAOS SUPERSTRUCTURE ABOVE EL. 61310" PLATIT: ORE 30EN 2 Current Is Load !s Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design App 11cabli Included Reviewing MaCnitude Deviation Impact Sasis To This In Plant This Load Corresponc Exis t Scale Coenents Loads Structure Oesign To Present In Load Ranaing Basis? Crit e ria ? Basis? m, 3 D Tes Yes Yes No - L Yes Yes Yes No A, 1.
, No _ _ _
e _
$ H No - III-3.A -
g* P Negl. No 111-5.5
- a
}U T Negl. No - Yes -
* "T* in TSAR T
8 Negl. No 111-5.5 *
- d
, j R, No - - - - "H" in TSAR R, No - - - -
C' Yes Tee III-6 *
- A, I E Yes Tee III-6 * *
- I
,y W' Tes Yes *
- III-2. III-4.A A, 2. 3.
j W Tes Yes III-2. III-4.A * *
- 2.
III-5.5 * *
- Y, - -
g Y)
- - III-3.5 * * * "1" in TSAR t
- Y, - - 111-5.5 *
- Ref. ; SRF(1981) Section 3.8.4 Somments
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale *ank.ing shown for SEP topic items are independent j udgments , based on infstuation in the TSAR or othet original design documents.
- 1. Roof snow loads hat e increased per SEP Topic II-2.A and any increase per Topic 11-3.5 for parapet roofs.
- 2. Not included in load combinatione, but considered seperately.
- 3. TSAR states vind loade of 170 to 300 Mrs. first with siding on. then with siding blove off.
b Franklin Research Center A CWuman of The Frannan Insende
e - e TER-C5257-321 Sit'JCit:PE: CCt* PARIS 0'4 0F :ESIGN 3A5:5 LOACS SPENT FUEL POCL (con: rete) PLANT: ORE 5CEN 2 Current Is Load ts Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicab1< included Reviewing Ma*nitude Deviation tapact Sasis To This In FIant This Load Correspona Exis t Scate Conments Loads Structure Asign To Present In toad Ranking Sasts? Criteria ? 3 asis? m D Yes Yes Yes No L Yes Yes Yes No u
, F No - - -
! H Yes Yes !!I-3.A e e Z F, No -
111-5.8 *
- Y, Negl. * - - -
- 7 Yes Yes !!!-5.3 *
- d *
, j R No --. - -
*f R, No --. - -
f _ { E' Tee Yes III-6
- e
- l E Yes Yes III-6 * *
- j W' Yes No III-I. III-4.A
- e
- 3.
j W No - III-1, III-4.A *
- Y, - -
III-5.3 * *
- 2.
is Y 171-5.3
- e
- 2.
A 111-5.3 a 2. Y,
- e Ref. i SRF(1981) Section 3.8.4 Consen e s
- To be determined per results of SEF tooics. Scale ranking shown f ar SEF topic itene are independent j udgment s , based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Applicable only since steel structure over spent fuel pool is not tornado resistant.
- 2. Pipe break enternal to containment to evaluated in SEF Topic III-5.3.
- 3. SEP Topic III-2 vill determine whether or not pool exposure to possible tornado effects is sa alloweble spent fuel pool load.
- 4. Fuel pool temperature (high density racks. fully loaded) is limited to 90*F for all reactors.
Ob Franklin Research Center A cm*=en se The Fren en m
1 e 3 TER-C5257-321 STRUCitiRE: CC?' PAR!!C'l CF CES!T4 2A5!S L OC CONTROL RCCM PLAflT: CRES*,EN 2 Current Is LoaJ Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Soes Codt Oeeign Applicabli Included Reviewing Matnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant *his Load Correspono Exis t Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking Basist criteria? Basis?
$ 3 Tes Yes Yes No -
3 L Tee Yes Yes No - u
, F No - -
!* H No - III- 3. A * * -
5 P Tes No III-5.3 * *
- 1*
a Negl.
}
- T, T Yes No No 111-5.8 Yes d *
- 1. "T" in FSAR
, e ;
- R. No - - - -
'*sa in r$AR
- n. 4 2" m, ya _ _ _ _
O E' Yes Yes III-6 *
- A 2.
s a I E Tes Yes III-6 * *
- 8
; V' Tes No III-2. III-4.A *
- 3.
A, j W Tes No * *
- III-2. III-4_.A Y, - - III-5.8 *
- 3
- - 111-5.8 * *
- 4. "R" in FSAR T)
Y, - - III-5.3 *
- e Ref.; SRF(1981) Section 3.8.4 Commenes
- To be determined per results of SEF topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the TSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Not a major structural concern, but might affect control room habitab3.lity.
- 2. Response spectra and damping values appear to be conservative compared to current criteria.
Reg. Guides 1.60 & 1.61 respectively.
- 3. Mas. tetrado wind used was 300 MPH. Current criteria call for 360 MPH.
- 4. Jet forces (e.g. FSAR p.5.2-32) not calculated in accordance with current criteria (SRP 3.6.2),
i.e. 1.0 F was used instead of 1.I6 F anywhere fo,r calculation of jet reacti$n simplies that no an911ficatios factors were used or forces. I 1 _nklin Res,e_. arch _ Center
s e TER-C5257-321
- 1. STRUCTLRE: INTAKE AND DISCHARGE CCr* PARI 010F 0($!01 BASIS LCAOS STRUCTURE (Crib Houst)
PLAtti: ORESCEN 2 I . Current le Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabl< Included Reviewing Ma gnitude Deviation Impact Basie To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exis t Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present !n Load Ranking Basis? Critertaf Basist m D Tes - - - - 3. h L Tee - - - - 3.,%. v
, F No - - - -
3 N Tee - III-3.A * *
- 2 P a
No - III-1.8 * * - j T, Negl. - - - - 3 T No - III-5.8 * * - C
- Yes
- j R, - - - 3.
Ed R, No - - - - . E' Tes Tee III-6 *
- 2.
A, y Yes Tee III . e * *
?. W' Yes Tee III-2. III-4.A *
- A 2.
g j W Tea Tee III-2. III-4.A * * - Y, No - III-5.8 * * - g T) No - III-5.3 * * - t Y, No - 111-5.5 * * - Re f. : SRF(1981) Section 3.5.4 _conments
- To be deteristned per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEF topic items are independent judgments, based on inf ormation in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. FSAR implies that the intake and discharge structure (crib house) not seismic cat. I but is treated ae such in this Table.
- 2. 7SAR (p.12.1-9) states 1/3 increase in allowable stressee (of unif. 51ds. code) for combinations including seismic or wind loads. Current criteria ($17 p.3.8.4-13) does not permit this 1/3 increase.
- 3. FSAR information insufficient to evaluate these items.
- 4. Roof loads have incrossed per SEP Topic II-2.A and may increase per 5ZF Topic II-3.3 for parapet roofs.
nklin Research Center A Chamon of The Frenndin Instause
TER-C5257-321 t, STRUCTUPE: CCr* PAR!!C10F DESIGN eA5!5 (CA05
' DIESEL GEN. PORTICN CF TUPSINE BUILCING PLNIT: CRESCEN 2 Current Is Load Is Load SIF Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicab1< !aciudad Reviewing Magnitude Deviation !spect Saeis To this In Plant This Load Correspona Exis t Scale Comments Loada Structure Design To Present In Laad Ranking Basist Criteriaf Basts?
m g D Tee Yes Yes No - u 3 L Tee Yes Tee 'o - 2. y F No === === = === 5 It
- No 3. III-3.A' * *
- C g P
- No 111*5.5 * *
- a
) T, Tes No 4. -
E T e No 111-5.8
- d *
. R Tee No - Tee -
5. 1 i a E ** 2 g Yes No - Tee - 5. a 3 g' Tee Tee III s3 e e A, 6. 7. a
] g Yes Yes ggI-6 e *
- 7.
o l 2 w' Tee Yes III-2. III-4.A + e 4, 6. 8. j w Tes Tee III-2. III-4.A * * *
- No * *
- Y, III-5.8 j T No III-5.3 e e
- s 3 2 Y
- No III-5.5 * *
- a Ref.4 51F(1981) Section 3.4.4 Comments
- To be determined per results of SEF topics. Scale ranking shown for $EF topic items are independent judgmente. based on information in the F5AR or other original design documente.
- 1. Turbine butiding classified as seismic category IIs diesel gen. rooms of turbine building treated se category I here.
- 2. Roof loads have increasse per SEP Top u II-2.A and may increase per SEF Topic II-3.5 for parapet roofs.
- 3. Hydrostatic loads considered part of deed load according to FSAR 12.1-4 but no specific reference to its application to this structures sect. 2.5-1 also states that external flooding is not a mejor concern.
- 4. F sreece es these loads in FSAR, pertaining to turbine building.
- 5. Loads, if any, were small
- 6. FSAR states: 1/3 increase in allav. screes was used for load comb. containing wind or earthquake loade - not permitted for Class I structures.
- 7. Reactor and turbine buildings treated together for seismic analysis in FSAR 12.1 12.
- 8. All structures designed for 110 MFl! min. wind (FSAR 12.1-7].
b Franklin Research Center A Dhae.on cd The FrenMn Insende
o
- l l
TER-C5257-321 STRUCTUEE. WJ PRESSUPE 000LM:7 CCf* PAR,!!0'4 0F CESIGN 9ASf 5 t.CA05 p , ENCLOSURE PLNIT: CRESLEN 2 Current !s Load Is Load SEP Toeie Does Load Does Code Design Applicab b Included Revtewing Ma6nitude Deviation Imoact Basis To This In Plant This Load Corresponc Exis t Scale Conesents Loads St ructure Design To Present In Load Ranking Basis ? Criteria? Sasts? m j D Yes Yes Yes No - j L Yes Yes Yes No 1. A, i
, r No _ _ _ _ '
! 14 Tes Yes III-3.A * *
- 2 P, Tes No 111-5.3 * *
- j T, Negl. No - Yes 3
$ T Tes No *
- d
- III-5.5 * "T" in FSAR j R, Yes No
, - Yes B "3" in FSAR ' 2.
A \
- a. .e I? Yes No R, - Yes A, t' Tes Yes III-4 *
- A, 3.
3 E Tea Tes III-6 * *
- a j 'J ' Yes Tee 111-2. III-4.A * *
- 4 j W Tes Tee III-2. III-4.A * *
- Y, Yes No III-5.3 *
- A, y Yes No 5. III-5.3 * *
"R" in FSAR T) A, ,
t Y, Tee No III-5.3 *
- A, Ref.. SRP(1981) Sect.on 3.8.4 Commente
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale raniting shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Roof snow loads have increased per SEP Topic II-2.A and any increase per Topic II-3.3 for parapet roofs.
- 2. Some pipes and supports typical of installation are likely to have experienced mejor transients.
- 3. Response spectra and damping values appear to be unconservative compared to current criteria, Reg. Guides 1.60 & 1.61 respectively.
- 4. FSAR (12.1=10 6 11) states tornado wind from 300 to 500 MPH (capabilitT) depending on part of structure (for reactor bids.).
- 5. toad included as part of loading connination for class I structures but no specific reference to its application to this structure in FSAR.
_nklin Resear.ch._ _n . Center
! , e TER-C5257-321 l 5TECTJE: CCt' PARIS 0's 0F OE5ffie 3A5!$ VJ OS STACK PLNIT: DRESCEN 2 Current Is 1, cad le Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabl< Included Reviewinst Magnitude Deviation Impqct Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspono Exis t Scale Comments Loads St ructure Design To Present In Load Ranning Basis! Criteria? Baste? m 0 Tee Tee Yes No - L Tee Yes Yes No -
.e.
j a Yes No III-3.A e e e o j' P a No - 111-5.3 e e - Tea Tee 3 1. T,
- T No -
III-5.3 e e - G
- R No No - -
E*2 3 No - - - - E' Yes Tee III-6 * *
- 2.
l E Tea Tee III.6 *
- e 3.
?. W' Tea fee III.2, III 4.A *
- A, l
W Yes e e ** j Tee III-2, III-4.A No e e - Y, - III-5.3 T e e - 1 j No - III-5.3 i e T, No --- 111-5.3 * * - Ref.! SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 j Cpamente
- Ta be determined per results of SEP tootes. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic itene are independent I
judgments, based on information in the r$AR or other original design documents.
- 1. Stack designed for amotent temp. of 1500 max. and -200 min.. normal temp. of vaste vill be 70*
(r$AR 12.1-15).
- 2. In dynamic computer analysis. stack is treated as flexible cantilever system with the distribution of lateral forces in accordance with USC formulas vt.t h Total lateral static cesificiente 101 of gravity modes. F, = [*
(Ref. FSAR 12.1-15). Seismic design of class I structures based upon response spectrum curves in FSAR Fig. 12.1.2 & 12.1.3.
- 3. Mas. (tornado) wind used vos 110 MPH. Current criteria call for 360 MPH.
nklin Research Center A DMmon cf The FranMn Insende
i l l i l TER-C5257-321 i 1 l 1 i i I i 10.4 IDAD COMBINATION TABLES l i "CCMPARISON OF IDADING COMBINATION CRITERIA" i 4 1 t t 4 'k ) i s' f ., I l < i I 1
! ranklin Research Center A Ohemen of The Renenineshde
TZ2-C 237-:21 CCPPAA!!0:1 0F LCADI:4G C0Fa!!iATIC's CRITERIA s!4GM PLANT: caESDEN 2 Comoined Gravity Natural I=pulsive Scale Loading Dead. Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading 2an kir a S -, u i. 1 0+L T, P, A,
]
I* 2 3+L T - P R e e e a 3 D+L T a P a R a . 4 D+L T, + T, P, + P , R, + R,
} l
*h h h I a
- 2. h A, 6.
2 D+L T, ?, R, g 3 D+L T, P, R, g
/* 4 D+L I ,
- I, P , + P, R , + R, u g 3,g 7 y a g'
- a a a w
s 5 2 D+L T o
?
o R a- E'
* { +P +R 3 D+L T a
+T s P
a s R a e g. 7 l
; l vi :
1 'l D+L T, P, R, L' T *Y
- r j s
* *
- A
. s s a e f s 3. 3. 6.
2. vi 1 D+L @ A g 4. 6.
"e .
S3 a. Ref.: SRP Section 3.9.2 Steel Containment Notes
- 1. Encircled loads are those actually considered in tne design per FSAR.
When load factors different from those currently required were used. the factor used is also encircled.
- 2. R, wee used instead of R,.
- 3. Die load combination wee considered using both I and E', but with different acceptance criteria.
- 4. FSAR 5.2.3.5 indicates that drywell seismic analysis wee performed for both empty and flooded conditions, but no indication of what other loads were used to form this load combination.
- 5. Drywell miselle protection is discussed in FSAR 5.2.3.7
- 6. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is meintained for the above load cases (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
_nklin Res, ear_ _ch C_ s .enter
v e l l
- COMPARISON Of STRESS tlMlIS FOR
~
c= E$ STEEL CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES
. PLAhi DRE5 DEN 2 3
5b SERVICE CURRLNI CRii[RIA DESIGN CRITERIA (Rff. TABLE NE - 3221-1. ASME SECTION lli,1980) LEVEL (RE F. : A5 E A5 1 5 N$ op CRITERIA VAtuE. pil CRITERIA VAL UE . ps t
. 3 P l.0 5 "C 19.300 (See Note 7)
' :r 5 HELL MATERIAL P 1.5 5 28,950
'Q 3 A ,C L*P6 1.5 5mc 28.950
. I 8 to AM
-k Pg*Pb+Q 3.0 5,, 67.500 VIELD STRISS (5,)
- 38,00a psi (See mte 6 s 71 pst Uli. STRENGIH (5,)
- 70.000 P 1.0 5 19.300 P l.15 19.300 P' I.55 28.950 P 1.5(1.15) CURRENT
*
- P
19.300 fac Pg+Pb I.5 Sg 28.950 P +P b 1.5(l.15) 1.875 5 INIENSIIV D 300 Pg+Pb+Q 3.0 5,, 67.500 P, + Pb tipli (See ete 11 (Ece note 6 1 71 Pm
- Ph + n tf t _1M u om 5
- 17.500 pst i P, 1.2 5 , or 1.0 Sj 38.000 MEMBRANE 9 300 F ap.
51RE55 llMIT y C P g I.8 5 , or l.5 S y 57.000 P *P b 1.8 5,c or 1.5 Sy 57.000 15ec notes t 4 5 6 & 11 P, 1.0 5, O.W P 1.5 5, 62.475 P,
- Pb e .93755, 35.625 D
62.475 Pa + Pb
- Q 3.05 52.500 Pg*Pb 1.55 t (Ref.: Para 3.03Cf of Containment Specs.)
(See notes 2, 5 & 6) POSI- P, 1.2 5, or 4.0 5, 38.000 FLOODING P 1.8 5" or 1.5 5 57.000 LONDlIION L,p # 57.000 Pt+Pg
- Q (without earthquake) 1.0 5 38.000 P *P *Q "'
3 67.500 (with earthquake) 1.0 5 10.000 (See m tes 4 5 6 8 11 (Ref.: Para. 3.03Bb of contalnment specs.) NOIES: 1. NOTE IHAT CURRENT PRIMARV STRESS INTENSIIV llMIIS PRE 5tHf ME!H005 0F ANALYS15. CONSEQUENitV. CAUll0N $H00LD Vl0 INBE OB51R(AMONG NAKING OTHER OIRECI COMPARISONS WIIHCODE DESIGNOllALIIV CONTROLS) 51RE55 LIMils ttMif RN COMPUTERll(D APPRCPRIAlf FOR [[55 MODERN ANALYilCAL PROCEDURf5. 8
- 2. THE COMPARABLE CURRENT CRITERIA ASSUMING EL ASIIC HEIH005 WERE USED FOR THE ORIGINAL DESIGN ANALYSIS. 1
- 3. V44 UES SHOWN PERIAIN 10 INTEGRAL AND CONilN'KMis SIRUCTURES ONLV.
4.
- 5. {HE LARGER OF THE TWO LIMIIS IS APPLICABLE.
f IS 8510F THt GENERAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE Att0WADif PERMITIED IN APPENDIX f 0F SECil0N III. A5ME CODE. [ m
- 6. IN Att INSIANCES FATIGUE AND BUC8 LING CRiitRIA PtJ51 ALSO BE SAII5fl[D. N
- 7. IN ACCORDANCE WlIH ASME Ill. DIV.1. SUBSECI. NE. SUBPARA. Ilf 2321. THis MAIERIAL 15 NOT EISIED AHONG IH056 CURRENilV PERMIITED. REF: APPENDICES TABLE I-10.1 "CURRENI* STRESS VALUES LISIED ARE DERIVED USING S I 5,g 9 3000 F FROM TABLE N-421 ASME B&PV CODE SEC. III. CL ASS A. (1965). "C
- 1*1 a 1'4 " 5"* '"J Ed M
V'
- e TER-C5257-321 COMPARISCN OF LGADING COMBIMTION CRITERIA STOCTURE:
REACTOR BUILDING CCNCRETE STRUCTURES p,p7 optSCEN 2 el . 47215" to 61320' Com'3 1ned Natural impulsive Loading Gravity Dead. Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical
- l Phenome.a t.oading ,
C.s.s i 1 1.40 + 1.7L I 1.9E 2 1.4D + 1.7L' l 3 1.4D + 1.7L 1. @ 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) ,
' T, .75 x 1.7 R, 5 . 75 (1.4D + 1.7L) ', 7, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.9El 6 .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) -r+" -
T, .75 x 1.7 R,i . 7 5 x 1. 7' 7 j 1.2D 1.9E 9 1.2D 1.JW 9 D+L R, E'
- 5. A 7.
\
10 D+L l R, g l 11 D+L T, 1.5 P, R, 12 @+@ T, 1.25 P, R, 1.2h Y, + + Y, 13 @@ T, P, R, h T, + + Y, A, 7. Ref.: SRP (1961) Sect. J.8.4 other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977).
- 2. Methode used in design { workinn stress V consequently w load factors were ured.
- 3. toads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loans are those actually constdered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required sere used, the factor used is siso encircled.
- 5. Includes tornado missiles according to FSAR Sect. 12.1-10.
- 6. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A58.1 may be used, or provisions of CBC Section 2311(j) invoked.
- 7. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load casse 10.13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonsole assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
I _nklin_Rese_ arch _ Center
T2.:1-C 52 57-3 21 OCMPARISCN OF LCADING CCMB!!!ATICN CRITERIA STRUCTLRE: REACTOR BUILD!hG STEEL STRUCTURES (Elast1C Analysts) SUPERSTRUCTURE ABOVE EL. P'JNT : CRESCEN 2 W# Coahtaed Ctavity loading Natural Impulsive Dead. Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phnoma Wading S'*l* Cases Live 1 D+L 2 l D+L E l 3 l D+L 'd 4 j D+L g S q I 5 l D+L % ( E D+L 6 l \ \ @ 7 l D+L
\ k E' 0+L 8
l ( y 9 D+L R g R 10
@+@ k @ *T r
*Y m 5.
I 11 h+h +T r
*Y s A 5. 8.
Refg SRP (1981) SECT. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (steel) Notes
- 1. Encircled loads are those actually constdered in the design. *Jhen load factors are different from those currently requised were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 2. Loado deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
3 TSAA (P.12.1-10) states 170 MPH for panel blowoff. 300 MP5 for yield in structural steel frame.
- 4. Maximum tornado wind was 300 MPH. Current criteria call for 360 MPH.
- 5. Y, indicated as well in FSAR-load combinations, but no indication that it wee applied to superstructure.
- 6. Wc Mudes tornado 'aisenes, accordhg to N 12.1-M.
- 7. Snow load coefficiente in accordance with AN51 A38.1 any be used, or provisions of L1BC Section 2311 (j) invoked.
- 8. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is asintained for load esses 8. 11 (per current criteria) esy be considered as providing reasonable assursace that this structure asets the intent of current design criteria.
nklin Research Center A Onamon of The Frenehn hweeune
o . TER-C5257-321 CCMPARISCM CF LCA31NG CCP'ShATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: SPENT FUEL PC01. CCNCRETE STRUCTURES (CCNCRETE).IN REACTCR 3UILCING ptANT: DRESCEN 2 , t g Grevity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical p 1 Scale Ranning Cases i l l 1 ! 1.4D + 1.7L l 2 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E l 3 1.4D + 1.7L M 4 .73 (1.4D + 1.7L) " * ;, 2, 5 .75 (1.@} 1.Q
' ?, "-_'( .75x1.$
6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 7- 2, '; . N
- - ' T, ,.
j 7 j 1.:D f l.3E 8 j 1.:D
- 9 D+L K E' 10 i D+L N, % W 11 D+L T, M \ l 12 D+L T, 1.25E +\
13 hh T, \ h +h+\ A, ( Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.S.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) l l %ree 1. Ultimate streugth method required by ACI-349 (1977).
- 2. Methods used in design { y s stress consequently no load factors were used j 3. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
l 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors dif ferent from those currently required were used. the factor used is also escircled.
- 5. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load case 13 (per current criteria) may be considered as proviains reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
_nklin Resea_rch_ -. Center
1
. s ;
i I TER-C5257-321 CCt9ARISON OF LCADING CCMINATICM CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CONCRETE STRUCTURES CONTROL ROCM ptANT* FRESOEM ? Imp s e Lo a Gravity Deed. Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical p g $c,3, Casee Ranking i 1.4D + 1.7L o 2 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E 3 1.40 + 1.7L 1. @ 6. 4 .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) , 7, , 5 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) ' ?, ' '
.75 E 1.9 6 . 7 5 (1.40 + 1. 7L) -- , . - . . ^, . 7 5 x 1. 7' T,
7 1.2D 1.9E l 5 1.23 1.iW 9 l D+L E' 10 0+L - W g A, 7, 11 D+L \ % \ 12 @+@ \ '
..?, 1.2$ Y, + Y a 5.
13 @+@ \ h Y, + + Y, A, 7. Ref.: SEP (1961) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977).
- 2. Methcde used in design {WOT s 8 trees { consequently no load factors were used.
- 3. 14ede deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
4 Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factore different from those currently required were used. the factor used is also encircled. j 5. Y, indicated in FSAR load combinatione, but no indication that it vee applied to , control room.
- 6. Wind loading based in 110 MPH wind and claimed by TSAR to be considerably in excese of uniform building code requiremmate.
- 7. For purposes of the 3EP Review. demonstration that structural integrity te maintained for load casee 10, 13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
l nklin Research Center A Cheeson of The Frerudin Insemas
e . O TER-CS257-321 5. COMPARISON OF LCACING CCPSIV. TIC's CRITERIA STRUCTUPE: IITAKE AND O!$ CHARGE STRUCTLRE CONCRETE STRUCTURES (Crib House) PtANT: ORESCEN 2 g Gravity Dead, Live . Thermal Pressure Mechanical p ," 'g,1'* Scale Rankins Cases 1 1.4D + 1.7L 2 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E 3 1.40 + 1.7L 1.7W 6. 4 . 7 5 (1. 4D + 1. 7L) 7,. I, .75 x 1.7 R, l
.75 (1.40 + 1.7L) .75 x 1.9 5 ,
7, l.75x1.1R, 6 .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) ,.T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.7 7 1.23 1.9E 1.;W 6 ; 1. D E' 7. 9. 9 i D+L ( R, A lo I D + :. \ l R, W
, A, 7.,9.
11 D+L \ M \ 12 D+L
\ 1.155
(+ +K 12 3.t g g g c g.g.x 1. Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.3.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). consequently no load factors were used
- 2. Methods used in design { working stress
- 3. 1.sads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load f actors different from those currently required were used, the f actor used is also encircled.
- 5. According to TSAR 12.1-9 Class II items were designed following " normal practice" for Illinois and the UBC-64 No load combination specified in FSAR for Class II structures.
- 6. Wind loadings based on 110 MFR vind and claimed by FSAA to be " considerably in excese of uniform building code requirements."
- 7. Combination contains loads to be considered by another SEP Topic.
S. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A38.1 any be used. or provisions of USC Section 2311Q) invoked.
- 9. For purposes of the SEF Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 9,10 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
nklin Research Center A Deween of The Frenamn inemeAs
l l TER-C5257-321 1 5. CCMPARISCN CF LCADING CCFBINATICN CRITERIA STRUCTURE: DIESEL GEN. CCNCRETE STRIKTURE5 PCRTIONS CF TURBINE BUILDING ptANTt ORE 50EN 2 Combined Loading Cravity Dead. Live Thermal Pressure Me:hanical 3C'l* Cases Ph a Ranking 1 1.4D + 1.7L i 1.4D + 1.7L 2 1.9E 3 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7V 6. 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, 5 .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.9 6 .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, . 75 x 1. 7' 7 1.23 1.9E 8 1.2D 1.lW 9 l 3+L T, R, E' l A 9. g 10 j D+L T R W 6. A 7,,9, o o C x 11 3+L T, 1.5 F, R, 12 3+L T, 1 25 F, R, 1.25 E Y, + Ty + T, 7, 13 D+L T, F, R, t' 7. Y, + Ty + T, Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 5.8.4 Other Category I eCuctures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977).
- 2. consequently no load factors were used MetP: ode used in design {workingstresaV
- 3. Londe deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinatione.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factore dif ferent from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 5. According to TSAR 12.1-9. Class 11 items were designed following "normel practice" for illincia and the UBC-64. No load combination specified '.n FSAR for Class II structures.
- 6. Wind loadings veeed on 110 MPR wind and claimed, by FSAR to be " considerably in excess of UBC requiremente."
- 7. Combination contains loads to be considered by another SEP Topic S. Snow load coefficiente in accordance with ANSI A38.1 any be used. or provisions of UBC Section 2311(j) invoked.
- 9. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 9.10 (per current criteria) any be considered as providing reasonable aneurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
nklin Research Center A Dhemen of The Frannan kweede
e , TER-C5257-321 l CCMPARISCM CF LCADING CCFBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: MIGH PRESSURE COOLANT INECTION PUMP CCNCRETE STRUCTURES 05URE Pt ANT- CRESCEN 2 at Oravity Dead. Live i Thermal Pressure Pechanical P ding ,
, 1 1.40 + 1.7L 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E 2
l 3 1.40 + 1.7L 1.14 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) ' T, .75 x 1.7 R, l l 5 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) ' T, .75 a 1.7 R,
.75x1.9]
6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) '! ' T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.7W 7 l 1.23 1.9E 8 1.2D 1.lw 9 D+L R, E* 10 0+L \ , R, h 5. A 6. 8. 11 D+L T, 1.5 F, R, 12 h+@ T, 1.25 F, R, 1.2h Y , + f) + Y, 6. 13
@+@ T, F, R, h T, + Ty + Y, A, 6..S.
Raf.: 3RP (1981) sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I s*ructures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by AC1-349 (1977). I"8 stress conaeouently no 1 ad factors were used. 2. 3. F.ethods used in design f _ loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading tambinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. Whos load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 5. Includes tornado missiles, according to TSAR 12.1-10.
- 6. Combination contains loads to be considered by another SEP Topic.
- 7. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A38.1 may be used, or provisions of USC Section 2311 (j) invoked.
- 8. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is main-tained for load cases 10. 13 (per current criteria) any be considered as providind reasonable aneurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
O nWin Research Center A Dmmon of The Frenhan insature
TF.R-C 5257-321 1 t COMPARISON OF LOA 0!NG CC M INATION CRITERIA STRUCTL8E: CONCRETE STRUCTURES STACK M_ ANT ? CRESOEM 2 Loa ing Crevity Dead. Live . Thermal Pressure Mechanical In s e 3,,g, f Cases p , g Ranking 1 1.4D + 1.7L f 2 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E l l 3 1.40 + 1.7L 1.Th 5. { I
.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) l5 4
.75x1.7h -.
, j 5
.75 (1. @ 1. Q .75 r 1.7 T, :
, .75x1.IQ 6 i .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 T, -
' 2, .75 a 1.7'd <
7 l 1.23 1.9E S 1.2D 1. T4 9
@+@ T, \ @
D+L 3' 10 T, \ ' A, 6. 7. D+L 11 I Yg -e,4-4; \ 12 D+L
\ :: ?, 1.25E
\+ +\
13 D+L \ E' +
+k 6.
Ref.: $1F (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Catesory I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength eathod required by ACI-349 (1977). king stress c neequently no load factors were used.
- 2. Methods used in design {
- 3. Londe deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually canoidered in the design. 'Jhen load factore different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 5. Wind and temperature also considered in design but TSAR does not list combinations including them.
- 6. Combination contains loads to be considered by another SEP Topic.
- 7. For purposes of the $EF Review, demonetation that structural integrity is maintained for load case 10 (per current criteria) may be coueidered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
O u00u Fr.nkiin Research cen(er A Dumon of The P'rerman inseue
TER-C5257-321
- 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 Dresden Unit 2 were
- 1. AISC, " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 1963
- 2. ACI 318-63, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," 1963 1
l 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 the order listed above, summarizing important results of these comparisons for each code. These tables provide:
- 1. identification by paragraph number (both of dhe orginal code and of its current counterpart) of code provisions where Scale A or Scale Ax deviations exist.
- 2. identification of structural elements to which each such provision may apply.
Some listed provisions may apply only to elements that do not exist in the Dresden Unit 2 structures. When it could be determined that this was the case, such provisions were struck from the list. Any provisions that appeared to be inappiicable for other reasons also were eliminated. Items so removed are listed in Appendix A to this report. Access to further information concerning code provision changes is provided by additional appendixes. Each pair of codes (the design and the current ones) has a tabular summary within the report (Appendix B) which lists all code changes by scale ranking. O dbd Franklin Research Centes A Ornman of The Fransen insatute
e
- TER-C5257-321
- In addition, a separately bound appendix exists for each code pair. This provides:
l
- 1. full texts of each revised provision in both the former and current l
versions
- 2. comments or conclusions, or both, relevant to the code change
- 3. the scale ranking of the change.
I l h l O I nklin Research Center A Osmoon of The Frermen besue
TER-C5257-321 l l 11.1 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC-1963 VS. AISC-1980 CODE COMPARISON A dbd Franklin Research Center a N .an a n . Fr o m m .
TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE CCMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.2.2 -- 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 fasteners plus tension along a perpendicular plane 1.9.1.2 1.9.1 Slender compression unstiff- New provisions added 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 1.9.1.2 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in New requirements added composite beams in the 1980 Code regard-ing the distribution of shear connectors (egn. 1.11-7). The diameter and spacing of the shear connectors are also subject to new con trols. 1.11.5 -- Composite beams or girders New requirement with formed steel deck added in the 1980 Code nklin Research Center A Oswason of The Franken Inseawe
TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE CCMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced , Subsection l AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.14.2.2 -- Axially loaded tension New requirement l members where the load is added in the 1980 transmitted by bolts or Code rivets through some but not all sf 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 Scale 2.9 2.8 Lateral bracing of members A 0.0 < M/Hp < l.0 to resist lateral and C 0.0 > M/Mp > -1.0 torsional displacement See case study 7 for details. nklin Research Center A Onomen of The Frannhn buseuse
TER-C5257-321 11.2 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON 9 i nklin Research Center A Ommon of The Frannan insatute
e . TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE CCMPARISON (Summary of code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A Referenced 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 f y in reinforcement in 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 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. 9 x nklin Research Center
1
)
1 TER-CS257-321 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 proviced 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 -- All elements subject to time-dependent For structures sub-A and position-dependent temperaturb ject to effects of variations and restrained so that pipe break, espe-thermal strains will result in thermal cially jet impinge-stresses. ment, thermal stresses may be sig-nificant. Scale A for areas of jet impingement or where the conditions could develop causing concrete temperature to exceed limitations of A.4.2. For structures not - subject to effects of pipe break acci-dent, thermal stresses are unlikely to be significant (Scale B). ! i _nklin Research_ _ .Center
TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Summary or 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 Appendix -- All steel embedments used to transmit New appendix; there-B loads from attachments into the rein- fore, considerable farced concrete structure. review of older designs is warranted. Since stress analysis associated with these e 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 u.cist under previous design procedures. 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 conditions is highly dependent on definition of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may vary significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures. nklin Research Center A Dhemon of The Frannhn Wisecute
l l TER-C5257-321 11.3 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION B (1965) VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE (1980) NOTE:
~
ASME B&PV Code Section III with 1963 and 1964 Addenda are specified in the Dresden FSAR for drywell design. However, the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section VIII apply (see page B-3.2 of this TER for details) . nklin Research Center
e e TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME BrPV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A Referenced - Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3112.4 UG-23 Vessels of materials no Section III, 1980 Code longer listed as Code references materials acceptable identical to those referenced in Section VIII, 1962 Code. However, several materials which were referenced in Section VIII, 1962 are no longer given in Section III, 1980. Verification cf the allowable stress values and validation of the materials used are required. UG-2S (d) Vessels containing telltale The removal of this pro-holes vision from Section III, 1962 Code, bans the use of telltale holes, par-ticularly since the only non-destructive test methods are recommended in Section XI of the Code, Rules for Inservice Inspection. Moreover, a more recent version of Section VIII specifically excludes using telltale holes when using lethal substances. NE-3131 --- Containment shells designed Section VIII, 1962 Code by formula calls for the design of the vessel by formula, while Section III, 1980 Code requires that the nklin Research Center A DMoon of The Frannsa insatute
TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Re f erenced - Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3131 rules of Subsection NE-3200 Cont. (Design by Analysis) be satisfied. In the absence of substantial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure, the rules of
" Design by Formula" may be used (substantial loads are those loads which. cumulatively result in stresses which exceed 10% of the primary stresses induced by the design pressure, such stresses being defined as maximum principal s tresses) . The Scale rating for a Containment Shell where substan-rial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure are aosent, is Scale B. Otherwise it is Scale A.
NE-3133. 5 (a) UG-29 Stiffening rings for The requirements of the 1980 Code cylindrical shells for defining the minimum moment suoject to external of inertia of the stiffening ring pressure as compared to the requirements of the 1962 Code may result in a lower margin of safety. Scale Is' > 1.28 Is C Is' > l 22 Is B Is' < l.22 Is A nklin Research Center A Ornmen cd The Fransen insatute
TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Referenced - Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE- UG-29 where I s is the minimum 3133. 5 (a) required moment of inertia Cont. of the stiffening ring about its neutral axis parallel to the axis of the shell. Is' is the moment of inertia'of the combined ring-shell section about its neutral axis parallel to the axis of the shell. The width of shell which is taken as contributing to Is' shall not be greater than1.1[D/T. o NE-3133. 5 (b) --- Different materials used This new insert in Section for the shell and the III of the 1980 Code stiffening rings requires using the material chart which gives the larger value of the factor A. This may result in a larger stiffening ring section needed to meet the requirements of the Code. Scale A for ring-stiffened shells where (1) the ring and the shell are of different materials and, in addition, (2) the "f actor A" (as computed by the procedures of NE-3133.5) for the two materials differs by more than 6%; otherwise Scale B. Fig. Fig. Vessels with a reducer The effect of the change in 3324.11 UG-36(d) section with " reversed" the requirements of the code (a) (6)-1 curvature ~ code on the margin of safety depends on - the RL /t ratio nklin Research Center A Dheseon of The Frannhn insuute
TER-CS257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE CCMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments 1 Fig. Fig. Limitations Scale 3324.11 UG-36 (d) (a) (6) -1 RL /t > 24 C (Con t. ) RL /t < 23 A where RL = radius of the large , end of the reducer t = shell thickness NE-3327.1 --- Vessels with positive New requirements in the locking devices - 1980 Code Quick actuating closures NE-3327.4 --- Pressure indicating devices Safety-related provision for vessels having quick requires that the pressure actuating closures indicating device be visible from the operating area NE-3331 (b) UG-36 Openings and reinforce- Requirements for fatigue ments analysis of vessels or parts which are in cyclic Provisions for fatigue service are provided in analysis Section III, 1980 Code. No specific guidance was given in Section VIII, 1962 Code NE-3334.1 UG-40 (b) Reinforcement for openings New requirements in the NE-3334.2 UG-40(c) along and normal to vessel 1980 Code limit the rein-wall forcement measured along the midsurface of the nominal wall thickness and normal to the vessel wall nidin Research Center A Dhaman of The Frenen insature
TER-C5257-321 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) - Referenced Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3365 ( f ) Bellows expansion joints Provisions regarding the over 6 inches in diameter internal sleeve design (for sizes over 6-inch diameter) and flow velocity limitations (for all sizes) are introduced in the 1980 Code. NE-3365.2 --- Bellows New desi:;n requirements specified in the 1980 Code 0 nklin Research Center A DMmon of The Frenman insonde
TER-C5257-321
- 12.
SUMMARY
The table that follows provides a summary of the status of the findings from the Task III-7.3 criteria comparison review of structural codes and loading requirements for Seismic Category I structures at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station.
- The first and second columns of the table show the extent to which all Seismic Category I structures external to containment comply with current design criteria codes. The first column applies to the concrete portion of these structures; the second column applies to the portions which are of steel frame construction. The third column applies to concrete structures with regard to original and current specifications for structural concrete. The fourth column cpplies 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, resolution, at the structural level, of potential concerns with respect to changes in structural code requirements appears, at least for Dresden Unit 2, to be an effort of tractable size. l i i nklin Research Center A Cheon of The Frereen ineoause
TER-C5257-321
SUMMARY
NUMBER OF CODE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR DRESDEN CATEGORY I STRUCTURES I ACI 318.63 AISC 1963 ASME 35PV CODES VS. VS. SECTION VIII,1962 SCALE RANKING ACI 349-76 AISC 1980 VS. SECTION III, Subsec. NE, 1980 TOTAL CE\NGES FOUND S2 33 27 A or A not a X 3 c Applicable to 1 + 4* 12 3*
$ "u DRESDEN 2 S E y "; B 63 10 9 e58u >
055 C I 4 3
?
- h. a 7 7 12 u- -- g oo#
** f 5 O$b w= A x
0 0 0 SCALE RATINGS: 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 margins of safety. Scale C Change - The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited under the former criteria.
*These changes are related to specified loads and load combinations.
Loading criteria changes are separately considered elsewhere. nklin Research Center A.han of The Frannan insatute
e e TER-C5257-321
- 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 Commonwealth Edison Company be requested to take three actions:
- 1. Review individually all Seismic Category I structures at Dresden Unit 2 to determine whether 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 combinations which correspond to current criteria. Only those load combinations assigned 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 Ax, indicating that they do not conform to current criteria, update such loads.
Full reanalysis of these structures is not necessarily required. Simple hand computations or appropriate modifications of existing results can qualify as acceptable means of demonstrating structural adequacy.
- 3. Review Appencix A of this report to confirm that all items listed there have no impact on safety margins at Dresden Unit 2.
I l l l N Franklin Research Center A OMoon of The Fransde Insetwee
TER-C5257-321 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Scale Composite Beams AISC 1980 AISC 1963
- 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 Compression Elements AISC 1980 AISC 1963 With width-to-thickness 1.9.1.2 and 1.9.1 A ratio higher than speci- Appendix C fled 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
- 1. Beam ends with top flange 1.5.1.2.2 --
A coped, if subject to shear
- 2. Connections carrying moment 1.15.5.2 --
A or restrained member 1.15.5.3 connection 1.15.5.4 Members 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 -
- Double dash (--) indicates that no provisions were provided in the older code.
nklin
. ,___ . n.Res r Center
,ea_c.h.
i - i TER-C5257-321 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELD 4ENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) Structural Elements to be Ccde Change Affecting These Elements E:camined New Code Old Code Scale Shear Walls used as a . ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63
- primary load-carrying 11.16 --
A 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 Temperatures ! Time-dependent and Appendix A -- A
- position-dependent temperature variations Columns with Spliced ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Reinforcement subject to stress reversals; 7.10.3 805 A fy in compression to 1/2 f y in tension Steel Embedments used to ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 A transmit load to concrete Appandix B --
Element Subject to ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 A Impulsive and Impactive Loads Appendix C -- whose failure must be precluded 1 Containment Vessels
- 1. Containment vessels of ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A materials no longer NE-3112.4 UG-23
- listed as code
- l. acceptable i
- 2. Containment vessels ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A containing telltale ---
1962 UG-25 (d) , holes
- 3. Containment vessels ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A designed by formula and NE-3131 ---
subject to substantial j loads , i i nklin Research Center [ A Chimen of The Fransen inessuse
TER-C5257-321 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Scale
- 4. Stiffening rings for ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A cylindrical shells NE-3133.5(a) UG-29 subject to external -
pressure
- 5. Different materials ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A used for the shell and NE-3133.5(b) ---
stiffening rings
- 6. Vessels with reducer ~1ME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A section with " reversed" Fig. 3324.11 Fig. UG-36 (d) curvature when Rg/t < 23 (a) (6)-1
- 7. Vessels with positive ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A locking devices - Quick NE-3327.1 ---
, actuating closures l 8. Pressure indicating ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A l devices for vessels NE-3327.4 --- -
- having quick actuating l closures l
l Shell Openings and Attachments , 1. Openings and reinforcements; ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A Provisions for fatigue NE-3331(b) UG-36 analysis
- 2. Reinforcement for ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A l openings NE-3334.1 UG-40 (b) l NE-3334.2 UG-40(c) i l 3. Bellows expansion ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A joints, over 6 inches NE-3365(f) ---
in diameter i l 4. Bellows - New design ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A l requirements NE-3365.2 --- l l l I I _nklin Resea_rch
. _.Center
. e TER-C5257-321 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Scale Roofs --- A (1) Extreme environmental snow loads are provided by SEP Topic II-2.A. NRC Reg. Guide 1.102 (Position 3) provides guidance to preclude adverse consequences from ponding or parapet roofs. Failure of roofs not designed for such circumstances could generate impulsive loadings and water damage, possibly extending to Seismic Category I components of all floor levels. f
- 1. Not shown in tabular summary of code change impacts.
nklin Research Center AOheonof The Fransenineaewee
e . t TER-C5257-321
- 14. REFERENCES
- 1. Standard Review Plan, Rev. 1 NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800 (Formerly NUREG-75/087)
- 2. " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" New York: American Institute of Steel Construction, 1963
- 3. " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1963 ACI 318-63
- 4. " Suggested Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings" American Concrete Institute, 1963 ACI 301-63
- 5. Commonwealth Ecison Company Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3 Safety Analysis Report (with Revisions Through 10/15/69)
- 6. D. M. Crutchfield (NRC)
Letter to J. S. Abel, (Commonwealth Edison)
Subject:
Classification of Structures, Systems and Components, SEP
'1bpic III-l (Dresden 2)
May 15, 1981
- 7. " Specification for Containment Vessels" for Dresden Unit 2 Chicago Sargent & Lundy Engineers, May 26, 1965, Revised June 10, 1965
- 8. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1963
- 9. Appendix I to Technical Evaluation Report, " Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Loading Combinations" Contains List of Basic Docum'ents Defining Current Licensing Criteria for SEP Topic III-7.B Franklin Research Center,1981 TER-C5257-327 nklin Research Center A Dhemen of The Fremen inessure .
O 8 l 4 l ( k o APPENDIX A I . SCALE A AND SCALE AX CHANGES DEDiED INAPPROPRIATE TO DRESDEli UNIT 2 I i i d 1 Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute The Bengran Franklin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103 (21S) 448 1000
TER-C5257-321 i APPENDIX A-1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEDIED INAPPROPRIATE 'IO DRESDEN UNIT 2 OR CODE CHANGES RELATED TO IDADS OE LOAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) l l l A-1.1 000u Franklin Research Center A h of The reemen w
- a TER-C5257-321 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Structural steel tension, except for pin used in Dresden Unit connected members 2 Cat. I structures is A-36. Thus, Fy < 0.83 Fu Therefore, Scale C for Dresden Unit 2.
Limitations Scale Fy < 0.833 Fu C 0.833 Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu B Fy 2 0.875 Fu A , 1.10.6 1.10.6 Hybrid girder - reduction Structural material in flange stress used in A-36 steel. No hybrid girder found in the reactor building; therefore, not applicable. 2.4 2.3 Slenderness ratio ist 1st for columns. Must satisfy: Para. Para. = 1 < 2 w2E r.-- ry Scale Scale C Fy 140 kai C for Dresden Unit 2. 40 < Fy < 44 ksi B See case study 4 Fy 144 ksi A for details. 2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, M, Scale C or S shapes and similar for Dresden Unit 2. built-up single-web shapes See case study subject to compression 6 for details. Scale Fy S 36 ksi
. C 36 < Fy < 38 ksi B Fy 2 38 ksi A h..r nklinR n.es,ea.rc.h. _
Center
TER-C5257-321 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Af fected Comments 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 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 Dresden Unit 2 thickness is not more than Cat. I struc-2 times the web thickness tures; therefore, not applicable New requirement in the 1980 Code 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Hollow circular sections Hollow circular Subpara. subject to bending sections not 7 found to be used New requirement in the 1980 Code in Dresden Unit 2 Cat. I struc-tures; therefore, not applicable 1.5.1.4.4 -- Lateral support requirements Box section for box sections whose depth members not is larger than 6 times their width found to be used in Dresden Unit 2 New requirement in the 1980 Code Cat.I structures; therefore; not applicable 1.5 1.7 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 s _nklin Rese_ arch._
. Center
TER-C5257-321 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1980
-- Circular tubular elements Circular tubular 1.9.2.3 and subject to axial compression elements are not Appendix found to be used C New requirements added in Dresden Unit 2 to the 1980 Code Cat. I struc-tures; therefore, not applicable 1.13.3 -- Roof surface not provided Reactor and with sufficient slope towards turbine buildings points of free drainage or have sloped adequate individual drains to roofs; therefore, prevent the accumulation not applicable to of rain water (ponding) Dresden Unit 2 Appendix - Web tapered members Web tapered D members are not New requirement added found to be used in the 1980 Code in Dresden Unit 2 Cat. I structures; therefore, not applicable A-1.4 nklin Research Center A % or tw. r,.n.en in u
, _. r._
e
- i 1
~
i APPENDIX A-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DED1ED INAPPROPRIATE TO DRESDEN UNIT 2 OR CODE CHANGES RELATED TO IDADS OR LOAD COMBINATIONS j AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) r i i r ( I I \ - t h ranklin Research Center A Ohenson of The Fransen haumme
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 0003 COMPARISON 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 specifi- Definition of new loads not normally cally used in design of traditional build-ings and redefinition of load factors ar.d capacity reduction factors have altered the traditional analysis requirements.* 10.1 -- 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.* 18.1.4 Prestressed concrete elements No prestressed and elements outside 18.4.2 New loadings here refer to primary contain-Chapter 9 load combinations.* ment; therefore, not applicable. Chapter -- Shell structures with thickness No shell struc-19 equal to or greater than 12 in ture except primary This chapter is completely new; containment; therefore, shell structures designed therefore, by the general criteria of older not applicable.
; codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter. This chapter also refers to Chapter 9 load provisions.
J , *Special treatment of loads and load combinations is addressed in other l sections of the report. I nklin Resear__ch_ Center
APPENDIX A-3 ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION B, 1965* VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO DRESDEN UNIT 2 OR CODE CHANGES RELATED TO IDAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE)
- Rules of ASME B&PV Code Section VIII apply (see page B-3.2 of this TER for details)
A-3.1 000hranklin
~ ~ _ - Resear.ch Center
ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962, VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3111 UG-22 Loading as applied to Section III, 1980 Code,
~ loading-carr';ing compo- specified new loads to be nents* considered in designing the vescel. These are:
o dynamic head of liquids o snow loads and vibration loads o reaction to steam and water jet impingement NE-3112.2 --- Design temperature as The effect of heating the applied to the vessel vessel by external or and its components
- internal heat generation is to be considered in establishing the vessel design temperature NE-3112.3 Design mechanical loads In computations involving as applied to the design pressure and design vessel and its compo- temparature, the values of nents* dead loads and any hydro-static loads coincident with design pressure (designated as design mechanical loads) should be used
- Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
A-3.2 Ubj Franklin Research Center Awdner- w
( .
]
, i J
APPENDIX B 1 ' I I SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS i i l ( l l Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Ben,anun FranWin Paruway. Phila., Pa. 19103 (215)448 1000
APPENDIX B-1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON l e 1 I ( l t 000 ranklin Research Center A Dumon of The Frannan m
= o w
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection __ AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Limitations Scale-tension, except for pin ' connected members 2 Fy 1 0.833 Fu C
,3-0.833 Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu Fy 1 0.875 Fu A 1.5.1.2.2 --
Beam end connection See case study 1 where the top flange for details, is coped and subject to shear,_ failure by shear along a-plane through fasteners, or shear and tension'along and perpendicular to a plane through fasteners 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1' Box-shaped members (subject New requirement in the Subpara. .to bending) of rectangular 1980 Code - 6 cross section phose depth is not more that 6 times their widtn and whose flange - thickness is not more than 2 times the web. thickness
. e.'
1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Hollow circular sections New requirement in the - Subpara, subject to bending 1980 Code 7 , 1.5.1.4.4 -- Lateral support;requiremants New requirement in-the for box sections whose dep'-a _ 1980 Code is larger than 6 times thelr width 5
) .
1.5.2.2 1.7 Rivets, bolts, and Change in the require-threaded parts subject to ments 20,000 cycles or more b A B-1.2 ' 000hranklin Research Center , i A Dheson of The Fe insueuse
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 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 1.9.1 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 due to bending when actual details. width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.1.2 1.9.2.3 -- Circular tubular elements New requirements added and subject to axial compression in the 1980 Code Appendix C 1.10.6 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 details. 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in New requirements added , composite beams in the 1980 Code regard-ing the distribution of shear connectors (egn. 1.11-7) . The diameter and spacing of the shear connectors are also introduced. 1.11.5 -- Composite beams or girders New requirements added with formed steel deck in the 1980 Code 1.15.5.2 -- Restrained members when New requirement added 1.15.5.3 flange or moment connection in the 1980 Code 1.15.5.4 plates for end connections of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns B-1.3 bu Franklin Research Center A OMoon ed The Fransen insomme
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) ' Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.13.3 -- Roof surface not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free drain-age or adequate individual drains to prevent the accumulation of rain water (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 l elements of the members 1 2.4 2.3 Slenderness ratio See case study 4 Scale 1st 1st for columns must satisfy for details. Para. Para. I C 1 2w E F{ < 40<ksi
< 4 <Fy 44 ksi B r Fy Fy 2,44 ksi A 2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, M, See case study 6 Scale or S shapes and similar for details.
built-up single-web shapes subject to compression Fy i 36 ksi C 36 < Fy < 38 ksi B Fy 2 38 ksi A 2.9 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 As B-1.4 000 ranklin Research Center A Dewsman of The Fransdn m
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 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. 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 .f different from other rational method. 1.11.4 1.11.4 Flat soffit concrete slabs, Lightweight concrete is using rotary kiln produced not permitted in nuclear aggregates conforming to plants as structural ASTM 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 r.uclear 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 1.16.4.2 1.16.4 Fasteners, minimum spacing, requirements between fasteners 1.16.5 1.16.5 Structural joints, edge distances of holes for bolts and rivets nklin Research Center A Chasion of The Fransen insense
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 SU:01ARY OF CCDE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 _1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.15.5.5 -- 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. O e A Osumen W The Franhan W
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
- Scale C i
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, to traveling cranes, while conservative. the 1980 Code requires 10% increase. 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. 4 1.10.5.3 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-l 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 4 1 i l B-1.7 ! 1535$l:nuna.me.rchc.nier j A Chemen af The Frereen ineueuse
,.n~ , , , - . . -
l
APPENDIX B-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON nklin Research Center . A Neon of The Frandn insatute
- ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Section . ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Af fected Comments 7.10.3 805 Columns de..igned for Splices of the main rein-stress reversals with forcement in such columns variation of stress from must be reasonably limited f y in compression to to provide for adequate 1/2 fy in tension ductility under all loading conditions. Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying Definition of new loads 9.1, 9.2, & members or elements of the not normally used in 9.3 most structural system arc design'of traditional specifically potentially affected buildings and redefini-tion of load factors and capacity reduction factors has altered the traditional analysis requirements.* 10.1 -- All primary load-carrying Design loads here refer and members to Chapter 9 load 10.10 combinations.* 11.1 -- All primary load-carrying Design loads here refer members to Chapter 9 load 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. .
4 A B-2.2 Nbranklin Research Center - A DMoon of The Franhen inscMe
o e 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 primary kinds of wall loads were 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. 18.1.4 -- 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.
nklin Research Center A Dhemen of The Frerusen insensee
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Re fer enced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Chapter 19 Additionally, this (Ccnt.) 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 short-term temperature variations and temperature limits for which are restrained such concrete. The possible that thermal strains will effects of strength loss in result in thermal stresses concrete at high tempera-tures should be assessed. Scale A for any accident temperature or other thermal condition exceeding limits of paragraph A.4.2. Appendix B -- All steel embedments used New appendix; therefore, to transmit loads from considerable review of attachments into the older designs is reinforced concrete warranted.** structures Appendix C -- All elements whose New appendix; 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 dependent on definition of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, past practice varied with designers' ' opinions. Stresses may vary 3 significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures. .
B-2.4 nklin Research Center A Dhanson of The Frennhn insonde
=
a l 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 100*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. Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Any elements containing Use of lightweight con-steel with fy > 60,000 crete in a nuclear plant psi or lightweight not likely. Elements concrete containing steel with fy > 60,000 psi may have inadequate ductility or excessive deflections at service loads. 3.2 402 Cement This serves to clarify intent of previous code. 3.3 403 Aggregate Eliminated reference to lightweight aggregate. , 3.3.1 403 Any structural concrete Controls of ASTM C637, i covered by ACI 349-76 and " Standard Specifications I 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." N ranklin Research Center A 0 heman of The Framen W
8 O l l 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 3.3.3 403 Aggregate To ensure adequate Control. 3.4.2 404 Water for concrete Improve quality control measures. 3.5 405 Metal reinforcement Removed all reference to steel with fy > 60,000 psi. 3.6 406, 407 Concrete admixtures Added requirements to
& 408 improve quality control.
4.1 and 501 & 502 Concrete proportioning Proportioning logic 4.2 , improved to account for statistical variation and statistical quality control. 4.3 504 Evaluation and acceptance Added provicion to of concrete allow for design specified strength a't age > 28 days to be used. Not considered to be a prcblem, 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 materials in excess to high temperature and B-2.6 NO Franklin Research Center A DMoon of The Frereen inesue
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 , 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 (>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. t 7.9 805 Members containing New sections to define deformed wire fabric requirements for this new material.
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. 9.5.1.1 -- Reinforced concrete members Allows for more subject to bending - stringent controls on deflection limits deflection in special cases. l e nklin Research Center
~ ~ - -
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 strength limitation Chapter 3 summary. 9.5.1.2 -- Slab and beams - minimum Minimum thickness through thickness requirements generally would not 9.5.1.4 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 loadings; however, 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 addition to service load deflection, requires more attention for designs by ultimate strength. 10.2.7 -- Flexural members - new Lower Jimit 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 membdrs, 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 _nidin Rese_ arch._
. Center
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 10.6.1 1508 Beams and one-way slabs Changes in distribution 10.6.2 of reinforcemetic for 10.6.3 crack control. 10.6.4 10.6.5 -- Beams New insert 10.11.1 9 15 Compression members, 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 .1 1404-1406 Composite compression New items - no way to 10.15.2 members compare; ACI 318-63 con-
- 10. 15 . 3 tained only working stress 10 . 15 . 4 method of design for these
- 10. 15 .5 members.
- 10. 15 .6 10.17 --
Massive concrete members, New item - no comparison. more than 48 in thick B-2.9 nklin Research Center
. - ~ . - -
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 SLMY OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements , 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected , Comments 11.2.1 -- 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 through 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. _nklin Rese_ arch._
. Center
. s ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) 1 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 would have resulted. 11.10 -- Slabs and footings New provision for shear through reinforcement in slabs 11.10.7 or footings for the two-way action condition and new controls where shear head reinforcement is used. Iogic consistent with ACI 318-63 for these conditions and change is not considered major. 1 l nklin Research Center A Chamon of The Frannan m
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 footings 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 indicaces that such reinforcement works even in thin slabs. 11.11.2 -- Slabs Details for tne design through of shearhead is new. ACI 11.11.2.5 318-63 had no provisions for shearhead design. The requirements in this section for slabs and footings are not likely to have been used in older plant designs. If such devices were used, it is assumed a rational design method was used. 11.12 -- Openings in slabs and Modification for inclusion footings of shearhead design.
- See above conclusion.
B-2.12 h 0000 Franklin Research Center A OMesen of The Franhan inseue
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 11.13.1 -- 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 318-53. The various ld lengths in this chapter are based entirely on ACI 318-63 permissible bond stresses. There is essentially no difference in the final design results in a design under the new code compared to ACI 318-63. 12.1.6 918(C) Reinforcement Modified with minimum through added to ACI 318-63, 12.1.6.3 918(C). 12.2.2 -- Reinforcement New insert in ACI 349-76. 12.2.3 12.4 -- Reinforcement of New insert, special members Gives emphasis to special member consideration. 12.8.1 -- Standard hooks Based on ACI 318-63 bond 12.8.2 stress allowables in general; therefore, no
' major change.
l l B-2.13 nidin Rese
~~_ arch Center
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON 4 Scale 8 (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 12.10.1 -- Wire fabric New insert. 12.10. 2 (b) Use of such reinforce-ment not likely in Category I structures for nuclear plants. 12.11.2 -- Wire fabric New insert. Mainly apr?ies to pre-cast prestressed members. 12.13.1.4 -- Wire fabric New insert. Use of this material for stirrups not likely in heavy members of a nuclear plant. 13.5 -- Slab reinforcement New details on slab reinforcement incended to produce better crack control and maintain ductility. Past practice was not inconsistent with tais in general. 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. l B-2.14 O ' NOU Franklin Research Center A Chemen of The Frannan ine'Aute
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 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. 15.9 -- Minimum thickness of plain Reference to minimum 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 equacion (17-1) replaces the theoretical elastic equation (25-1) of ACI 318-63. It provides for easier computation fo" the designer. 18.4.1 -- Concrete immediately after Change allows more prestress transfer tension, thus is less con-servative but not considered a problem. nklin Research Center A Chessan of The Frerwen w
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 SLNMARY OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 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 Lased 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 - Bonded reinforcement at New to allow for 18.11.4 supports consideration of the 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 - Grcuting temperature Expanded definition of temperature controls when grouting. B-2.16 nklin Research Center
~ ~ - .
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C Re ferenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 7.13.4 -- Reinforcement in flexural slabs 10.8.1 912 Compression members, Minimum size limitations 10 .8.2 limiting dimensions are deleted in newer Code, 10.8 .3 giving the designer more freedom in cross-sectional dimensioning. 10.14 2306 Bearing - sections ACI 318-63 is more i controlled by design conservative, allowing a bearing stresces stress of 1.9(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 of two lines of web reinforcement, where shear stress exceeds 64/f'c,wasremoved. 13.0 -- Two-way slabs with Slabs designed by the to end 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 httached 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 I I B-2,17 _nidin Resea_rch_ _ Center
o e r i t APPENDIX B-3 ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION B, 1965, WITH 1964 ADDENDA VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON l NOTE: Rules of ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII apply (see next page) h A OMuon af The Fransere knesswe
. y ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, CLASS B, 1965 VS.
ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 For the purpose of the SEP review, the design requirements of Section III, Class B, 1965 are to be compared with the requirements of Section III, Suosection NE, 1980. Paragraph N-132 in Section III of the 1965 Code states dbat Class B vessels such as containment vessels shall be designed and' constructed in accordance with the rules of Subsection B of the code. However, paragraph N-lll, Article 11, Subsection B, states that the rules of Section VIII of the coce shall apply except as otherwise provided in rules newly introduced in Subsection B itself. Article 13 of Subsection B, Section III, of the 1965 Code contains these new design requirements. It is very brief and supplies few changes, none of which nave a substantial effect on the SEP review, except that some materials which are accepted under Section VIII of the code had been removed from the list of acceptable materials in Section III. Therefore, for the purpose of the SEP program, Section VIII requirements apply and the ASME B&PV code comparison for Section VIII, 1962 vs. Section III, Subsection NE, 1980 will be used. A B-3.2 000hronidin Research Center A OMmen of The Fra m heemme
ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale A Referenced Section
'Section III Secticn VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3111 UG-22 Loading as applied to Sec' tion III, 1980 Code ,
load carrying compo- specifies new loads to be nents* considered in designing the vessel. These are: o Dynamic head of liquids o Snow loads and vibration ids o huaction to steam and water jet impingement NE-3112.2 --- Design temperature as The effect of heating the applied to the vessel vessel by external or and its components
- internal heat generation is to ce considered in establishing the vessel design temperature.
NE-3112.3 --- Design mechanical loads In computations involving as applied to the design pressure and design vessel and its compo- temperature, the values of nents* dead loads and any hydro-static loads coincident with design pressure (designated as design mechanical loads) should be used. NE-3112.4 UG-23 Vessels of materials no Section III, 1980 Code longer listed as Code references materials which acceptable are identical to those referenced in Section VIII, 1962 Code. However, several materials which were referenced in Section VIII, 1962 are no longer
~
given in Section III, 1980.
*Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
B-3.3 000J Franklin Research Center A Chesson cd The Frannen insomme
=
e ASME BriPV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 l Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Porentially Affected Comments NE-3112.4 Ver1fication of the allow-(Cont.) able stress values and validation of the materials used are required. UG-25 (d) Vessels containing The removal of this provi-telltale holes sion from Section III, 1962 Code, bans the use of telltale holes, particularly since the only non-destructive test methods are recommended in Section XI of the Code, Rules for Inservice Inspection. Moreover, the more recent version of Section VIII specifically excludes using telltale holes when using lethal substances. NE-3131 --- Containment shells Section VIII, 1962 Code designed by formula calls for the design of vessels by formula, while Section III, 1980 Code requires that the rules of Subsection NE-3200 (Design by Analysis) be satisfied. In the absence of substan-tial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure, the rules of " Design by Formula" may be used (substantial loads are those loads which cumulatively result in stresses which exceed 10% of the primary stresses induced by the design pressure, such stresses bei,ng defined as maximum principal stresses). nk!!n Research Center A Denman of The Frennan inseue
ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 V3. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements , 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3131 The scale rating for (Cont.) containment shells where substantial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure are absent is Scale B; otherwise it is Scale A. NE-3133. 5 (a) UG-29 Stiffening rings for The requirements of the cylindrical shells 1980 Code for defining the suoject to external minimum moment of inertia pressure of the stiffening ring as compared to the require- < ments of the 1962 Code may result in a lower margin of safety. Scale I's > 1.28 Is C I's > 1 22 Is B I's < l.22 Is A where Is is the minimum required moment of inertia of the stiffening ring about its neutral axis parallel to the axis of the shell. Is' is the moment of inertia of the combined ring-shell section about its neutral axis parallel to the axis of the shell. The width of shell which is taken as contributing to Is' shall not be greater than 1.l s/Do/T. nklin Research Center A OMe.an of The Frannan inneeune
o ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE', 1980 Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements , ', 1980 1962 Potentially Af fected Comments NE-3133.5(b) --- Different materials This new insert in Section used for the shell III of the 1980 Code and the stiffening requires using the material rings chart Ohich gives the - larger value of the factor ~ A. This mdy result in a larger stiffening ring section needed to meit the requirements of the code. Scale A for ring-stiffened shells where (1) the ring and the shell are of s different materials and, in addition, (2) the
" factor A" (as computed by thesprocedure of NE-3133.5) for the two materials differs by more than 6%;
otherwise Scale B. Fig. 3324.11 Fig. UG-36 (d) Vessels with a reducer 'The effect of the change in (a) (6) -1 section with " reversed" the requirements of'the code curvature on the margin of safety
, depends on the gR /t ratio s
Limitations Scale Rgt > 24 C R L/t < 23 A where RL = radius of the large end of the reducer t = shell thickness nklin Research Center A Ohemen of The Fransen Lnessute
e . ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON ; SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 l Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1990 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3327.1 --- Vessels with positive New' requirements in the 1980 locking devices - quick Code actuating closures NE-3327.4 --- Pressure indicating Safety related provision devices for vessels requires that the pressure having quick actuating indicating device be closures visible from the operating area. NE-3331(b) UG-36 Openings and reinforce- Requiremants for fatigue ments analysis of vessels or parts Provisions for which are in cyclic service fatigue analysis
- are provided in Section III, 1980 Code. No specific guidance was given in Section VIII, 1962 Code.
NE-3334.1 UG-40 (b) Reinforcement for New requirements in the NE-3334.2 UG-40(c) openings along and 1980 Code limit the rein-normal to vessel wall forcement measured along the midsurface of the nominal wall thickness and normal to the vessel wall. NE-3365(f) --- Bellows expansion Provisions regarding the joints over 6 inches internal sleeve design (for in diameter sizes over 6-inch diameter) and flow velocity limita-tions (for all sizes) are introduced in the 1980 Code. NE-3365.s --~ Bellows New design requirements specified in the 1980 Code.
*Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
nidin Research Center A DMaon of The Fransen mootute
a e ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale B Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Af fected Comments NE-3133.1 UG-28 Components under The' design rules as given in external pressure Section VIII, 1962 are nearby identical to those specified in Section III, 1980. The differences will have little effect on the margin of safety. NE-3133.6 --- Cylinders under axial This new requirement is compression based on standard methods of analysis which do not differ much from those previously used in the analysis of cylinders under compressive leads. NE-3324. 8 (c) --- Torispherical heads The allowable stress for made of materials such a material should not having minimum tensile exceed 22 ksi at room strength exceeding temperature as specified in 80 ksi the 1980 Code. Allowable stresses for those materials specified in the 1962 Code could be slightly higher, giving somewhat less conservative results. NE-3324.12 --- Nozzles The specified requirements imposed on the wall thickness of the nozzles or other connections are considered to be within the limitations of standard practice. S A B-3.8 N ranklin Research Center A Ohesion of The Fransen ineouse -
e
- ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale B (Cont. )
Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3328 --- Combination units This new insert gives the design requirements for pressure vessels consisting of more than one independent pressure chamber. Thesc requirements are standard practice for designing such vessels. NE-3335 UG-40 Reinforcement in These new provisions in nozzles and vessel Section III, 1980 Code walls detail specific requirements which are usually considered in good design practice. NE3365 --- Bellows expansion This new section provides joint - general specific requirements requirements usually considered in the design and selection of bellows. NE-3367 --- Closures on small This new insert gives penetrations details used in common practice. However, compliance with the standards listed in Table NE-3132-1 is covered in SEP Topic III.1. NE-3700 --- Electrical and Provisions usually cdopted
- mechanical penetration in standard engineering assemblies design of such assemblies.
i i l i ! B-3.9 L b) Franklin Research Center or % -m- --
a ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale C Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3332.2 UG-37(b) Area of reinforcement The introduction of the
- vessels under correction factor F in internal pressure Section III, 1980 Code will render the applicable equation to be the same or less conservative.
NE-3325. 2 (b) UG-34 (c) Flat unstayed heads, The applicable revised covers, and blind equation (2) will have a , flanges minor effect in the calculation of the thickness. NE-3362 (b) UG-42 Bolted flanges and The requirements for length studded connections of stud engagement are
~
relaxed.in Section III, 1980 Code. l l O nklin Research Center A C*asson of The Frenen insolute
l h n I h I a l 0 APPE14 DIX C , COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES l l i k, l
'W Franklin Research Center A Division of The FranPJin Institute The Bentaran FrarMn Parkway Phil a.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000
Project P3;e
- g. J Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 1 3 0,,, e,.,., o,,, g ,,, c,,,
^ 2 ,?!,2 1.,C'"hl"l"$ M '
. ~o :c. M .9.:/. e cA.se svu oy _i._
~%c c.$.S.:wck Slveu p sD<%LoJ. st14L L.b ed t ske r-is sgecc{Je t. k se h t.5.i.2. oj tk gisc cc de._
Mi g tk l%b o.wd 1%8o eM a.5, K,. = 0 4 o (,) kuJ m c. sacW a% F'h effac.a :, mary sac Mew %, b % M2a Co d o. w A t.5.i.2.2 is
' wt vo h ea.d.
tC tL.,t ; J "A% be % Q cow.wc Q ;Le,c,tL Cp j% e. is cope.d._,
%A i d& st'W A pu -gar. occ-c b 3 s,6 4.< Jew g
b % o}ga.gacmc. skeo.< a. o.%ghftA y p h,-b%
-tke. p-%
p t- ga.
- e. % i M L ti.a;pp< rpL. w 7%_,,,aumm y 4 _ o.3e q w k.<e. t u
<. G k a.<ea. uw= ,ak y cu.<% ., W g -tk GEt- Rc6 . "
G[ ug G, h 19eo G,,c, eFj. c. /. s. t. 2_
rs.e. ce,,,e2. *et aAEcwnhL-Je ea~ h.a Wm f k ~C k te.a.<* fl%
O So Sv- wf + o.50 Ae E_ C2) whea. Pr M Pg are. tL weX skus a d ~eC % ant.a.,4 -re s g. h orde.c t e log -tL c[[ecI of fAc coJccA%;4, 3 seh of eae), ; MatQ , bea,., tsje.) cac-yD y uch- %n 4 ( r.s44 I_G ge. 4_II of 14. Atsc stref M W ) w e.<c. W.
'rhe resu lti ob O bJ anha s te 4 (04 d above
- h die. ate. f.J,.a.X the.- l9 3o Code. f A M ve sJA o.s . sho m tm t k p b -q Mo.2dow. .
, S c a.0c. _. A _.
Project Pags gp C5257 c-
~ 2
.. lJ Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Instrute 3l o,,, cs.,., o,,, g ,,, o,,,
- n. s P, n Pwn.ey. PN.. P.191C) ND ON U 'w
, e
][
BEAM EhD CnUCECTIGP' nHERE ICP FLAP.GE IS COPED, CASE STUDY -1= FY, PSI FL, PSI D,IN
~
C1 C2 ALLOWABLE LOAD,LR PCT. 1963 Conf 1480 CCCF 36000 60000 12.00 1.00 0.74 [ 172800 104400 40 36000 60000 17.00 1.50 0.74 i 172Fco. 134400 22. 3e000 60000 24.u0 1.00 0.74 345600 104400 70 36000 60000 24.00 1.00 2.45 345600 208900, 40 36000 60000 24.00 1.50 0.74 345600 13^400 61. 3(:000. 60000. 24.00 1.50 2.4F 345600 23CP00. 31 36000 60000, 24.00 2.25 0.74 345600 179400 42 36000. 60000 24.00 2.25 2.18 345600 293900 IA. 36000. 60000 3e.00 1.00 2.4e 51o400 29H400. ev. 36000, 60000 36.00 1.00 4.81- 518400 348600 33. 36000. 60000 36.00 1.50 2.40 510400 236900 54 36000 60000, 36.00 1.50 4.R1 518400 378600 27 36000 60000 36.00 2.25 2.40 516400 203800 45 36000 60000 36.00 2.25 4.91 518400 423600 tR. 50000. 7v000 12.00 1.00 0.74 240000 121800 49, 50000 70000 12.00 1.50 0.74 240000 156600 35 50000 70000 17.00 2.25 0.74 240000 200300. 13. 50000. 70000. 24.00 3.00 0.74 48n000 121800 75. 50000. 70000 24.00 1.00 2.46 480000 243600 49. 50000. 70000 24.00 1.50 0.74 480000 156800 67 50000. 70000 24.00 1.50 2.48 480000 270600. 42. 50000 70000 24.00 2.25 0.74 480000, 209300 56 50000 70000 24.00 2.25 2.48 4A0000, 331100 31. 50000. 70000 36.00 1.00 2.48 720000 213600 66 50000, 70000 36.00 1.00 4.R1 720000 406700 44 50000. 70000 36.00 1.50 2.4R 720000 278600. 61. 50000 70000 36.00 1.50 4.81' 720000 441700 39 50000. 70000 36.00 2.25 2.48 720000 331100 54. l 50000 70000 36.00 -2.25 4. R 1* 720000, 494200 31. I 65000. Bu000 12.00 1.00 0.74 312000 139200 55. 65000 R0000 12.00 1.50 0.74 312000 179200 43. 65000, 80000 12.00 2.25 0.74- 312000 230200 23. 65000. 80000 24.00 1.00 0 . 7.9 024000 139200 70 65000. 80000 24.00 1.00 2.4R 624000 278400 55. 65000. 80000 24.00 1.50 0.74 624000 179200 71. 65000 P0000 24.00 1.50 2.48 624000 31R400. 49. 65000. 80000 24.00 2.25 0.74 624000 239200 62. 65000 90000 24.00 2.25 7.44 674000 370400 39
. 65000._ A0000 36.00 1.00 2.46 936000, 278400. 70 ) 36.00 65000, cg "-
80000, 1.00 4.81 936000, 464R00. 50 65000 80000 36.00 1.50 2.48 936000 310$00. 66. 65000 80000 36.00 1.50 4.81 936000, 504R00. 46 65000 90000, 36.00 2.25. 2.48 936000 379400 60 65000 90000 36.00 2.25 4.01 936000 564800 40 ~ NOTES:
!= ALLOJALLE LOADS ARE GIVEU PER INCM OF WEB THICKNESS 2- PCT = '.'EPCENT OF THE REDUCTIO?. OF PERCEIVED MARGIN OF SAFETY
- ___-__--___s
l [dn' Proiect C5257 Page C- 3 ubuu Franklin Research Center 3, o,,, c3.,., o,,, ,,,. 0,,,
$.Udf, ."82idl$"M.N$if /;&.vl ///> 7 C,S gf82 CASE STUDY 2 AXIALLY LOADED COLUMNS Maximum allowable axial load on tied columns by working stress design criteria is defined by P = 0.85 [Ag (0.25c f' + sf pg )]
A where p = st and allowable f = 0.4'f y G 30,000 psi s A g that is, max f 5 75.000 psi y therefore, the maximum load could be expressed as: P allow = (0.21 A g f'c + 0.34 yf Ast) Maximtm allowable axial load on tied columns by strength design criteria is defined by
=
P,11gy $Pg =40.8[0.85f[(Ag- A, ) + A, f] for a tied column in axial compression C = 0.7 and P = 1.4 D + 1.7 L Reducing these equations to be ccmparable to working stress limits and considering all extremes of steel % and D. to L. load ratios, we get I if A st
= 0.01 A g Pu = $Po = c (0.673 feAg+ 0.8 A st f) y if A, = 0.08 A g P = $Pg = $ (0.626 f A + 0.8 A st ;r f}
and to bracket extremes, consider the following three cases. (a) D=0 (b) L=D and p (c) L = 0 with P allow
=
L.F. FORM CS-FIRL-81
e . Project -ye U[0J Franklin Research Center 3, om Cy , .. o ,,, n, . 0,1, A DMsion of The Franklin insatute N Senenen Frer*nn Pertwey, PNe, Pa.191C3 a.fg'j'/ j' " ' ' 'f- /%
,., .f ; 7 s-(a) for L.F. = 1.7 i
P = 0.28 fc Ag + 0.33 fy Ast or allow t P = 0.26 fc Ag + 0.33 fy A st allow (b) for L.F. = 1.55 P = 0.30 fc A g + 0.36 fy Ast or allow P = 0.28 fc A + 0.36 fy Ast allow g (c) for L.F. = 1.4 P = 0.34 fc Ag + 0.40 f A or allow y st f P = 0.31 fc A + 0.40 f A allow g y st Comparison of these resulting equations to the Pgy by working stress design criteria shows that the new code allows from 1.24 to 1.62 times more load on the concrete in a tied column and from 0.97 to 1.18 times more load on the longitudinal steel in a tied column. Therefore, Scale C FORM CS-FIRL-81
Woject Paga lJlalljk'i Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 5 i 3, g,,, g,w g,,, y ,,, o ,,,
$.*$L"?$DI.?.?,"2$T$$' r. '4 l m a .: ,- ;.
CASE SruoT Sampe l Congarison Bem eem Steenc3+h ( UHimate) oma Atternate. ( Woricing stress) Designs Sam pl e SedTon AllovJable STeegseg e l S* m' 7 r 2 ', Concrete : Soco tb /'7p ,ade i 4
'.',, gy ( Sd = d o00 , fc=1350 / n='\)
w ... i Rer4cctn3 j_ ;- : " !! St ee.\- : Greacle 410 { ( [q = 40,000 lb{7n% , -fg =20,0co %fpn1 ) As -= t o
- t o bars = 11 b6 In 2-1- By Stren(3% Design g,gg ( There Ts a limit of .orrs, f* ipxg3 = 012. 3 9- Got a
- rensmaW ' cJes73n -
is ha!f of this.) 4 = , o n 2.34 ( } } = . i G4 , M u = . 9 ((l2')( 5 7".)* ( 3 *[r#)( 16+F.)( l 59 ( l'Mh= 21 + 5 0 "
- A ssuming L . t . = 0. i , y = i + {l 1 = ,,55-(OtL)
%e moment 4 Hen is equNa\ent 40 a servic e
moment o f , .u,4 50 ' */ f. g5 = 15 I30 I
Projec2 Page C5257 C- 6 flb~) bb Franklin Research Center ,, o, 3 .,., o,,, a ,,, o ,,, 0*L"%"?205.""?.WiiM' e<f e : < =l ss j.'y! ::fi T. By Atternde Desip finding 4he locaYion of foe meutral cis )((=kd) is x ( X ) =. 9 (12 66 X 50- X) saving , x = xd - al .1T , 9%e momed c\rm = Jb = 5'1 * '*1 - 49 A l 3
-Then W\ o = 1/2. ( t 35 ^/7#Xl8") ( 11. 2 7 ) ( 4 q .9 t *) = 12.,900"
snd Y\s = i2. 6(, re ( 2.0 k/-d ) (4 9 3 I') = t 2., f 4o ( Governs) TL Corn prison : is ,13 0' E - \'2. , 640
- X t 0 0 '/, = 19~7'/, ADMT%E 11.f bH'O , s 1
Conclusion ' Gr Rec %3 v\ar Beams , The. W ork%g Steess Designs ( com monly used When f tiewr"y +he earlice AC.T. SI S c odes.) Were considerabl y vnore conservatwe. . 1 6 1 .
Project Pag 2 l]. ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C7
,l a ,,, cy,., ;,,, ,,,, c,,,
A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bee,seen Fraw Pwn y. P%a, he t 9103 q**s ,
" -
- S*
. CASE STUDY .
Ref AISC 1980 Coo & SubsecHon M Colowns
% +e p\ase. of berd'm*g =E col u'mns W kh would devebp a plas4rc h'rnge at ultima-te
\ o ad'n0 , ske slemlerness ra4co f. skuW nZ r
2%Ceed Cc,--~ Where Ce= 2es i:p E = 19 X lo* \(Si q = yield Stress There(o(e
-j_z ~7gf . ;
I J Ref AISC (96 3 Code subsecNan 2. s Columns L the pktne of berbg of column s WhS would cleVe!oP a PAsRc I hI"le at oluwate loa d m g , $ 6. S}enderness raiio s ha.ll n ot-t%eecl flo, - A 6 l2.0 4 O
Project fag 2
$ J Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 8
,, o ,,, 2 .,., o,,, ,,,, o,,,
A Division of The Frankhn Instrute - n,. se rene e.. . %. a. mas MD M9T. 3i ///e/
,, j;/-
a e W C h o f t he. Do eodes i S th e. m ov e,, yc$ty 'cQ CM /f <cD depowda m Tki je(d SIve, p of L SItf- wied de t'n t. Cobw %g,
- i) Both codes cgve y = 12 o (.o he n
" ' ' = no Ce=
t O) Fg=. 40 KSI
;) we nao code is 52 -.w. usee % che,s
- A.Y= l l 4 ::. n 5% . 6 4F
-Se.n, T:p = + '1 ksI (on ckw Sto n
- 8 cme Fg 6 40 kSt @
l Projec2 Page [}g..l Franklin Research 3Center A Division of The Franklin Inst 2tute C5257 o,, a .x. , o,,, n ,,, C- 9 o,,,
- n. e- r.- e...., No, Pe. I11 C3 MD -
SE
- T <.31 j -,: .- . /vh'/
Case Srvoy Pef Alsc M30 Code Subsecirom 110 5'.3
'L gleders cledgned o vi the bas 7s of
-tews7am field achov3 , +he spac7ng. be%een strffemers at evd pa nels , cd-F"*IS Cen +CnTng large holes , and at pan els adyacent +o pawels csnto.7ning large holes shall be such %+ fv c!oes mot oxceed +he Value $]iven " beloW Fv -= cv 40.9 FT 2.89 Where c, = " 00 raC%)
k whe w Cv(0.2
+- 4+'
5 3 '+ (%f wh% a/s o.o
= 5,34 4 " Jhin Yh ) l o
@/87 3
W em
-=w
Project Paq) C525,/ - C0 id; {.J Franklin Research Center A Division d The Franklin Insta:ute 3, om en x , om no . om Pe senw Frenamn Per==ey 7%a.Pe i9103 ',,.
/q ., -I- e.
.a w $ 1,/*
Ref Alst (963 code. Sohsection i.1053
-rne spacing between s-h%ners c.t ed eqwels and Pa"Sk co*Aintrq large holes shatt be sbch thaT the synallev- pnel dimens7m a or h sbol mot exceed ll 000t O
O p amm> 4 0
Prosect Paq) gl]llJ Franklin Research Center CS257 C- 11 A Divis;cn of The Franklin instrute y a,,, c ,.,., g,,, y ,,, c,,, n.e .,r r, e.,.. .p%..p. isio3 iA D SEo T. st c , I
@F AISC SUb sec4 Ton 110.63 y _g gc >
MMPLE Y ' k = G 8 / ll a
/
f, : . 37 F" /
/ *rga Aa = G8 x } = 25 5 Tn' /,
' l V = no kys 1 10'
[v- = _= 'l.06 Ksi
/ y_
cr
-from I to. F 3 t463 Code g c, 6 $ n oco t _ tlcco A 3/s _ q s 3n 4fu- /9.oGxtcco W hrch is ne clisha. &am h *"d f %c- ?*'
t & first b<c.msoc.vte SCE{ fe.*e < - 8y c m siclc A ~g & % Y m ~* b " Y as speified in (qs0 ccc{e sasch t. lc.ir. 3 _
'+ 2
-[tr =9.o6 kSt b_ = .'a?
-e n- - ls I
$ 3n sa
.'616
$= 4- + 5 3+ 6 3+_
(,4lh f = 9 9 (: 6 \W , g 7, q g Q = 4-50C00 - g 4-5X0 x 17 9 8 . ,4pg SC4/td_ 36 G18 0' Fu- = 1.%q Cv- G.+b g
= 34 x , f e 6 = e. s9 Kst jd fr orn ble t o . 3 G t.Lc_
.2. g q O
howcou , 4 owe < tka% .f 4 q.o c re d Sca6 S -{u N 3 ya
gx "' '*** C5257 C- 12 0000 Franklin Research Center 3, o., ma c.t. a. o.i. A Division of The FranWin Institute i >,, ,,p' n, % r, p.,. ,. sm. . Pa ! 9103 NT C N E.u.*. N5 j.</ . . ' ."* ReynarkS 7he Iollow'r"g ywo frjures E,oW Fs vs- ^/-
-fo,- vaaovs value s q A/H and Fr .
67 kvowing +he shear stress Fv or Fv' Tne A/7 value con be ab w ned awd Cem Pared wi+h +he desip A/r. T-hus c:mprison should be. entnined on a case by case, basts. s D 9 J .
= e enusp
- - - - - - - - D--_-_--.--_- _ - _ _ _
e Project Pagt
- C5257 C- 13
- 0. J Franklin Research Center av i
oare care s o. c a t, A Division of The Fran. din insatute g7.1 N % r,. m ar== = % .p. isic3 MD ST # T. j,t f. /.. , ,,
,O es
.. t N
N 5 'b
; e a
O I 3 4 7 0, d h Qv. 9 E ,e Q w rn a4 %
.. g7 w2 d' ? g 4
t[ u. n i uu l -1 5 fi
, - ="
b i 2 y I 2- a 5 n 'k
- tw<s n
f 22
- e. sy ,
, i l 0 O k - 9 o d w O- e-r
l A rvoi.et page Cy?57 C 14 ' O. ] Franklin Research Center ' U C *. C " A D_idsion,of Th,e
._ . ,~..Franklin c3 Ins,t,r,ute 8" m o ,, p .
'l'.a ,.[, .$ C
O O 4 ~ T
'N k i 'e , .o "r3 i
3 N Ec k- OM. b, o $ ,, a. : e : s Y5 4
' -i me -
,e]kh'j .s.-r if l / S i
1 I E I 1 X, W l d. i t O o o C 9 N ~
*r
,1 h
5-
\u PoRM 207 5M440 CP
o . Prnect Paqr 0000 Franklin Research Center 257 cu A Divisaon of The Franklin instrute By care yW . cate R ev. care n.e . r.e w s...., w .e. m 3 FA C3 5EPT. '3I j f f',4 CASE STu p'r - Ref AISC (980 Code Sec k 2"
" The width - thickmess ratio for flange op olied W, Mj or 6 shapes owd similar built - up single- Web shapes %aj- would ht subjected to comp ressTon Twvolv7wg h7nge rotatlovi Under vlWynate. lcadimd shctl l mot fxceed %e fallowing Values : "
Feu % 36 a. r
- 42. 20 45 7 't 70 'I 0 d5 bd go S3
[ $- [0 The Width - thic kness ra% of sTmbly Compressed flan $e l P ates rn Lex sec+tous and cover ges shAll mot exceed (90 jd p g , 5xownple tiowTwg: btg f 2,5 Polled 6hAPSS h'/g 4 3 2 Sox Sectiovls
\\
'The depth - %7ckness ect& of beatn omd girder webs subleded % plas+rc
'cendTng
- 7s ad #U" h7 +h" f il W "I
-Forwula P
93 f1 d[v] 6 70 ~ lOOK ~ Remarks
'The 1963 Code hke ?ntD accouni mater?al Or r%6 of Fg = 36 Ksl or less ( tote + hat
-the -+wo codes are 4he same -fbe R = 36 ).
' e If -% stnActure was desTgned us7ng vrutertal hav7Pg hii her yield , the edes,3 n mij kt ,not-be acQbFe. wwder Presc4 *pve ~, ts.
E d 36 l<S I @ l
.N < F3 ( 3 g k'sl @
l Fy 2 32 Ksl @
Project Paga yl]@s; Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 18 3, o,,, c ,.,., c,,, g ,,, o,,,
^ tS!3J.T"2"k$g"?
. ic agt. 's t g. p.
CASE- STUDr , Pef MSC 1980 Code
$cctTon A.9 bie (.al braClog Dem hers Sball be adequaidly brGCed %
resist lateral cmd tordo,al clic placemods , Ye laterdl'/ unsufforted clT_dMce , _Scr , . . . shat l not exceed ne. valtre determNed Oom Ar e (375 + 25 Whm 10 g>~0f r, 7, Or _f.cr , t375 Men -- O. F 2 M ry pg M e > l ' O
%wpie Ar/rg Fu
=3G kst 50 r5 /w I } f )~.5 63 2. 52 !' 45.S .3 8 7 5
. 5'), Q7-I.o gg. 2 1-).5- \2. b l'3.75 O
Project Pm gj C5257 C- 19 ut. J Franklin Research Center 3l 0,,, cy,., c,,, n ,,, c,,, A Division of The Franklin Insutute f N s , r. - P.. , m 7. ieic3 MQ s: o T ' 5 '. f,,, Ref AISC (9(> 3 Cocle Sec4 Ton .2.e ' katera\ Bracing Whew the. morne,' defintbn rd Cernpatible with 4he tq ro code, 4ks -Formula. -for kcr/rq h e c e m e s '- 35 ( Aj' = Go + 40 Np campie g Jcy E P 75 ( (00 0 6o
,F 40 c u eu uss. u s The figure Whtch -follows [ C[rp VS. "[Mg )
.a e.m a r- 4 3c. saa q >cwo TCAlt, o<%4I @
o > kP 2 -l @ N o+e : The sumwry rs based on Watertal wTFh f g =36 , o+her water 7al shovid be twoantned an a case by case ba sts . 9 bwe w=
Proitet Pass I1 J. C5257 C- 20 J Franklin Research Center By Date Data R ev. Cate A DMsion of The Franklin Inst 2tute - C,h.k'd MD
- n. % r, - p.,. , % .e. isi:3 5 E P. 91 y ,
G l r, 6
. . .-.m .-.
go_ __ --
- [
~
Lid 1+ Vsmg. 20- ----- t 9 6 3 cocC-70-
*13 24 rst
.# 89 ($l
[ .. l N c 75' ksi
/
25 ' 9' 3c - - - - - y . _. .ge _. - -, t
-l 5" o . 5* I MP D
f O J t 4 mum e 8 T
P(Oj4Ct Page 2i Ul00 Franklin Research Center ,, o,,, c,s.,,, o, ,, g ,,, Date
^ tE",?!l152"MM'
. RA :teT 'zi fuj. ,,, r Chse sTupy -S-Compariso n of Sec+ron 2. 3 , Colvmms ( Alsc ,196 s) wtA Sectron 24, Co lum ns (A15C- l9So)
AISC 1963 AlSC 1980
- 1. 51encler ness cairo ec columns I. Slender ness ratio e r 7n ecynnues -frames where Columns in conrrnvos sideway is n oT preventect , is -frames where Odesway rs limited by Remula.(2o) mot prevenied, mo+ lim: Fed
+o only 70 . But limited
- 2. P , l 4 1. o by Fcemulas (a:q - to. ) and Py 7o r (2 9 - t b) given below and A- not 4e aceed Ce ,
This Irwits slender ne55 as given below Rais l 4 70 ^"J C#IAI r (cad mot 4e exceed os Py
-Fo r $ = o. Also (rmtted by Ermvict (2 6) gh/en belov/.
- 2. For columns in bro.ceci 2 rwe axtal loac1 tw
. frames the m a xt m u m Columns Tn braced frames ayTal lead P shail nd no+ +o ex ceed e. gf Py exceed 06 Py.
(See Case STucly ZF also, -for Slenclerness eaito)
Project Page
. O. J Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 22 g o,,, 3.,., o,,, n ,,, o,,,
^ .W ?!.2:!% %7'1:19?? RA sin 'n i:x.C w 3 a) Slenderness catto 34. a Slenderness raiso 4 not 4e ecceed i20 h mc+ t exceed Cc
\Ahere Cc :- R E b.) The all ewa'oie 7 ldecally unsupported distance 6"d EOF
}/
- 3 b '
ic, = (so -40 [g)r7 , Cc = 126 1 Remula (lb) but .&cc 4 35r7 3 b. The \ der 1\\y unsuppered c) k9. wc4 % exceed dis +ance J.cr wet + exceed ren
% _pcticwryg Aco in Gn'f CASE M_ t_32X + zg (7,q_ig) ry Fy When +t.O> g ) - 0 5-And 1 ce = inr (2,q-ib) ry Fy 1
\fJhty) - 0. T 3 H y - 10 Mp 3c. K9 w o+ to exceed 200 rn Ysn i any case.
6
. l Project Pags
- y. .g Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 23 3 o,,, a.,., o,,, n ,,, o,,,
^ O?iPi.fTAL" dim"
. RA ssi 1'n A g:
4(O I+steraction femules fe 4. In+eraciten Semulas cre. sTtgle curva-hue are , Formula (2.0 Ermula C 2 4 -1) j1 sB-GrCh)6l0 l + cm F1_ 3 ,, g P Pu (t Pe )Fim M 6 Mg and &mula C 2 3) and Remula (14 -O Nhl0- H(Ip)'3b/py g y y
- l.ig M g
b h05 M P Valves of 3; %, H and I where Per = (.7 A Fa Irsied rn tables as a. p = n'-3 74 func+ren of denderness ratto and Ftp ia gNen by (l s -I) and F4 $Nen Th Secken l 6.1 tb.) Interaehen -fonnulas -{ac double curvs%ce are. Hm- Me ( braced ,m the
,, y 47,,e,.ron )
Tormula C 2.1) M$Mf er P[p y 60.i5- = [ ( . 0'I - ry)JFy[M6M g P M 31so L M t. if-1.ts ( P/g7 ) A l. o - P ( Unbeaced in weak dreecRm) 4r Plp, 2 og o.nd Fcemu la. (12.) ~ cs) rec sincjle curycdvre M 0 6 6 Cm 4=l.O Mg Py ) b) foc clovble corvat.ure . gg o.4 t= Cm 2: oS e, -
V A rejea me UO0lj Franklin Research Center 257
;;l cate CWd Cate R ev. Cate -
^Pel.",?.Sifa"2"tiMT RA sewa ,4.x ,. - : ..
For ccmpa rison cf 4bese SPecificnWom s cje1Ph5 of P/g vs M/ 'q are drae -for- slenderness ratto of aono and leo . Ty gcal Cclumn I4 W leo with Fy - 36 ksi has been 4aken as dn example Or cur purposes Separnte @raphs are cirawin fee SNgie curvaivre C O. 6 4 Cm A I.o) and ciouble. Corvadure ( c>.4 4 cm 6 o. 6 ) cases. For frames with sides way ( Cw =. o.ss-) anovved ., graphs of F/Pg V's H/'Mr ##C d #"V' " I# two +ypes of column s 14 VFis o and l 2.uf 4 5, W r+h Fg == 3 6 ks 7,. Colums assumed +o be braced Tw A weak duec+ron . It can be infe.ne.d. frern %e graphs that 1:n att cases , 4he waJer cha"6e 7s the Irrnrt-cf allow /Able MIa.I (CCd> Which ES Tncrea. Sed [rorn c.g Py % c.,s Py -for wn braced columns ( Srdeser>-y ct.tlowed .) and o.6 Py
- o.es- Py S c 6mced co(umns.
Gu t- 4he a.cceptable design reg?on In both Ccdes IS cthno st Same . For s7n6 le carvakure We ncMce fue k 3o 4g g,,, ; A (,1. q. .-1) Irne -for Cm =- l . o Ts behe +he
', fermulce (.M) 17ne. , . bv1- for k 0 =. 7 o ,
. + hey overlap and be ( cc, rhe fe<wul w .9 a) -pc cm =. l . o
?s cslooVe f=hti krm0 I 4. '(.2 3) l7n e . ThuS hr M = 3o 1930 cede belnd wore CenSerVaiIde.;
\bkitt -{ce = l 00 , \ cWs c.cde seems +o be. w cre.
gew ser vcd-rve . This change car) -thus be. c.lascfred besk A6 G- [ CbM}d.
Project Page C5257 C- 25 O. ]] Franklin Research Center By Date Ch'k.d Date R ev. Date A Division of The Franan Institute e, . .. n.e Fr e.,.. . w...r. inica sA SEPT tgl fy,/: /.} /7 T = 36 kst y U7 = 30 14 w'1I0 3150LE C'*T*'A 1963 Code 1990 code Tormula(22)f13-C(P/Pv)i1.0 (2.4-2) + 1 1*0 9 er (1 , MiM p P )Mp e 0.6 i C, i 1.0 Formula (23) w i 1.0 - H(P/Py) - J(P/Py)2 (2.4-3) 1.0. M <- My P P, 1.133 y, M c W. M. %
^
r,m exums _r [',r-( [;-
._L --1 d, 5
- o. S e O to PJ e.%- '
He cate umf e4-C.7 <- Ng s* > N f (46) Ccce La**i' \ 0 le .. 4 05-- 7 ~Jj a
.... , .J ~ --
j
&IP d.1--
'N N-s
'N gg $) p ** 06 #8 b8
- 3. 3 0+T 04 M.$M p w
n a_
t . e Prciect Page C5257 26
- 1. J AFranklin Research Center Division of The Franklin insttute By Ch. .k.d Date R ev.
C Date he Senwenen Feenahn Parm ,. PNia. Pa.19103 Dateh,#,/,3 . 'e . / r-aut
?
M T'
- 20 1s t50 mm.r cuan=xt 1963 Code 1990 code Formula (21) M = M, when P/Py 10 15 C, gy,g,y) , i g,g cr
- fi1.18-1.18(P/Py)i1.0 (1 - Pe ).7 7
0.4 i C,io.'6 P w Tormula (22) N'
- 1 3-G(P/Pv) i 1.0 1. intp i l'O' M i My M i x,
.~. w<n TTricAt. Exam.rs Q 7 r '
7 1 4;7 4 u<n n 2 f.e
"/
see cece Cm=s.4, roo.ou (s.4-zJ 4, 0.1 )
- l
.. o e... um .
Ob
~
05-. p
$al D, J
- 84
- 2 e
Jl e6 $1 0,3 &$ ST 04 47 08 o.3 1 'J a
Protect Page C5257 C- 27
. Franklin Research Cente- Sv Cate Ch.k.d Da;e R ev. ,ata A Division cf The Franklin Insttute e -
w N een.orrun Frenann Path ey P%a Pa 19tC3 . "" (h s. e
*l , , , ' ,
,.je 1
l T = 36 kai U = 70 la # 13 0 SUM CIA E y r 19 0 code 1990 CM e Tormula(22)[15-G(F/Pf)i1.0 (2.4-2) + C+ i l'O P cr (1 # ):t, Mi% e 0.6 i C, i 1.0 1 k Tormula(23)h..,i1.0-H(P/Py)-J(P/Py) y 1.13M, 1 ib E M < M. V. TTP!CA1. EXMrPt.IS . p, (-
, s x- 5- M < M.
10 l OA . taas c.os u ui? l e.1 - id b 3 foo ?'9 y j smeT o.s. *a, . es a;> e.+ . - Q ') o s3-~
> Q*
.NJ e.t -
Al- -
- a. o.2. a.s o.t o.s c.s o.7 *s o4 io
_ ol NM P ee a
Project Page C- 28
~
I C5257 - H[ .d Franklin Research Center U Date Ch'k.d Date R ev. Date A Dm. . .sion of The Franidin Insutute Sv . - -
- n. w-a n.a a r.a ,. %. e.19ics kh SEPT s'l f. /,- .
F, = 36 a i = 70 iw 150 00U3.E CURVAnRE 1963 Code 19qo cog, CM (2*". :I P 5 < 1.0 Formula (21) M=M when P/Py 1 0.15 {* , 3 e 0.4 < c2-< o.6 7 1 1.18 - 1.18(P/Py) i 1.0 P (2
- b 3) +
g, i 1.0. M i Mp Y Formula (22) f 1 5-C(P/Py) i 1.0 P MiMy M. M<K O m :cu. txe nts o fb7 at < x w. *
) .w-m come uw .
68 .
% = ,
01-- ( '9
%. 9
,, 18 f>3 CaoQ- @ _
uMiT e 44,D Q af - e eh --
,4 9 , 04--
0.9 01- - 80 ..i o.2 a.& 8.t s.c e6 47 mr o.9 b8 ~ M/ IMP .
Project , Page C5257 C 29 lI. J Franklin Research Center By Date Ch.k.d Date R ev. Date A Division of The Franklin Insttute
- n.e Senema Franean Per==ew. PN4. Pa a91C2 RA SEFT fI ;i..
. .' /' ".
T = 36 isi y
= 100 14'a' 50 sn;;;;.g c;; avan Rg 1961 Code 19M Code Cw
< 1.0 (2.4 2) + 1 I*O Tormula(22)f13-C(P/Pv) p er (1 "P,)?7 M i :t p 0.6 i C, i 1.0 a w , (2.4 3) I1+ 1.12t p
-< 1.0, M < N -
Tormula (23) 7 1 1.0 - H(P/Py) - J(P/Py)* y P
- y. M < M. M. u.
TYPTCAt. EIM M.IS .@ -# g a e A m 4 4 e M<x y 1.4 P'l 8.e - leop 0 09 ftutt , 3.f . 67 rec 2 teet s:m t
- 0. =, . s o.s ..
. *y g 44 3 3.3 e ,
o
,4 1 I '*
Q.1. h),
- 3. l
_ o e.n er 65 8.t o.J" o.4 67 8. F e.1 10 f
-==.%-
Project Page
- C5257 C- 30
. Franklin Research Center By Date Ch.k.d Date Rev. Date A Dm. . .slon of The Franklin Inst 2tute The 8emetron Frenamn Parmeev, PNa. Pa 19lC3 k hf i(f (s[,f..
, ,, /,'$/
T = 36 Est Uf = 100 11.'# 150 DOUBLE Ct:RVA!URE 1 1963 code I N 03d' P
-" ~< 1.0 Tormula (21) M=M when P/Py 1 0 15 I* I
) ,
y e 0.4 i C,10.fo p i 1.18 - 1.18(P/Py) i 1.0 - P (2. 4- 3) f Y+ g,;g,p i 1.0. .M i M7 Tormula (22) p i ?-G(P/Py) i 1.0 P M*M , y
- w. w < w.
TTPICAL EXAM".ES f
- e M < w. x.
..t.
- into case u-M' e.T -,
e, m w. 6 3 c ees Li~ t t
4 3
@=bs g
- 7. g a
chi <.% =,,= , q') e-5 -- g e .1. -- ,. 01" 8 ,,, o.s aa 4.+ * .s* e4 e .1 ot *1 '** 7' \" g
.-- _ -,- _ --- ----s
, a O "' i *
$ ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 31 om A Division of The Frankhn insutute
,, cuo a ,, n ,.. o,,,
The Bem Frannan Part ey. 7 w. 74 14Ic3 .Q4 E r,,7.s. I f . ., -> - < SI 'tt' AY ; "w* ta Fy = h an r " 30 I 2 #*I 1963 Code 1990 cade Formula (21) M=M when P/Py < C.15 7 - cM (2.a-2)# 1+ ' 110 7 1 1.18 - 1.13(?/Pv)
- 1.0 cr (1-f)M, P
e Cm= '3.35 Formula (22) M1 < ~ B-C(P/Py) ~ < 1.0 p w y (2.4-3) p 3,;33 1 1.0, M i M, M 1.g 7 7 Formula (23) f i 1.0 - H(P/Py) - J(P/Pv) P , r M < M. ' TYPICAL EXA'TI.ES j 8
=
U J M. M. l.4 P7 1963 Code Also Imposes the Following Limit 0.1 - 2P wp cett umT T
- 1,1yo 1.0 Fa.mula (20) 1 01--
'r 04 -
C
, .C . . .
, 04-
- g. re 63 cooe LA M fT -
'J')
SL .
~(g=
(4 h M
. . . . .s o' ,, o,2, o.5 s.4 a.? o.s 31 ** l 'A l0
;ny
Praitet Pm pil; C5257 C- 32 Jb1; Franklin Research Center 3, o ,, cn.g., c ,, n ,.. c,,, A Division of The Frank!in Instrute 4e een,.m.n Franam Pernwey. PW. Pa 15103 n U .' ,* , ',k,,/ '.
& j, f'j F = 36 i.i 7 = 30 14 vr 150 51:ISA7 ALI,0'4E3 1961 code 1980 cod, Formula (21) M-M unen P/Py 1 0.15 P
1 M < - 1.18 - 1.18(P/Pv) < 1.0 p CM ,
' (2.a-2) ~+
1 1.0 ce (1-fut, y
- C3 sAaf Formula (22) p
- 3-G(P/Py) i 1.0 P
ib (2 4-3) f+g,3y 1 1.0, M i M, Y 9 i 1.0 - H(P/Py) - JfP/Py) Formula (23)f'P W < M.
./
TTPICAL EXAP!".!$ g V "D M. M. e Le f7
..t.
1963 Code Also Imposes the Fo11cwing Limit e.g .. 2P 1 mecoe umf I + g i 1.0 Formula (20) 1 e.% 4g 0.fe'= ?p( 4'5r 60- '4j e,t..
', g. so.: oce, u*..r -
J
<.,3 at--
% x ,
- 0 .;, u ,, ., .. . . .., ,. F . , .
]t f p
A^ , r<oi-2 e 9< C5257 C- 33 OQb L Frc.nklin Research Center y om, 3 .,., em, g ,,, om, e k.*0.12"EWI.?ll"??NS$' RA otT'tI -2. 11 / CA 56 SrvDT Coyrmn of Alsc -ictsc> SeeFrm 1. to. 6 wnh Alsc -19 b Sec47en (. lo. 6, ReducFren Th FIanp 5+ cess, KY betd Grrders only. The only change betweem Yhe Ywo codes is 4he TnYreduc4 Tom of Fe ,-ula. C 1 io -6) Se case of hybrid girder, im 4he 1980 codd.. ' i or >n ulo, ( l . Io -5) of Iq $o Cute with f~b ir ksi ' is idenircal -fo f~rmula. Cl 2.) of (%3 with f'b rn Psi. S ybetd gTeder designed in 163 would be designed 7n acc.ordance wi+b icrmulctC(1) Which is identical to ((.to-s) in Iqso code. . Gut a. hybrid girder clesTgned in etccordavice. ~ Wi+h (450 -Aas to confarm +o bch Fbevole (. l .10 -s') Anci C l. Io -O, For Fo =AS Ksi Awd
-50 l
ratro o.wd C t -to -6) -fBc gwen 4=oL Mex ( ')Flage vsing Fo e malas C1 Io-s'
- o. 6 , W o.gaul 4e ejtven -A/t ra*Ios ( lh , I n 2 if 2. , fr ps = 25#/
o.wd, il7s I27 g. l 3 7 Se' 7=9-5oKst). We -frnd i in sti srx ca:es dependr$ on ^*/g Mto gr g = o.4s j for mula. ( t . t o -6) Tn the (9 so cedt rs cc^sce Vs4TVe. - QuC+e
i N Proint Pag) p$il I
.t J Franklin Research Center C5257 C 34 3, o,,, o .,., o,,, n ,,, o ,,,
^ .L".2",913:1.'*"2." Mit?
Rn ni' m ; j'a: , ,;; i l i But -for o.+r < d 4 o.75 - Facmvics C. t . t o -6) oc EnmvicsCl10-d could be ccnservatwe. c\s l compre2 to fctch other dependtnca on h[t raWo Qc cgven 'Fy . Eur Sc g y a . ,s- % cm case, Fcemula ( i t o -s) rs more conservatwe . - Thus we can make the -fb(Iow?9 gvdpent 6w 4he m . OLD Gemulas d scob_ a) Formula: Cl2.) , t et 63 Cede _ b * *5 F f h F6 ( t.o - o.ocosAfh 2t( h4 3F3C00) - quct A wi+b Fe Tn Psi . dew b) Femnula ( t.10-0 Icteo code pf4Fb[l.0-0.o005^M(rh '76# )' ree > WI4h Eb in ksl 0*k5 & g blew Formulcs 0. 75-
%cmula. (.1. to -6) i9 go code
) O ')T C g 4 p3 - u. + (.AJ) 04 -#)
- n. + 2. c ow Af )
O
A Project C5257 Pap C- 35 O. Franklin Pesearch Center By Dam wk.d Date R eir. Date A Division of The Franklin institute he @ Frannan Parm.,,. Pne:a., Pa 19103 , ff [[/s/ ,/[/ AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CCCE COMPARISON f.o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s = 0.9 g,3y . a = 0.6 -
'5 k
- os5 --- -
N
~ ! E.
r a = 0.3 ., b . fr4 "a! o.15 -- /r '4
*//
4.
*e, 00 . . e o 50 l00 iTo 200
, WED/ FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS = 25KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9. H/TRATIO=162 3
i
.lu.
]
h-
- -- _ w - - , - - - - - , . - - ,.- - - - -w ---- - -
m --
,p w - _ _ - - -
Project Pagi C5257 C- 36 l . J Franklin Research Center ,l o ,, cy,., o , ,, n, . 0,,, A Division of The Franklin Insttute
- pN A rT i .- /..
- n. a.n, a r- en.sy. PNa . Pa.191C3 bd7 h ,*g , ,/ - ///f /
AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CCDE COPPARISCN I.0 - - -
\ 2
- 0.9 a = 0.6 M
2 ge- -
\ '-
--~~
g ___,, g
~
a = 0.3 M < E c.17 .
't 'o,
/
C.e, O. C
.go 40 60 30 10 0 WED/FLN;GE AREA RATIO BENDING STTISS = 25KS! ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9 H/T RATIO = 172 4
b 6 O
Project Page C5257 C 37
- 0. J Franklin Research Center
,, o,,, c3.,., o,,, n ,.. o,,,
A Division of The FranWin insutute n
- xA n.e ., are ni.,. .en.:4 p. isica Oc7 g,1 , , , , .
,/
AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CCOE COMPARISON l t f.0 --- - - - - - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 6 0.9
's '
08-~ M-'-------_____., 1 0,6 t A.* 5 0 5 ,
~~~~~~~___,
g a 0,3 Y o.4 t llt 4>y r r 0p
*h c 0.2.- - ce, I I
i g~ ( j l t o to :.o ao 40 0 '8 WED/FLAiGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS = 25KSI ALPHA =0.3, 0.6. 0.9, H/T RATIO = 182 b l I O
~=*
__,__,,--.,e, - , . - . ,- ---.m
- e Project Page il C5257 C 38 U. ] Franklin Research Center Ch.k.d Byr e Da Date Rev. Date A Civision of The Franklin insutute
- n. % r.a e.,. ,.r% ..p. i9ica .' e O ".'. ,
;3l .te , . .
, , , , , f /r./ ,
r AISC 1.10.6 1963/1930 CODE COMPARISON l.o ,--- 2 = 0.9 0 75'-- a = 0.6 E g 0.s'--
@ a = 0.3 5 -
0.;;~ **
*/p bt g.
00 so too 150 2co _ 0
'dED/ FLANGE AREA RATIO SENDING STRESS = 50K3I ALPHA =0.3, 0.6. 0.9. H/T RATIO = 117 WP 2
m
l Project Page C5257 C- 39
- 0. ] Franklin Research Center o,,, m., o,,, a o ,,
[ A Division of The FranWin institute n, w v. _ o.. - ~ .o m a glRh i OCT TI // P/.rt. IV7/ AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CODE COMPARISCN l.O - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .. a = 0.9
,'~------
a = 0.6
. o. - l -
S U g , e 2 = 0.2 04 - ('%, 0.2.- *
*/,
e#'e,
' I i 40 h :o 40 60 10 100
'aED/ FLANGE AREA RATIO BCIDING STRESS = 50K51 ALPHA =0.3, 3.6, 0.9, H/T RATIO = 127 6
1 Project Pap l C5257 C 40
- 0. ] Franklin Research Center By Date Ch.<d Cate R ev. Date A Division of The Franklin Insttute e ' ,\ , , . .
ne w n.e.u,nou..., m .o. Issc3 m r' *n, ... 5 ,. // l l l l l 1 l l l AISC 1.10.61963/1980 C00E CO."PARISON l.0 -- a = 0.9 N
~~ ,' ' - -- ----_ _,___,
- a = 0.6
~
l i N l \ g 0. s-- - C - 2
=
o -.. a = 0,3 g 05
&m, 4
*/,
0.1 .- , 4,*s' a, '. i ; ; o 10 to 30 Ao 50 60
' DES / FLANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS = 50KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9 H/T RATIO = 137 o
3 e em.D 6 r _ -. . . , . , . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . - _ . . - - - , _ _ , . , . _ , . . . _ . -
Projtet Pagi C5257 C 41 O[t ] Franklin Research Center 3 a ,, 3.. .., o,,, g,.. c ,,,
^1""l2fl.""d"D%E'
. RA SEPT *J) frs: /.w CASE STUDT - i Ccmparison of section C I 9 i.2.) and APfe"drx C (Aisc 1980 ) Wiih Se' ctron I 9 1 (AISC 103) J WIch'h-ihickness ro+ro cf onsiiffened elements Subgecf to catal ccryescon and ccyessten c(ve to bendrng.
In both sectrons ee. Irmit of width - - MickTt55 (Gtio Is cj IVe n -$r %e hilcwTwg VorTous cgses. ' C Ass .r. : s7tgle - csngle struts ; cleuble -angle struts ,
%i+h se 90rators casa I : Struts cicubie angles compris7ng i'n codo.ef j dMCjldS ce pides projecting -fem gTed ers, Columns, oc other c.cmpress7en wembers j Ccmpression -flanges on plote gTeders c[ beam ; Sh-{fewers CASE E : 5+ ems cf fees Im MSC , Iqso , a.cc.ecem3 Ta uc spec 4'c=G3 E
-fh.e abo vd cases , W hen Cornpre ss?on
% embers exceed Yhe oJi ow Able. W TdM '
Mickness fatTO ,
%e cul\ovva.ble stresses Goe reduced by a. M er bsed on
.fomula s given % appendix c which depends on yteld siress CFg ) omcl
-the widih - 4hickmess rat. io.
* \
Project Page il C5257 C- 42
- u. .I Franklin Research Center y o,,, 3 .x., o,,, g ,,, o ,,,
^v C 22?!.'".2b?E RA CEPT'D ;.' -
Sur acccedine +e /t l SC, W 63 $pe et-fications, d When Compression wembers exceed +he_ cate d e. u't4 % - 4hickmess rdio ; the_ wember is i acceptoJoie rf it Satisfies the o.t t w'& stress requrcewents wMh ct poch of wid+h ie, effecttve_ width weets stress rejurcements . ! Er %e case- stud 7 ., ho vedues cf fy ac est and SD ksi ace chosen - fie the bo values -for +7ptcal ongle sec4?cn And T sec+rans given rn Alsc M an w o.A. graphs -Aave. been plotted forReduch Iac+ce y_S Wiclth -thickmess rgtro. Reduch Factor -for Aisc, lqso ccde rs lused en forwulas given rn c9pendrx C and for M sc (96 3, .reduciten fac+or Ts +he_ ra h of e$ective. wid+h +o ac+ val widEh of
-tQ sec+tcy.
Gcssed en +he gec6hs, the change
-f'r e case I cal Case.Tt. at higher vidth / thickness ratto would be a. & cha.g e, l Gs SpecificakTons were. w re con seratNr_ rn I (963 c.ed e - Lt -Ge CaseH +he chage rn Spectfrcxtren is 1 Chaj<. as It 6 more.
Tn (R%0 Code, kt3her
~
Conser vatTVe. a.+ I width - thickness ecdf o . .
Project Pagt C5257 C- 43
- 0. .l Franklin Research Center g, o ,,, cny, o ,, g ,,, o,,,
A Division of The Franklin insttute n ,. . . , . . . ..., +. . , The Semarrun Frannha Parmeey. P%a. Pa 6 910J A it gy f,, .4. /.//y,, FY=36KSI ANGLES SEPARATED t 1.0 g'g. % ! N . : t 8.8 , R E D -
'48 0 U
C 0.7 1 T - , I - O - 0.6 F - N A . .
'M C .
T _ 0 0.5 , , , , , , l ! 12 14 to 18 20 22 24 WIDTH-THICICIESS RATIO ;
- l t
- l t
l. t
.w-e,.=
-. - - -_ -.-,,,s. - -w.. - -cy,.-.,,
Project Fagi
- l. ] Franklin Reseamh Center C5257 C- 44
, o,g ye, o,,, g ,,, o,,,
A Division of The Franklin Insttute
- n. % r,.n.use Petwey. A Pa 191O ph SC -
;,i (! g,,f, ' ,/ /,/[[
1.0 W e
*8 N
j N .
- l R
E D U C T I a.s N a D N F - e T - - N g 04 a 6 i a 6 a a 18 12 14' to 18 29 22 24 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATID J m e 9
a Prciect Pagt n C5257 C 45 U. . ] Franklin Research Center 3,' o,,, en.,., o,,, g ,,. 0,,, A Division of The Franklin Institute A i neem remommrus.r sssca _n Gtj G [2v! /.,1)*/ E t i FY=36KSI ANGLES IN CCNTACT l 1.0 3 9 9 su 0.9 s e R -
'9to s aa ~ s ' ~ !'
U C T _
&U
~
N 07 . !
~ i F _
A
~
i C - T - l 0.6 g
, , , , i 14 to 18 29 22 - 24 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO ,
i t i I a 1 I L
Proitet Pac 3 C5257
- C- 46 0 h') Franklin Research Center 3, o,,, c3.x., o,,, g ,,, g,,,
A Division cf The Franidin insatute n, sea, r, wi r ..., n .. p. isi:3 RA SEfT,C1 j;,;';e: ' ;.'; FY-50KSI ANGLES IN CONTACT l.0 7 h . 0.8
~
R E
~
*7
?
I x x < 0 - N -
QW a
T N I . - 0 0.5 i , a i 6 6 12 -14 16 18 20 22 24 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO 3 emme 9 e O 9 9
Project Pags C5257 C- 47 OiL lJ Franklin Research Center gy a,,, c,w, o,,, g ,,, o ,,, A Division of The Frannlin Insntute n ,. t
- n. e.- re- e.,. , pa ... p. s eios wA 2 e f,e y,} , , , ,,3. , i,;,
FY=36KSI T SHAPES 1.0 j l l 1 1 l 1 0'8
! N g
C w . . -_ T 3.8 s F - A C ' T a g,4 , , , , , , , 29 22 24- 25 28 39 32 34 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO , e 9 6
c Project Tag) q C5257 C- 48
... ] Franklin Research Center 3l o,,, c3.x., o,,, g ,,, o ,,,
A Dmsion of The Franklin Insttute i e n.. wm,n ram em.., n.s. es is'n RA 55rr v /wa w' FY=50KSI T SHAPES 1.0 0.8 g
~
*' s N g
C ~ N N g, T 0 N 0.4 N % I J N . A - C T . 0 0.2 ii i6 . . 6 6 .6 i L.isi ,aiie iiei , aiii 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.3 32.5 35.0 WIDTH-THICK. NESS RATIO o b
==
e
Project Paqs il
- u. J Franklin Research Center C5257 C 49 g, o,,, c,, .,. ., o,,, g ,,, o,,,
^PL":*"LR:.,(:'"2." Mmc cp u:, .: , . .
case svuor -ii-Comparison of MSc 19 sci Sectron 1. it . 9 wi+h AISC 1943 Sectirn 1 u 4 3 Shev con nectors Or C omposite b e am s - Where. (oncjkidinal reinforcing 5. teel Cst 4s with beam - A ce.nedh,g to AISC I980, Firmula ( l \\ S)
\/g = Ase Fy r/2. ( l . li -s-)
is $Tven -for Can4Tnuous com fcsTte beam wher e longi +vdinal reiv$ec.ing stee.l Ts covisidered to acf compositely with +he s} eel bram in the. megottve_.
%oment region s, do calculate +be 4o+al ho rtynfal shear '4o be. resis+ed by shear conmectors between an inferior support and each adgace>rl-fo7nt of cavitraflegure .
Whereas in AISC (963 spect{reatrons ,
%e +o4al hor 7pntal shear +c be resisted between the polni cf wax 7 mum PoSI+ive mowev* and fach end or ct point of con +rafle8vre in conirnucus beams is giw.n as the smaller value of i'ermul a. C l g ) and CIO o.85- A'
\/h= (lg) aul A s Fy (rq)
Vh= 2. l g w eeme .
Project Page c5257 c 50 O. ] Franklin Research Center
^ O r 2 7.fif D iiin' R/, s :Y p ,-$,, 'b, There Ts 20 separate -fornula. -[cr vega+tve noment region ry AISc, 1463 rhe ctbove -fer mvIqs are 4he same TM Alse , I420 ; Formula. C l. il-3) and C t.11 -4) -for 'the positive moment region.
Hereever Th AISC , 1963 , here Ts no considera&n cf reivrforcing steel Th concrete acting compositel)r With 4he steel beam i% negatNe wom em1- regions. This impl ies that in compuftng +he TeCYIOM Modulus aY +he poi"T s of wega+Ne bending , reinforcement parattel 4e 4he s+ e el beam , and 17 ing wi+hin +he effeetive .wid+h Cf Skoch "ma[ be In CIUded GCCording yo AISC.,1980 But it is net allowed fe inclvde re Twforcing steel rn ccm puting 4he section wodulus -for +he above case as Per +be spectfications cf Alsc (963. Thus desijn crit erio. Ts being liberalized Tn Als C l9So . Since 4he quanirfica+ Ton of ibis libera \ crt ie riq T's unknown, ihTs ch ange can best be. classified as 1 Any composite beam clestcpled 4s Per A 1.s c t 9 63 specifications will show more woment Capcity when ca.lculated according +o AIse, l9 80 Spect-f'r cations . ,
Projec2 Page 257 c. 51 I[l. J Franklin Research Center
$. "~
^?M,?!,21 W"L"M%is' ,?h> A i .h" g ?is',
l l CASE- STUDT The allawable peci pheral Shear S+ress ( Punching shear s+ress ) as s+ated in +be 5 e Pv AsMe code sec h _E. D t <. t , (9so C Act asq -so ) Para- cc - 3 42.i . c rs limited 4e LTc. where 1Te shall be ccJculated as 4he we73 hted nVerage cf Itch awd Vcm LTch = +/ f,' ] l+ C-f"%.j.fr ) trcm = 4/ ef' / i+ ( V4/f'c ) The AC,I 3l E - 6,3 Code sec+ron l7 07 s+a+e s -+h a-t-Yhe ul4rmate Shear 5+rength UL shall wt o ceed UE = 4.ffc . Comparte.g +he above ivo cases +he
-followTng Ts concluded ;
when : s cah. I. Membrane s+resses are compressive S te- 63 Ts vnere conservartve CC)
~
2 Membeane stresses are -ten stle 3)e - 6,3, Ts less & ser va+t ve @) ,m+
- ame
Project Pag 3 r C5257 C- 52 000J Franklin Research Center o,,, e,.,., o , ,, n, a,,, A Division cf The Franklin insttute f 3,(Sj/
- n. s.n.m r,. nun Penw % Pa 19103 4. 7 .* / g/ / (? .4/d Io/3I sca 3 Membrane stresses are a ero sis - 43 Ts T& ntical N'o rding 4- Hembrane s+resses are opposT4e Th sign 3ig-63 couW be tess con serva+Ne b)
A c-
,w p
m so 2 p-- % I
^
I . se' h
^ r
/
Projec2 Pac] C5257 C- 53
- 0. J Franklin Research Center
'~ *~
^ *L"L"?Wi.,3"kU"'ni??
. 'h?);y).
, . ?? ch.. , ?g's Case sTuor rhe 3a pv AsMe Code Sec+ron 3r DTvision ?_ , M SO (ACI 35cl-50) Para . c c-3+2.i . 7 5+ates -that ihe shear stress fal<en by Yhe concrete resulting -frcm pure -l crsIon Shall wot exceed lJec Lo here
, e r e 1 Tc s = I' + '" "
+ "
b)-f' 4JC (415;)'- W hile 4he ACI 3ir- 63 Ccde Sec+ren (70 7 limMs +he vlMwate Sheer Strength $ 40 lJe = 4/[c' From +hc csbove -huo cases 4he fellew?ng Ts concluded ; Lehen ; s,A
- 1. Mernbeane s+resses are com pressNe
, 3 t8 - 6 3 Ts wcre conservedTve CC. )
2 Membrane stresses - c<re Yens 7le 3ts-63 Ts les s conservotive (A ) e ==w -
e
\
P 4 Preitet Paca []dh l i Research Center J"L J Franklin Tne Frankhn Ins,t,at.ute A Lilwe54Cn of C5257 o,,, cy,., o,,, n ,,, C 54 o,,, 3,/o, ',, i/ ,
- n. u . ~ r,. ~ r ..., ~ ..r. a :. . .; , t, ..: roir
~
Sea.Re. 3 Mernbrane. s4resses are zero 3lT - 63 Ts more conser vo.tNe (_C)
- 4. Membrane siresses are cPPc5Ne Iv1 shrn v
317-63 Could be IeSS Conser vdiv'd (M l l I l l . l 9 l 1 6 e ?
n
., l l
0< i j APPENDIX D l ACI CODE PHIIDSOPHIES I h l e 8 Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phda. Pa. 19103 (215)448 1000 1
, w 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: - die so-called working stress me thod, 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 1 i The working stress method 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 the materials involved. 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 campatibility 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. t
- Service loads are defined as those loads which are assumed to occur during the service life of the structure.
D-1 i i nklin Research Center A Dhemen af The Frenten insenste
4 . 1 Strength Reduction Factor In the present code, the capacity reduction factor ( $) varies for the type of member and is considered to account for the relative seriousness of the member failure as regards the overall integrity of the structure. Load Factors Also, by this method, the designer increases the service loads by applying appropriate load factors to obtain the ultimate 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 incorporated a philosophy of achieving ductility in reinforced concrete designs. Ductility in a structural member is the ability to maintain load carrying capacity while significant, large deformations occur. Ductility in members is a desired quality in structures. It permits significant redistribution of internal loads allowing the structure to readjust its load resistance pattern as critical sections or members approach their limiting capacity. This deformation results in cracking and deflections which provide a means of warning in advance of catastrophic. collapse. Under conditions of loading where energy must be absorbed by the structure, member ductility becomes very important. This concern for preserving ductility appears in the present code in many ways and has guided the changes in code requirements over the recent decades. Where research results have confirmed analysis and intuition, the code has provided for limiting steel percentage's, reinforcing details, and controls-- all directed at guaranteeing ductility. In those aspects of design where ductility cannot be achieved or insured, the code has required added strength to insure potential failure at the more ductile sections of structures. D-2 000 er.nuiin ae.e.,ch center A 0hamon of The Fransen inneaune
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. Concrete 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 me thods. While ultimate strength methods do not eliminate these factors, they become less significant at ultimate load levels. In addition, ultimate strength methods allow for more reasonable approximations to the non-linear concrete stress-strain behavior. In the analyses of structures, the designer must, by necessity, make certain assumptions which serve to idealize the structures. The primary assumptions are that the structure behaves in a linearly elastic manner, and that the idealized member stiffness is constant throughout eacn 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 design, it recognizes these limitations and, in concept, anticipates the redistribution resulting from ductile deformation at the most critically stressed sections and in fact proportions members so that redistribution will occur. D-3 000u er naiin aesearch center A Omeson of The Franedin inesswee
In addition to strength, a design must satisfy serviceability requirements. In some designs, serviceability factors (such as excessive deflection, cracking, or vibration at service load) may prove to be more important than strength. Computations of the various serviceability factors are generally at service load levels; therefore, the present code uses elastic concepts in its controls of serviceability. Factors of Safety ' Factors of safety
- are subjects of serious concern in this review. For working stress, the definition of the factor of safety is of ten considered to be the ratio of yield stress to service load stress. This definition becomes suspect or even incorrect where nonlinear response is involved. For ultimate strength, one definition of factors of safety is the ratio of the load that would cause collapse to the service or working load. As presented in the present code, a factor of safety is included for a variety of reasons, each of which is important but has no direct interrelation with the other.
The present ACI code has divided the provisicus 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 be designed for is the ratio of the overlot( factor (U) over the capacity reduction factor ()) . The present ACI code has assigned values to the above factors such that the ratio U/$ ranges from , about 1.5 to 2.4 for reinforced concrete structural elements.
- relation, Factors ofMSsafety = FS - 1.
(FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the
, s o
nklin Research Center l A Chamon of The Frennen insamme L}}