ML20083P632
| ML20083P632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1983 |
| From: | Dale L MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 AECM-83-51, IEB-80-11, TAC-49996, NUDOCS 8302030554 | |
| Download: ML20083P632 (52) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a 4 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O. B O X 164 0. J AC K S O N. MIS SIS SIP PI 3 9 205 January 28, 1983 NUCLEAR PRooUCTION DEPARTMENT U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulation Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director
Dear Mr. Denton:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416 and 50-417 License No. NPF-13 File 0260/0277/L-860.0 Category I Masonry Walls Reference AECM-82/29 AECM-83/51 Mississippi Power & Light (MP&L) submitted an evaluation of I&E Bulletin 80-11, via letter AECM-82/29, dated January 19, 1982. The Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (NRC) Staff provided informal questions on the above evaluation to MP&L in May of 1982. MP&L's responses to those questions were presented to Structural Engineering Branch in a meeting at the office of Bechtel Power, Gaithersburg, Maryland on July 16, 1982. This letter documents MP&L's responses to the NRC informal questions. NRC questions presented in this attachment reference sections in the MP&L evaluation as provided by AECM-82/29. Yo rs truly, _ _ _ ,I y L. F. Dale Manager of Nuclear Services GMG/JGC/JDR: sap
.ttachment cc: Mr. N. L. Stampley (w/a) F Mr. R. B. McGehee (w/o) I Mr. T. B. Conner (w/o)
Mr. G. B. Taylor (w/o) t yO Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director (w/a) Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 (cc: continued next page) 8302030554 830128 PDR ADOCK 05000416 0 PDR amber Middle South Utilities Gystem a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s 4 AECM-83/51 MIMIMIPPI POWER Cs LIGHT COMPANY #8* cc: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator (w/a) Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta St., N.W., Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dr. Franz Schaver, Chief (w/a) Structural Engineering Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 I
s ! 4 MP&L submitted an evaluation of I&E Bulletin 80-11, via letter AECM-82/29, dated January 19, 1982. The NRC Staff provided informal questions-on the above evaluation to MP&L in May of 1982. MP&L's responses to those questions were presented to Structural Egineering Branch in a meeting at the office of Bechtel Power Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland on July 16, 1982. NRC concerns presented in this attachment reference sections in the MP&L evaluation as provided by AECM-82/29.
- 1.
Reference:
" Report on the Re-Evaluation of CMU Walls" Section 5.0, "Results of Evaluation" states that all walls, with safety related equipment attached or in proximity, were designed to resist SSE loading.
Concern: 1.a. Were the walls also designed for OBE using load combination equations contained in the SEB criteria?
Response
The walls were designed to meet Category I requirements. All load combinations in our design criteria, including OBE, SSE and tornado depressurization were addressed. Concern: 1.b. Since all the other walls were designed for UBC earthquake loadings, how were the SEB load combination equations incorporated in the design?
Response
Other walls with no safety-related equipment attached or in proximity are not subject.to the provisions of IE Bulletin 80-11 and are therefore not required to meet NRC SEB load combinations. E79sp4 i
n a
- 2.
Reference:
Appendix B - Criteria for the Re-Evaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls. Concern: 2.a. Paragraph 6.1.2. - Describe in more details how inertia load on the wall and modes of vibration other than the fundamental mode due to 4 its acceleration have been considered.
Response
As noted in Paragraph 6.1.2 (Modes of Vibration) in Appendix B of the reference report, the effects of modes of vibration higher than the fundamental mode were considered. Two alternative approaches were used. In some cases a modal analysis was performed. Alternatively, the fundamental mode frequency is determined, and the corresponding acceleration is increased by 20% (determined by-engineering judgement) to account for the effects of higher modes. The resulting bending moments average approximately 15% greater than those determined by the " BLOCK WALLS" Program multi-modal analysis (See Table I). Concern: 2.b. Paragraph 6.1.4 - Consideration of average acceleration for a wall between two floors is not in accordance with the requirements of "SEB Interim Criteria for Safety-Related masonry Wall Evaluation " July 1981, paragraph 4(d). The acceptable method of analysis is described in the SRP, Section 3.7.3.11.2.1. Justify this apparent deviation from the Regulatory staff position and demonstrate that the conservatism of the method used~in the analysis of masonry walls at Grand Gulf is comparable to that which would.have been obtained if the walls between two floors were analyzed using the method stated in the SRP.
Response
During the July 16, 1982 meeting with the NRC, MP&L provided a generic methodon gy justifying the use of average accelerations in the seitmic anaP/ sis of CMU walls between two floors (methodology provided as Attach:ent I). In addition, at the request of the NRC, MP&L committed to provide additional information to support this justification. In order to demonstrate the level of conservatism in the Grand Gulf CMU wall analysis methods, sample walls were selected and re-evaluated with the appropraite enveloping response spectra. Selection of Sample Walls A total of 26 representative walls (approximately 9% of all safety-related CMU walls at Grand Gulf) were selected for re-analysis with the enveloping response spectra. Walls were chosen from both thovControl and Auxiliary Buildings. For each building, those selected included walls analyzed for horizontal and for E79sp1
i vertical span. Fnr each span direction, walls were chosen to represent those in the uncracked and cracked conditions by existing analysis. Walls in the uncracked state having the grout tension stress nearest the design allowable were chosen and walls in the cracked state having masonry and/or reinforcing steel stresses nearest the design allowables were selected. Where several walls fit this criteria, those included in the sample were located at floor elevations where the enveloping floor response spectra exceeded the average floor response spectra by the greatest amount. Discussion of Results Stresses increased for the majority of CMU walls re-evaluated with the enveloping floor response spectra. In no case were design allowable stresses exceeded. Table 11 summarizes the results of the re-evaluation of representative walls. Of the walls re-evaluated, some were found to have lower stresses when analyzed with the enveloping response spectra. This occurred when the enveloping response spectrum fell below the average response spectrum for the wall's fundamental frequency, and was due to a conservative graphical technique used in the development of the average response spectra. Stresses also decreased for some walls which were on the verge of cracking by existing analysis and which cracked when evaluated with the enveloping response spectra. Walls on the verge of cracking have a grout tension stress close to the design allowable. When this stress is exceeded, the wall analysis is performed assuming cracked section properties. Stresses can decrease for a cracked section SSE analysis because the wall is evaluated with more highly damped response spectra (accelerations lower for given frequencies) in the cracked state than in the uncracked state (Ref. " Report on the Re-Evaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls," Appendix B. Section 5.3). Conclusion The CMU walls selected for re-evaluation with the enveloping response spectra included those with various design configurations and having stresses nearest design allowables by existing analysis. None of the walls re-evaluated had stresses exceeding design allowables. Based on this re-evaluation, it is concluded that the use of average accelerations in the seismic analysis of CMU walls between two floors (ref. " Report on the Re-Evaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls," Appendix B. Section 6.1.4) is adequate. E79sp2
. 1 k
1 Table I: Comparison of Multi-modal and Factored Fundamental Mode Analysis Factored j Accelerations Multi-Modal Fundamental f Wall Governing Effective Seismic Mode Seismic No. Load Comb. Width 1st Mode 2nd Mode 3rd Mode Moment 1.2 x a Moment l
% Diff Remarks C-133-002 SSE 16" 0.751g 0.364g 0.351g 19.2 in-k 0.901g 22.4 in-k +16.7% Vert. Span i
i C-148-014 SSE 12" 0.750g 0.413g .0.389g 9.8 in-k 0.900g 11.3 in-k +15.3% Horiz. Span i I C-166-049 SSE 12" 0.720g 0.453.g 0.450g 13.0 in-k 0.864g 14.8 in-k +13.8% Vert. Span l C-177-030 SSE 46" 0.787g 0.482g 0.481g 20.5 in-k 0.944g 23.7 in-k +15.6% Horiz. Span 1 A i i 4 i E79sp12
TABLE II. COMPARISON OF WALL STRESSES OBTAINED W/ AVERAGE RESPONSE SPECTRA TO THOSE
-OBTAINED W/ ENVELOPING RESPONSE SPECTRA (SEE NOTE 1)
Masonry Grout Masonry Comp Masonry Tensile Direc- Load Tension Axial Comp. Bending Shear Steel Wall Nc. tion Span Comb. Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Comments 0.300 0.710 1.114 0.053 48.0 A-119-005 NS Vert. SSE See Note 2 0.013 0.543 0.006 17.5 See Note 2 0.013 0.575 0.006 18.6-0.300 0.671 1.114 0.543 48.0 A-139-006 EW Vert. SSE 0.300* 0.008 - 0.486 0.004 11.8 , 0.304* 0.008 0.499 0.004 12.1 See Note 3 0.300 0.718 1.114 0.053 48.0 A-166-002 NS Vert. SSE 0.274 -0.012 0.514 0.006 16.1 , (Case 1) 0.301* 0.012 0.564 0.006 18.2 See Note 3 0.300 0.718 1.114 0.053 48.0 A-166-002 NS Vert. SSE 0.275 0.012 0.516 0.007 16.7 , (Case 2) 0.302* 0.012 0.566 0.008 18.3 See Note 3 0.300 .0.714 1.114 0.053 48.0 A-166-004 NS Vert. SSE See Note 2 0.013 0.641 0.007 20.7 See Note 2 0.013 0.570 0.008 12.4 E79sp5
TABLE II. Continued (See Note 1) Masonry Grout Masonry Comp Masonry Tensile Direc- Load Tension Axial Comp. Bending Shear Steel Wall No. tion Span Comb. Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Comments 0.300 0.753 1.114 0.053 -60.0 A-208-001 EW Horiz. SSE N/A N/A 0.154 0.024 25.7 N/A N/A 0.180 0.028 30.0 0.300 0.753 1.114 0.053 60.0 A-245-001 EW Eoriz. SSE N/A N/A 0.205 0.034 34.1 N/A N/A 0.213 0.035 35.3 0.300 0.706 1.114 0.053 48.0 A-245-002 NS Vert. SSE See Note 2 0.009 0.646 0.006 20.8 See Note 2 0.009 1.112 0.014 24.2. 0.300 0.296 0.446 0.0404 30.0 C-093-006 EW Horiz. OBE N/A N/A 0.183 0.0179 23.6 N/A N/A 0.182 0.0178 23.4 0.300 0.284 0.446 d.0404 24.0 C-111-012 EW Horiz. OBE- See Note 2 N/A 0.381 0.0049 14.9 (Case 4) See Note 2 N/A 0.341 0.0044 13.3 0.300 '0.291 0.446 0.0404 124 . 0 C-111-015 EW Horiz. OBE See Note 2 N/A 0.441 0.0073 17.2 See Note 2 N/A 0.387 0.0064 15.1 1 1 1 E79sp6
TABLE II. Continued (See Note 1) Masonry Grout Masonry Comp Masonry Tensile Direc- Load Tension Axial Comp. Bending Shear Steel Wall No, tion Span Comb. Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Comments 0.300 0.722 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-111-018 EW Vert. SSE 0.285 0.021 0.561 0.0061 120.3 0.276 0.021 0.542 0.0059 19.6 0.300 0.292 0.446 0.0404 30.0 C-133-001 NS Horiz. OBE N/A N/A 0.181 0.0167 23.3 N/A N/A 0.173 0.0160 22.3 0.300 0.289 0.446 0.0404 30.0 C-133-004 EW lloriz. OBE N/A N/A 0.191 0.0157 24.6 , N/A N/A 0.204 0.0168 26.2 0.300 0.653 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-148-001 NS Vert. SSE See Note 2 0.010 0.723 0.0055 26.0 0.290 0.010 0.346 0.0053 12.4 0.300 0.292 0.446 0.0404 30.0 C-148-002 NS Horiz. OBE N/A N/A 0.211 0.0178 27.2 N/A L/A 0.224 0.0190 28.8 i 0.300 0.655 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-148-003 NS Vert. SSE See Note 2 0.011 1.043 0.0057 37.5 0.290 0.011 0.347 0.0053 12.5 E79sp7
O TABLE II. Continued (See Note 1) Masonry ; Grout Masonry Comp Masonry Tensile Direc- Load Tension Axial Comp. Bending Shear Steel Wall No. tion Span Comb. Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Comments 0.300 0.643 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-148-005 EW Vert. SSE See Note 2 0.006 0.927 0.0102 33.3 See Note 2 0.006 1.028 0.0113 36.9 0.300 0.636 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-148-007 EW Vert. SSE 0.287 0.009 0.495 0.0036 16.7 0.287 0.009 0.496 0.0036 16.8 0.300 0.679 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-148-011 EW Vert. SSE 0.284 See Note 4 0.491 0.0041 18.9 0.282 0.009 0.486 0.0040- 16.5 0.300 0.720 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-166-004 EW Vert. SSE .0.261 See Note 4 0.311 0.0046 11.2 0.287 0.010 0.342 0.0051 12.3 0.300 0.745 1.114 0.0525 60.0 C-166-022 EW Horiz. SSE N/A N/A 0.339 0.0387 43.8 N/A N/A 0.388 0.0443 50.1 0.300 0.298 0.446 0.0404 30.0 ' C-166-022 EW Horiz. OBE N/A N/A 0.196 0.0224 25.3 N/A N/A 0.217 0.0246 28.0 j E79sp8
TABLE II. Continued (See Note 1) Masonry Grout Masonry Comp Masonry' Tensile. Direc- Load Tension Axial Comp. Bending Shear Steel Wall No. tion Span Comb. Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Comments 0.300 0.711 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-166-025 NS Vert. SSE 0.254 See Note 4 0.303 0.0043 10.9 0.281 0.010 0.336 0.0047 12.1 0.300 0.745 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-166-047 EW Vert. SSE 0.270 See Note 4 0.353 0.007 15.6 0.296 0.015 0.387 0.008 17.1 0.300 0.705 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-166-050 EW Vert. SSE 0.293 See Note 4 0.347 0.0048 12.7 See Note 2 0.009 0.307 0.0042 11.0 0.300 0.687 1.114 0.0525 48.0 C-177-031 EW Vert. SSE See Note 2 See Note 4 0.605 0.0056 23.3 See Note 2 0.010 0.798 0.0073 30.7 0.300 0.300 0.446 0.0404 30.0 C-177-040 EW Horiz. OBE N/A N/A 0.162 0.0211 27.0 N/A N/A 0.176 0.0229 29.3 E79sp9
4 NOTES:
- 1. Explanation of Wall Number:
Letter: A - Auxiliary Bldg. C - Control Bldg. 1st 3 digit number: Floor Elevation 2nd 3 digit number: Unique Wall No. Stresses are listed as follows: Upper Value: Allowable (KSI) Middle Value: w/ Avg. Response Spectra (KSI) Lower Value: w/ Enveloping Response Spectra (KSI)
- 2. Grout tension stress allowable exceeded, analysis assumes a cracked section.
- 3. Grout tension stress within tolerance limits, analysis assumes an uncracked section.
- 4. Stress not calculated.
E79sp10
F Concern: 2.c. Indicate whether the seismic motion in the vertical direction is accounted for and, if so, how has it been incorporated in the analysis of masonry walls. Otherwise, demonstrate that neglecting the response in vertical direction does not significantly affect structural integrity of the masonry walls.
Response
The effects of vertical seismic motion was confirmed as having a negligible effect on wall stresses and was therefore not considered in-the individual calculations of CMU wall stresses. (See Table III). Concern: 2.d. Paragraph 5.2.1 - Compare the reinforcing bar lap splices of 30 bar diameters to the corresponding criteria in the governing Code, ACI-531-79 and demonstrate that this provision satisfies the criteria of the Code.
Response
As discussed in GGNS FSAR Sections 3.8.4.1.1.1 and 3.8.4.4.5, the design of block walls is in accordance with the NCMA code, which has the same provisions for lap splices as in the NRC SEB interim criteria. Concern: 2.e. Paragraph 6.2.2 - You stated that plastic theory was used for analysis of two-way bending in the walls. The SEB Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation (Appendix D, Attachment I) are based on elastic behavior of material. Modify your position
- or comply with the NRC criteria or justify this apparent I discrepancy.
Response
This was a typographical error, the theory used was elastic and not plastic. i E79sp11 l
Table III: Masonry Axial Compressive Stresses Due to Vertical Earthquake OBE Loading SSE Loading Masonry Axial % of Masonry Axial % of Elev. Vert. Span Accel. Comp. Stress Allowable Allowable Accel. Comp. Stress Allowable Allowable 111'-0" 10'-0" 0.128g 0.00136 ksi 0.285 ksi 0.48% 0.257g 0.00273 kai 0.713 ksi 0.38% 133'-0" 13'-6" 0.136g 0.00077 ksi 0.258 ksi 0.30% 0.272g 0.00155 ksi 0.645 ksi 0.24% 177'0" 12'-0" 0.143g 0.00072 ksi 0.272 ksi 0.27% 0.286g 0.00145 ksi 0.680 ksi 'O.21% E79spl3
D
- 3. Ref. Appendix C - Commentary on Criteria for the Re-Evaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls.
Concern: 3.a. Paragraph 5.4 - The expression for modulus of rupture is applicable to concrete only. State the corresponding allowable stresses in grout or mortar and explain their relation to the allowable stresses which are defined in the governing Code.
Response
Cell grout, as specified in the Specification 9645-A-004.2, consista of Type 11 portland cement, coarse aggregates conforming to ASTM C33 and fine aggregate conforming to ASTM C144. It qualifies es normal weight concrete. The expression for the modulus of rupture for concrete is, therefore, applicable to cell grout. Concern: 3.b. State if and where tension in grouted cells is allowed in the masonry walls design. Provide a basis for the formula of the allowable tension stresses for cell grout stated in Paragraph 5.1.3. Relate the allowable tension to the provisions of the SEB Criteria, paragraph 3(c) and (d) which states that all tension is to be carried by reinforcement.
Response
All safety-related masonry walls at Grand Gulf are reinforced. Tension is allowed in the grout only until the tensile stress in the grout exceeds the allowable grout tenaion stress stated in paragraph 5.1.3 of the Grand Gulf Design Criteria (2.5 GT 'c for normal loads; 1.67 x 2.5 yfTc for accident loads). Based on a grout modulus of rupture of 6.0 vf
'c, the grout tension allowables of 2.5 yfre (normal loads) and the
( 1.67 x 2.5 jffE(accidentloads)representfactorsofsafetyof2.40and l 1.44, respectively. l l If the allowable grout tension stress is exceeded, all tension is carried by the reinforcement. l As indicated in the response to Question 3.a. the cell grout is considered to be normal weight concrete, and the assumed modulus of rupture of 6.0 ,T'c is conservative. Concern:
- c. Paragraph 6.2 - Provide a basis for the criteria of distribution of concentrated loads as related to thickness of the wall and distance between the concentrated loads.
E79sp14
t
Response
For CMU walle constructed in running bond, the use of an effective beam width of six times the wall thickness for concentrated loads is specified in NCMA-1970, Section 3.10.10.3 as well as in UBC-1979, Section 2418(f) (also in ACI 531-79, Section 9.4.6.1). All CMU walls at Grand Gulf are constructed in rraning bond. For each wall, a design width encompassing the worst loading conditions was selected for analysis. Attachment loads on the order of 100 pounds and greater were treated as concentrated loads. Resulting bending moments were determined using beam theory and an effective width of not greater than six times the wall thickness. Other attachment loads (on the order of 100 pounds and less) were converted to equivalent uniform loads per unit width and distributed across the span of the CMU wall beam model. Concern: 3.d. Paragraph 6.2 - Provide some results of the interstory drift analysis and explain how they were incorporated in the analysis of the masonry walls and justify your statement in the Report, paragraph 5, that the interstory drift resulted in very low stresses and has no effect on the analysis of the walls.
Response
From Section 5.0 of MP&L's evaluation (AECM-82/29): Interstory drift effects were considered in the analysis. The differential seismic deflections and the related maconry wall strains were found to result in very small stresses, and, therefore, have no adverse effect on vall integrity. In-plane strains due to interstory drift have been calculated, and the l results summarized in Table IV. The in-plane strain criteria for interstory drift effects is intended to insure that cracking detrimental l to the out of plane strength of the walls will not occur. This type of l cracking is controlled by diagonal tensile stresses. The point at which ! cracking is initiated is measured by the modulas of rupture of the block, l which is approximately 300 psi for the Grand Gulf masonry units. The maximum principal in-plane tensile stresses, produced by interstory drift, is 81 psi. This maximum value is less than one third of that required to initiate cracking. Thus it is determined that interstory drift will not adversely effect wall integrity. E79sp15
Table IV: Strains Due to Interstory Drif t - Allowable Zh/H = 0.0008 N-S SSE- E-W SSE Floor Elev. [i /H % of Allow. 21/H % of Allow. 111'-0" 0.00009 11.3% 0.00015 18.8% I 133'-0" 0.00011 13.8% 0.00015 18.8%' 150'-0" 0.00008 10.0% 0.00013 16.3% 166'-0" 0.00009 11.3% 0.00013 16.3% 189'-0" - 0.00010 12.5% 0.00012 15.0% l l l l
'l l
l l l l i E79sp16
- 4. Reference Appendix D- Comparison of the Grand Gulf CMU Wall Design Criteria with Revision 1 of NRC's "SEB Interim Criteria for Safety Related Masonry Wall Evaluation," (July 1981).
Concern: 4.a. In General Requirements you stated that design and allowable stresses of masonry walls are governed by the National Concrete Masonry Association and ACI-531-79 codes. The use of these codes is acceptable to the staff. The position of the staff is, however, that if the provisions of these codes are less conservative than the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) - 1979 and of the "SEB Interim Critr eia" their use should be justified on a case-by-case basia. Clarify if the compliance with this position is observed in the design, testing, construction and inspection of masonry walls at the Grand Gulf plant.
Response
The design, testing and construction of masonry walls are governed by the requirements of NCMA-70. Inspection of CMU walls is subject to the provisions of Specification 9645-A-004.2, " Technical Specification for Furnishing, Delivery and Erection of Concrete Masonry Units." The load combinations and the design allowable stresses used are those specified in the SEB Interim Criteria, Rev. 1, Section 3. Supplemental allowable stresses are given in the Grand Gulf Design Criteria. Allowable stress increace factors used for accident / abnormal loads are those specified in the SEB Interim Criteria. As indicated in the response to Question 4.b, masonry wall construction at Grand Gulf meets the requirements of the SEB interim criteria. The inspection and testing criteria used for wall construction are outlined in the response to Question 4.d. Concern: 4.b. In paragraph 3(b) you made a statement that the construction of CMU walls for Grand Gulf Unitr. 1 & 2 " generally" complies with the requirements of ACI-531-79 and the SEB Interim Criteria. This statement implies that there are areas of deviation from the Interim Criteria which you did not specify. You are requested to identify these deviations and provide a justification for review by the staff. E79sp17
Response
As stated in Appendix D of MP&L's evaluation (AECM-82/29), Paragraph 3(b) reads as follows: The analysis of concrete masonry walls at Grand Gulf uses the ACl 531-79 allowable stresses associated with special inspection during construction. Based on QA/QC records and the requirements of Specification 9645-A-004.2 (Appendix E), the construction of CMU walls for Grand Gulf Units 1 and 2 generally complies with the
. requirements of ACI 531-79 and the SEB Interim Criteria.
The referenced paragraph requires some clarification. ACI 531-79 was applied in the Grand Gulf design for allowable stresses only. The SEB Interim Criteria specify that construction comply with the requirements of UBC-79. Based on a comparison of UBC-79 with NCMA-70 and the Grand Gulf construction requirements, the masonry wall construction at Grand Gulf meets the requirements of the SEB Interim Criteria. The following comparison includes applicable construction requirements, i E79spl8
~
4 Item 1 UBC-79 General Construction Requirements Sec. 2416.(a) Cold Weather Construction. No' masonry shall be laid when the temperature of the.outside air is below 40 F, unless approved methods are used during construction to prevent damage to the masonry. Such methods shall include protection of the masonry for a period of at least 48 hours where masonry cement or Type I portland cement is used in the mortar and grout and for a period of at least 24 hours where Type III portland cement is used. Materials to be used and materials to be built upon shall be free from ice or snow. NCMA-70 4.7 Cold Weather Requirements When the air temperature is below 40 F, masonry shall not be erected unless means approved by the architect or engineer are provided to precondition the~ masonry materials and protect the completed work. 4.1. Preparation of Materials 4.1.1 Concrete masonry units shall be protected against wetting prior to use. Such units and precast concrete lintels, sills, and coping units shall be free from soil, ice, and frost when laid in the wall. i i Grand Gulf Construction Requirements Masonry shall be erected only when the temperature can be I maintained above 40"F during installation and for 48 hours after installation. Therefore, Grand Gulf meets the l ~ above General Construction Requirements of UBC-79. l 1 I l< l 4 E79sp19
Item 2 UBC-79 General Construction Requirements Section 2416 (e) Minimum Bar Spacing. The minimum clear distance between parallel bars, except in columns, shall not be less than the diameter of the bar except that lapped splices may be wired together. The center-to-center spacing of bars within a column shall be not less than two and one-half times the bar diameter. NCMA-70 r 4.3.3.1 Minimum Bar Spacing - The minimum clear distance between parallel bars except in columns shall be equal to the rominal diameter of the bar. Grand Gulf Construction Requirements Masonry columns are not used in the Grand Gulf design. However, Grand Gulf does incorporate the above requirements of NCMA-70 regarding minimum bar spacing. Therefore, Grand Gulf meets the applicable portions of the above UBC-79 requirements. E79sp20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u
1 o Item 3 UBC-79 j l General Construction Requirements Section 2416 ) (g) Protection for Reinforcement. All bars shall be j completely embedded in mortar or grout. Joint , reinforcement embedded in horizontal mortar joints chall I have not less than 5/8-inch mortar coverage from the ) exposed face. All other reinforcement shall have a i minimum coverage of one bar diameter over all bars, but l not less than 3/4 inch except where exposed to weather or soil in which cases the minimum coverage shall be 2 inches. NCMA-70 a.3.3.3 Protection for Reinforcement - All bars shall be completely embedded in mortar or grout. All reinforcement shall have a coverage of masonry not less than the following: 3 inch for bottom of footings 2 inch on vertical members where masonry is exposed to action of weather or soil for bars larger than 5/8 inch and ih inches for bars 5/8 inch or less. Ih inch for all reinforcement in columns. Ih inch on the bottom and sides of beams or girders. i 3/4 inch from the faces of all walls not exposed to i action of weather or soil. 1-bar diameter over all bars, but not less than 3/4 inca at the upper faces on any member, except where exposed to weather or soil in which cases the minimum l coverage shall be 2 inches or 3 inches respectively. Reinforcement consisting of bars or wire 1/4 inch or l 1ess in diameter embedded in the horizontal mortar ! joints shall have not less than 5/8 inch mortar l coverage at exposed face of wall. Grand Gulf Construction Requirements In that Grand Gulf incorporates NCMA-70 requirements, the above ( requirements of UBC-79 are met. 1 l l ' l l E79sp21
Item 3 UBC-79 General Construction Requirements Section 2416 (g) Protection for Reinforcement. All bars shall be completely embedded in mortar or grout. Joint reinforcement embedded in horizontal mortar joints shall have not less than 5/8-inch mortar coverage from the exposed face. All other reinforcement shall have a minimum coverage of one bar diameter over all bars, but not less than 3/4 inch except where exposed to weather or soil in which cases the miniatm coverage shall be 2 inches. NCMA-70 4.3.3.3 Protection for Reinforcement - All bars shall be completely embedded in mortar or grout. All reinforcement shall have a coverage of masonry not less than the following: 3 inch for bottom of footings 2 inch on vertical members where masonry is exposed to action of weather or soil for bars larger than 5/8 inch and 1 inchc for bars 5/8 inch or less. Ib inch for all reinforcement in columns. Ih inch on the bottom and sides of beams or girders. 3/4 inch from the faces of all walls not caposed to action of weather or soil. 1-bar diameter over all bars, but not less than 3/4 inch at the upper faces on any member, excent where exposed to weather or soil in which cases the minimum coverage shall be 2 inches or 3 inches respectively. Reinforcement consisting of bars or wire 1/4 inch or less in diameter embedded in the horizontal mortar joints shall have not less than 5/8 inch mortar coverage at exposed face of wall. Grand Gulf Construction Requirements In that Grand Gulf incorporates NCMA-70 requirements, the above requirements of UBC-79 are met. E79sp21
O gm4 UBC-79 Reinforced Grouted Masonry Section 2414 (b) Gonstruction. The thickness of grout or mortar between masonry units and reinforcement shall be not less than 1/4 inch, except that 1/4-inch bara may be laid in horizontal mortar joints at least b inch thick and steel wire reinforcement may be laid in horizontal mortar joints at least twice the thickness of the wire diameter. NCMA-70 Section 4.3.3.3 The thickness of grout or mortar between masonry units and reinforcement shall be not less than k inch except that k inch bars may be laid in b inch horizontal mortar joints, and No. 6 gage or smaller wires may be laid in 3/8 inch horizontal joints. Vertical joints containing both horizontal and vertical reinforcement shall be not less than inch larger than the sum of the diameters of the horizontal and vertical reinforcement contained therein. Grand Gulf Construction Requirements Horizontal joint reinforcement for walls at Grand Gulf is Ladur type manufactured by Dur-0-Wal - fabricated from 3/16" dia longitudinal rods. For the joint reinforcement used at Grand Gulf, the requirements of UBC-79, oection ?414(b) are met, as the thickness of the mortar joint specified on the design drawings is 3/8". E79sp22
Item 5 UBC-79 Section 2415 i (b) Low-lift Grouted Construction. Units may be laid to a height not to exceed 8 feet. If the height exceeds 4 feet, cleanouts must be used. Grand Gulf Construction Requirements Walls at Grand Gulf were constructed in lifts six courses high (4') with grout pumped into masonry cells. Cleanouts were not required. The low-lift grouted construction requirements of UBC-79 have been met. i s E79sp23
Concern: 4.c. Paragraph 4(d) - You stated that the seismic analysis of concrete masonry walls for Grand Gulf conforms to the commitments in the FSAR, Section 3.7. Although FSAR has been reviewed and approved by the staff it is supplemented by the positions of the Regulatory staff, generated during the review process. Indicate if the conformance of the seismic analysis of the safety-related masonry walls is extended also to the NRC positions generated during the review of the Grand Gulf plant, and, if not, justify the lack of such a conformance.
Response
The seismic analysis of the safety-related masonry walls is consistent with the current Grand Gulf licensing basis. Concern: 4.d. Paragraph 4(j) - The statement that QA/QC information is available upon request is not satisfactory. In accordance with the requirements of the SEB Interim Criteria (Appendix D, Attachment I of your report) the key information of QA/QC for the walls, if available, should be provided with the report for review by the staff.
Response
Inspection of CMU walls was subject to the requirements of Specification 9645-A-004.2, " Furnish, Delivery and Erection of Concrete Masonry Units." Representative samples of the QA/QC information presently available are shown in Attachment 2 and include:
- 1) CMU wall inspection checklists assuring subcontractor compliance with Specification 9645-A-004.2.
I
- 2) Certificates of compliance for concrete masonry units
- 3) Material test reports on cement used in masonry mortar mixes
( 4) Certificates of compliance for sand / aggregate used in masonry mortar l mixes i l
- 5) Certificates of compliance for horirontal joint reinforcement l 6) Material test reports of samples taken from mortar and grout mixes used in CMU wall construction.
l l Reinforcing bars and non-shrink grout were supplied by Bechtel and were taken from Q-material stock piles on site. i ! E79sp24
j . 1 i , 5. Reference - Appendix J 1 l Concern:
! 5.a. Provide the necessary information to justify and review the geometry 1
of the transformed sections (cracked and uncracked) used in the 1 analysis such as the missing dimensions on the sketches and explain their origin. Also provide explanation of the calculation of the i effective areas used for axial and shear and shear alone.
Response
i Clarification of dimensions and explanation of the calculation of effective axial and shear areas are presented in Figure I. Justification for use of Branson's ec*stion for equivalent moment of inertia is presented below. i' The applicability of Branson's equation in masonry wall analysis is t substantiated by comparing deflections calculated using the
- effective moment of inertia generated by this equation with actual test results. The tests used for comparison are those reported by J. C. Scrivener in the paper entitled " Face Load Tests on Reinforced llollow-Brick Non-Load-Bearing Walls" (published in New Zealand Engineering, July 15,' 1969). These tests were chosen because they provided the material properties required to employ Branson's equation.
Figure 11 shows the typical masonry unit used for testing. The section of wall for which the effective moment of inertia was calculated is shown in Figure III. The assumed uncracked and cracked sections used in the analysis are shown in Figures IV and V, respectively. Deflecticns were calculated for two different loadings and were compared with Scrivener's test data in Table V. j This comparison demonstrates the ability of Branson's equation to conservatively predict deflections in masonry walls. Concern: i 5.b. Provide representative examples of the results of the critical masonry walls analysis in terms of the actual stresses and the allowable stresses for different loading conditions.
Response
See Tables VI-A through VI-E for sample wall stress results. The walls selected represent those having the highest masonry and/or reinforcement stresses for various design spans and loading conditions. Additional results for other highly stressed walls are given in Table II. E79sp25
Y [ Concern: j 5.c. It has been noticed that the yield stress of reinforcing bars listed in the paragraph 4 of the Appendix B (Design Criteria for Concrete
- Masonry Walls in Category I Structures) is 60,000 psi while the i value used in the computer program analysis is 40,000 psi. Explain
, this apparent discrepancy.
; Response:
The computer program analysis in Appendix J is used only as an example to i help explain the block walls program. The input values do not reflect those used in the Grand Gulf masonry wall analysis, i i l i i i l 1 E79sp26
Table VI-A Wall #C-111-012(4) Governing Load Combination: OBE - Stress Actual Allowable % of Allowable Masonry Axial - 0.284 kai - Compressive Masonry Comp 0.381 kai 0.446 kai 85.4% Bending Tensile Steel 14.9 ksi 24.0 ksi 62.1% Masonry Shear 0.0049 ksi 0.0404 kai 12.1% Remarks: Horizontal Span Considered l r E79sp27 _ ~ . . _ . - - . _ .._ -.,
Tabic VI-B Wall #C-148-005 Governing Load Combination: SSE Stress Actual Allowable % of Allowable Masonry Axial 0.0058 kai 0.643 ksi 0.9% Compressive Masonry Comp 0.927 ksi 1.114 ksi 83.2% Bending Tensile Steel 33.3 kai 48.0 ksi 69.4% Masonry Shear 0.0102 ksi 0.0525 ksi 19.4% Remarks: Vertical Span Considered E79sp28
Table VI-C Wall #C-166-002 Governing Load Combination: OBE Stress Actual Allowable % of Allowable Masonry Axial NA 0.298 ksi - Compressive Masonty Comp 0.161 ksi 0,446 ksi 36.1% Bending
. Tensile Steel 20.7 ksi 30.0 ksi 69.0%
Masonry Shear 0.0212 ksi 0.0404 ksi 52.5% Remarks: Horizontal Span Considered E79sp29 -
i. l Table VI-D
. Wall #C-177-040 Governing Load Combination: OBE Stress Actual Allowable % of Allowable Masonry Axial NA '0.300 ksi -
Compressive Masonry Comp 0.162 ksi 0.446 ksi 36.3% Bending i Tensile Steel 27.0 ksi 30.0 ksi 90.0% i i Masonry Shear 0.0211 ksi 0.0404 ksi 52.2% 7 Remarks: Horizontal Span Considered i J i 9 l-E79sp30
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . , ~ . ._-_ _ , . ._ . ____ .
d h I h
~
J a ; . 4*, . OP ' , 'YCU or YCCR
.5. I.
- YW r ER e i f ,.
l os
= =
\\\\\\\\h
\ N N *
\ \\*N .
\ Shear Area Shear Area - -
= (Shaded Masonry Area)
+ (Shaded Grout Area) x (Modular Ratio)
NNNNNNNNN N \ ,\\ Axial Compressive Area N N. N N
\NNNNNNNN Axial Compressive Area
= (Net Masonry Area)
+ (Grout Area) x (Modular Ratio)
Fig. I Masonry Shear and Axial Compressive Areas
g 5/g
- 7/g
- 2 '/g
- g7/g =
.' f l
/ ,
/ .
.e > !
/ , -
/// //// -
Fig. II Typical Masonry Unit 1 1 l '- 0 "
' ; ...' ,s'
- , 1. .~
, .} * ,-
\\
\\ v, s w Grout Fig.-III 'lypical Wall Section
, ,,,,. y r.u ~~
////////////"
c.
, ,[a .
-8tMe(2.5m') 3 d .',i. ',s,(m* saour e ,.
ee 2.s . (Assume Mortar Takes
; No Tension)
#2" Figure IV Uncracked Section 0.175 *
////////////
f E are4e (2.5 W )
=
#2 -
Fiaure V Cracked Section Table V Comparison of Calculated Deflections With Test Results (' Load Calc Test 130 psf 1.31 in 1.25 in . 120 psf 1.21 in 1.05 in
.- kttachment 1 .
. o JUSTIFICATION OF USING APPROXIMATION METHOD TO DETERMINE MAXIMUM WALL PANEL RESPONSES TO SEISMIC MOTION .
The evaluations herein demonstrate thats (1) The use of the average floor acceleration response spectra to calcolate the response of the wall panel is appropriate, and (2) The use of uniform inertia load with magnitude equal to the average spectral acceleration for the fundamental mode, in calculating the max'imum seismic responses is a good approximation, even considering the higher mode ef fect. For the purposes of this evaluation, the seismic response of ' a simply-supported, uniform beam simulating a strip of the wall panel with unit width is considered, as shown in Figure 1. (1) Use of Average Spectra 01 i The equation of motion of an undamped, simply-supported beam f can be written in terms of the total displacement with respect
. to some fixed reference axis as:
- 4
,3u2 + EI 3 " =0 st 2 3x 4 (1)
Where m and EI are the mass density and flexural rigidity of the beam. Denote the seismic excitations at the ends of the , e o IC-9 . o
Attachment 1 . . .
- e l~...
'~
l I
>a the beam as U, and Ub . Then the total displacement u(x,t) can be expressed in terms of the two seismic motions and the relative displacement to the seismic motions as:
u(x,t) = (x/L) Ub + (1 -x/L) U, + r(x,t) (2) Where L'is the length of the beam. The relation expressed by. i the above equation is shown in Figure 2. The relative dis-placement r(x,t) needs to satisfy the following simply-supported conditions:
. r(o,t) = r(L,t) = 0 (3) 6 2 2 (4) 3 rl . 3 rl = 0 2 2 3x lx=o 3x lx=L Substitute Equation 2 into Equation 1, the equation of : notion l - in terms of relative displacement r(x,t) can be expressed as:
2 4
,3 r + EI' Y4 = - m(x/L) Ub - m(1 - x/L)U. (5) at 2 3x o
T.C-9 , g
, _ .s .6. e . . . - - -
,.e- .
-~
4ttachment1 e e The eigen-function solutions for the homogeneous equation associated with Equation 5 that satisfy the boundary condi-tions specified by Equations 3 and 4 ares sin "'" ' n = 1, 2, 3, ... ,
. L and the corresponding frequencies of vibration are:
n
=ns k mL n = 1, 2, 3, ...
(6) So, the solution of Equation 5 can be expressed as: 6 e r(x,t) = }, an (t) sin nwx (7) L a91
. . 3 Substitute Equation 7 into Equation 5, and multiply the
. latter by sin nsx, and then integrate it with respect L
to x over the full length of the beam, the equation of action l can be transformed into modal equations of motion as G TC-9 3 1
, - - . . . ~ . _ . . . , _ - - - - . _ - . . - - - . ,.,
. Attachment 1 . ,
~...
e an + " n*n =r b n = 1, 3, 5, *** n( a2 + / (8a) and 2 r- s
- *n+"nn a = T b n = 2, 4, 6, ***
n(a2 - ) (8b) where T n = participation factor
, 4 (9) .
nu If damping in the form of modal darrping ratio is includyd, Equations 8a and 8b becomes:
.. 2 ..
a+U) l an + 2(n"n*n + " n'n = T n b n = 1,3,5,... , , (2 j glo.) and , 2 -y3b "nn=r E a a n = 2,4,6,... e n+2Cn"n n + n (U2 j - (10b,) Where Cn is the damping ratio of the n th mode. , EC-9 . . 7
~4- .
1 1
~~
Attachment 1
~
l s ., Equation 10a means that the odd-number modes uhich are sym-metrical about the mid-span of the beam will be excited by the average of the two seismic excitations; while equation 10b means that the even-number modes which are antisymmetrical about the mid-span of the beam will be excited by half of the difference between the two seismic excitations.
. Expressingthemaximummodaldisplacementresponseinhqua-tions 10a and 10b in " terms of absolute acceleration response spectra gives:
i n a6n,"n) 8bK n ," n ) lanl max # 1 n E n a 1 l . l 's
- 4mL 4 8a(Cn,"n) + 8 (C b n ," n ) - ' -
i , n,SEI 5 2 _ g31) n = 1,2,3,... , This illustrates that the use of the average of two floor accelera- , tion response spectra to calculate the modal response of a wall . panel is appropriate.
\
TC-5 .
Attachment 1 ' ' l 1 r T 03632 in, EZ . 4l lh Jh. .A y .
' p*,
IDEALIZED SIMPLY-SUPPORTED UNIFORM BEAM FIGURE NO. 1
~
0 r e,,
- u, az [Ub
_t _ _X
= -
L _ - _
\ -
RELATIONBETWEENSEISMICEXCITATION AND RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT FIGURE NO. 2 I -
.- Attachment' 2 - .
o
- C.H.U. WALL .
* ~~
. INSPECTION CHECKLIST
...~.
BUILDING 1, ELEVATION AREA ROOM NUMBER gy '
. -[*. . .
Ci'70el-l . _ /W .
.gSB . NJAc.c{nse .f[. *
?
C* $4ll
.l l ITEM DESCRIPTION ,
INSPECTED (INITIAL & DATE) 8.1.1 Preparation ' 1,LI., 8.1.2 Layout s m.h , k8.2PA50NRYCONSTRUCTION 8.2.1 Undamaged ,ds [ /[L _ 1 8.2.2 . Dry .
', XWo af U n ,s ) -A -
8.2.3 Temperature W d fec
- aF he (, J in Mortar Mixing '
8.2.4 . 8.2.5 Anchorst Bond Becms g v,.fo v8 f. Y, 1) % 8.2.6 Erection _I J.ko 3 Get k dh 8.2.7 Erection _k ;r 4 1/ Ds, _0
?h 8.2.8 Racking back Ae F-g 8.2.9 Highlift Grouting -
l' C 8.3 REINFORCING , 8.3.1 Rebar condition / (/,de $6 J) _N 8.3.2 Dowel placement 4h h du,_ f) 8.3.3 Rebar placement /ud W tjue a s 8.3.4 Bolts. Anchors. Sleeves.etc. 1 vw,e if. usr a () in 6.9.188.3.5 Wire & placement / tl,44 et rVW d%
~
q
*! 8.4 GROUT ,
- .- f -
8.4.3 Placement . 1 p.Jat i 'l d 7/b ' 8.4.4 Hollow wall placement Mih4 j! Nfw . _ 8.4.6 Rebar Inspection l' d,JD e (M__ JA> _4 vi k _
. \-
+.
. ., . ,, . ..... .... ~ . .
..... .... . . . . . . . = * . - . . , ?, .-
j .
^
b . .
- Attachment 2 O
~ '
, ,, 2 C .-
e . .. z.
- * ~
. . C.M.U. WALL . -
- ~; , ,;
. INSPECTION CHECKLIST I
ITEM DESCRIPTI()N
. INSPECTED (INITIAL 8 DATE) 8.5 WELDING 8.5.1 Chan'nel slots g,g, A, 8.6 EXPANSION BOLTS -
1 8.6.1 Installation . d[=l. p)V p k C 9.0 POINTING AND_ CLEANING - 9.1 In progress 6,'idd ( j Ifhd3 9.2 Completion ~- A '.A 9.3 9.4 Stains Clean - up
/. W/d io al6/dse
_]f(,4/f I,!)/, eW *
,- i d, n.,i_s --
I 11.2 INSPECTION _
'~
31.7.a Specified block Ef)/.Ao / st ik 11.E.b Rebar & grout materials-- --
'M%9 #, f.pn 1) sh -
11.2.c Rebar & grout placement L_ ; 6hJo - Je fu Mw 11.2.6 C1eaniiness }pkl if) t:hU 1[1 >ts
. . . . . . t
- s. . ..... ... .
L' 5 .
- ~ .
- Attachment 2 Centrol Testing Rontrol, Inc. %"$lD'lY Q UEL Asenett i Centrete Desigan Mndellen lavestfeetteet
- Engineering Reporte & Rotenenadations retriefs 3 Sed Testing
- no. ore w. snainerettee, r.t..vue rene.
a c. .ronanon. a.. rm** _ Job No.: 477-039 . May 23e 1977 H.P.GIBSONCONPANYeINC.' , Route 5. Box 108-A Jackson, Mississipp,1 39212
~
Re: MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT CO. GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATIONS - Units 1 and 2 . Grand Gulf, Mississippi ..
* - . ..g . . . .
Gentlemen: ..
'This is to certify that hollow load bearings lightweight concrete masonry units manufactured by Jackson Stone Company and furnished to the above
- referenced project are in confomance with profect specification No. -
- 9645-A-004.2e section 6.1.1. .
Yours very truly. - . . ,
.- CENTRAL TESTING & C0!iTROLs INC. ,
~ '
. ~gf U. %, g Victor C. .-Johnsone Jr.. .
VCJoJR:sp ... -
. 'a -
- s. .
. ,". : . s. . ..: .
- . .. w . . -
.; y , .. . . . .
- e. *
, { .
....a.r.
.6 .
e g . %
- - -4ttachment t 1 m ,; .,4 A
.f . rre:--hum W ' . *= *I e m .
J.ENSDD J.', . ;: s DDiD951D') i ts C O n .* C R .'L T E D .
- Y
.s - , ; P C *.: r C 9 ?: -*-Tr , CAe7 r - .
;. - c - 0 .
e .
+ 9 g --
. .P o. en- = = == . s w.r-a. . . A ::.rm,4 . e :e s,-
,, ...., . -,. . ., .- ..s.-r , . ~ - .f . r e S e e e 4e * ? ': 14
*. J A d K S O N, IAI S fe t S 31.'F 8 .. . , .
k 75 7.- ".'.5-:t .y' Co.1
- -a. -
. . . . , ..a .: . .
P.3 : P.icsis ippi F: :cr end _i ,'t.t Grrnda Gu7.f 11 :10c 3 tr.t i: .s Units 1 and 2 Grande Gulf,1:icaissippi Cent: set 9545-A-004.2 , Cr~ntiamen:
%is i et t. - ! t o c rt La f.turnisce; .
t t.bn.t l.i en ..htwe3;;ht hol.I.c 4 le.t.!Narim;; tho ...w c ob ceniein :
. ~
1: 1.th concretc : cco E d! C '!O s ,c:iYicatiens including lincar shrinko.;c of not more ' than .055 p'ucen 1: hen , tested according to Ar:1 C-45. t .
'Isry truly ; cu--:,
.. A esy . .e, r: . S am. u . =. c <.~.~. > A v.. s.
n T \ N .k ./ - 3,n Gill l l T,1.C/dn -
- i
! Best Copy Available . Paragraph reads: "This letter is to certify that lightweightfollow loadbearing l concrete masonry' ur! i ts furnished on the above job conforms with'- . ASTM C-90 specifications irrcludirrg-tTnear shrinkage of not more - than .065' percent when tested according.to ASTM C-423."
.a.
l . l . . l l 3 . 1 . e eat *t%
- 7) v .
- //.}g )ai r!/
.v., ws a .-c f
15 Ycars - l - - - - ,_ ,
* * ' ' i I - ~ Attachment 2 .
L'egtal Tesfing kontroI, inc. """"h'!dl2l La
., , , . , . . . , , . . . . ......,,,c.....,.......,.....<......,..,,..,........,....,;.............
, s. c. .ree... *.. n ..y..t . !!ay 23,1977 n...,, v. striaeferi. ,, p.c ,y a e r s.
~ -
l - Job No.: 477-039 May 23,1977 - l .. H. p. GIBSON C0i!PANY. INC.
. Route 5. Box 108-A Jackson, Mississippi 39212 -
Re: MISSISSIPPI PO'rlER AND LIGHT C0.
~
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATIONS
~
Units 1 and 2 Grand Gulf Mississippi , Gentleman: ~ . \ l This is to certify that nomal weight,100 percent solid, shielding concrete inssonry units rianufactured by Jackson Stone Cor@sny and furnished to the l - above referenced project are in conformance with project specification No. S645-A-004.2, section 6.1.2. .
.- Yours very truly.
CENTP.AL TESTING & CONTROL, INC. l ' f.1 .f '
- - - Victor C. Johnson, Jr. -
i . . . VCJ.JR. :sp r . . < , .. I . . . - -
.. . .. .o.
+._
v-
, -7.; ,.. .
~
. .' y:
,l .. .
l . .. .
. mracWfFenY c l%
u u.vmo .
, .R -.., ., iiei a N Y V4.s h N
.*** n ,,
*/
_ .. . h ei l iev.e s i.es it.ips e i en
~~*
l'F6 i /Li ,a d ii.ii . n.w-4i- - - LPECIFICal PORTLAthi ru s
,f/ , i ..r t a:i i.s.... . iita, ys150 TYPEli
'... A.5.T.M. C150 72 . . . . . . . . .
. FEDERAi. 55.C 192
, _Reperieel to: ,, AASHO M 85 72 I .r.g .....
SAMPLE NUMBER _ S.M.43.6-00-j1cpf CEMENT TEMPER ATURE 100
- CAR / TRUCK _ NUMBER CE- -
C F 'O DAGS -- 1480 DATE CP 5HIPMENT 1n.g7 77 CHEMICAL $PECIFICATIONS REQUIR EM ENTS TEST RESULTS PilY$1 CAL ,,,_ 51'ECIFICATiONS Astu FED AA5110 TEST REO.
- ---- ~~^~ ~
REQUIREMENTS A51u FED AA$ll0 s!UCA OxlDE MINIMUu s 21.0 21 0 21.0 21.8 Fl87:C vinrAPF ib AGNEn AVG. VALUE MIN 1 MUM 1600 16Y $00 ALUu!Nt uAxluWu s 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5"Ev2y$usiniU'NE
~
2800 2800 28 3 i 3230 inoH oxtDE u2 xiuuu s 60 6.0 6.0 4.8 '
- GILu0RE $iEf,2 60 60 60 2:40 l uAcNuimmun . 50 50 5.0 i.o SET ' ~
u.8._$ 10 10 10 4:30 i i 50. CMUu's^" 85 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 " s ws ou scu.vios VICAT j'NiS'5 u 45 45 1 '5 3 ue w.uu s 3.0 3.0 3.0 .4 SET ,inims ins 0g EsIDUE uaxruuu 3 3:30 l
.25 .25 ,3 AIR CONTENT. VOL. s uAx. 12.0 12 0 12.0 8.5
., TRICAL,*6 ik s;.LICATE l
$5
~
AL Chr AUTOCLAVE ExP.uAx. s 80 .50 .028
, TALC.u.auu.i us ALUulNATE 8.0 80 80 6.5 L Dtf'ArsslVF st a'cNGin i'.s.i .
3 DAY WN. 1000 1000 1000 2170 7DAYM!N. 1800 1600 2970 1800
-w- --.
28 DAY MIN. 3500 OPTION AL CllEMICAL $PECIFICATIONS . _ - . . TEST RESULTS OPTIOtlAL PHYSICAL SPEClflCATIONS
. _ REGUIREMENTS ASTM l FED AA5tt0 TEST RESUL REQUIREMENTS A5Tu FEU AA5110 suu or c.s a e, A uxx s 58 58 58 ~
worat AtiIiOfiuAx.s 44,7 N M iNO@s 50 50 50 69 ' N.,o EOU' VAL ENT 30 40 40 ' '"A EI'I 55' VE 1
.43 s1 REN G111.P.s.t.
- I 28 DAY an. 3500 3500 3 DAY MIN. 800 800 803 l 8 l- _.- -
J DAr MIN. 1440 1440 \ ..~ 1440
~
e 28 DAY MIN. 2800 2800 2500 ,. I llEAT OF ltYDRAll0N 2 DAY MAX. CALJG 20 20 I
., - 20 .
- l l 28 DAY MAX. CALlG 80 80 80 I
T . STATE OF _ Texas ' COUNTY OF Ellis 88
,. _ J. S. Radney .
__ _ . hCng duly sworn depre.et and says: that he is' Chief Chemist of Texas Industries, Inc., Cement Division, who prepared the above tests and that
' Sul senbed and sworn to before me this _ 5 _" day oi E"If*N#E _ ,19 U
, .,.,.ie OU/$dS17Nr i -
t- ,,,.......... i... 9--r ~ ya __
- ; Att'achment 2^ ..
.c. : .. . ..
.-x* .
;00:ecimPanV
. . I
.h. i
. JaEKs.on INCORPORATED ,
l C AST STONE e LIGHTWEIGHT M A$oN RY UMlTS e
~
g u t T E C,T U R A L P R E C A S T C c. b C R ,t T E
.. _ ...**_ .... . _ .-.. .. .. ........... - J ACKSON, MI55l55lPPI 39216
,M:y 11, 1977 M. P. Gibson Co.
Rt. 5 Box 108-A . Jackson,'MS 39212 .
.- Re: . Mississippi Power and Light Grande Gulf Nuclear Stations Units 1 and 2Mississippi
~
- Grande ContractChlf,5-A-004.2 l
- 964 -
Centlement - . , This..letter is'to inform you that masonry sand sup' plied on th6 above ' job meets ASTM C-144-70 specifications pursuant to your submittals:- - . to Bechtel Power Corp. of January 17, 1.977.' - .
' Very truly~yours. - ! .
~- -
JA SON STONE COMPANY .. ' lL%a: Dan Gill . .
~
- Dt.c/ds .
I - ; ... *-
... . - - c
.g 1 - . .
l
.. 's. :' .
t - ! g~
. e 1 -
\ . *
' ~
lliGSa.i 4.s Yenn . i' .
.- . Attachment 2 r- .g g Cdnfral Tesfing & ConiroI, inc. L'"";'L"el,2 L'!Lg,
.....,, a c....... ... ... . ,.....,,.. .......... .. . ... ... , .. ... a .... . . ......... ;
; ,,... . a ..,, r.. . .. . ......,,,,.,,....s.....,...
,,~...........,
24 January 1978 Job No.: 477 ')39 9 H. P. GIBSON COMPAllY, INC. . Route 5 Box 108-A Ja:kson, tiississinpi 39212 Re: MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT C0'tPANY ' 8 GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATIONS Units 1 and 2 Grand Gulf, Mississippi i Gentlemen:
' This is to certify that aggregate for masonry mortar supplied by Jackson Stone Connany and furnished to the above referenced project is in conformance trith l
AST!1 C 144-70 specifications. Yours verv truly. I CENTRAL TESTIN3 1 CONTROL, I'fC. Victor C. Johnson, Jr. . 4 VCJ.JR. :s1p 1 e e e 4
g jT"* Attachment 2
. , a .
g p < m... JACK 50n OrlecamPanV !!d
!NCCRPORATED Y UNITS l ADCHIT ECT U R A L P R E C AST C O N C R ET E
- C AST STONE e LIGHTWEIGHT MkSON
.m. . . , c. .. m . .- . . . . . . . . . u i . ,. ..... .... . ........... . u .... . R E C 6 4 V '5 4 . o
_ . J ACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39216 FIEl.D SUBCONTRACTS
- JOB NG. 25 APR 4 1977 1 April 1977 M. P. Gibson Co.
Rt. 5, Box 108-A Jackson, MS 39212 Re: ' Mississippi Power and Light Grande Gulf Nuclear Stations Units 1 and 2 Grande Contract Gulf,5-A-004.2 964 Mississippi Gentlemen: This letter is to certify that horizontal casonry reinforcing as manufactured by AA Wire Products of Chicago, Illinois, conforms to ASTM A-82 as specified on the above job. Very truly yours, JACK N STONE COMPANY k p\p i i Dan L. Gill F. C. MGst. l l
^a ' c. u . .
DLG/ds if4 Cesac , , _RN. P 5m, , ,
'not. r. t. qy F& Aa.cy, g F. c. A g,-
.o CONT, gg-( 0 Assua. ,,- -
l CE/P a 3 , ( Procuren w
- - ~. n. .
e Ill9Sai
.e.Y sf WT3..t. .
1 { ---] , " Attachment 2 _. l - g;7 p,*/s /D E'lCE PT.000CT3 COMPd sies sourn atW nstano Avt./ cuicano,itt. eens / ruent 01:3 sei. nee / casLE usnurserwine renen:
- a cenao
- Muns . vanowre . , ,
CERTIFICATE OF COM PLI ANCE 4 p,,MAY 31, 1979 This is to certify that AA WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY, CHICAGO, ILT,INOIS 2 (Narw of Manufassurs-) does ht. a record of satisfactory performance in the manufacture of
., TXHDG BLOK-TRUS, CORNEllS & PARTITIONS MASONRY WALL REINFORCEMENT '
(3/16 Z 3/16 GA.) I wer a period of not less than 2 years and which wi!! be supplied by JACKSON STONE COMPANY, JACKSON. MISSISSIPPI a for use in GRAND GULF NUCLEAR POWEM ETATTnw; pone r:Tacnu; uvecTecToot (Title of Contrass) M. P. GIBSON CO. - CONTR. To further certify that the above mentioned product does comply with all the requirements of the following applicable specifications. '
. ~
Applicable Specif. cations ASTM A92 ASTM All6, CLASS 1 / '
/
i S Si nature,- - ~
.. b. -M.
Signer's.71tle PRESIDENT f Subxribed and sworn to before me this_ 31ST day of _ May -, 19 . Notary Public SEAL MASONRY WALL REINFORCEMENTS & TIES
==.to. I to.n... I omn.to. l . .. o n. ... ! ,,,,,, ...to. l ...tu. I rm to. I 1 .u.il.aos.ui,,oI,,,.m.
Atta~ctme.nt 2
~~-
*.- V .* .
' . -~ .. ., ;- --*x
- e. st opy'.A..va i s so i e "!. 8.. .i O C2 U s W :.I e. .. .. .
! g. . .4 I 1h. . - f../.'*. L*.** *
.- .4 4 /,t i . )
% e < L 8
y,J.' . .
~
* .-.-. * .d . '*'. . .
..s<is.G o e n e..
o..; . ,
- n. .. . .. ' . . , . ' ..'
.~ *.
8o.. <** " E.e ;,} a..'. . .l.. . :~ . . . J; * . .. ~~ . -
...s <. s.e... '
t ..s i,e.n.a.e.u.i n es e soes *wr. s ees . -- . r e a .n.' '. w. r v'u.o.-. ,
- rrs se.ses .w sun one w . .
~
- s. e. .co = ..a. . .e w. e..s .
i.e ..ew.sama. ..
- .- we . e u a.s .
i .e**c*=.
. , .ca- c s. w e r.n.o s m.a- c.u.m :.. n ca .a r..a..m.
,. . . . e. ea r au. .a,.er.n.,ne e s at.s .
s' , * *e r4. -.W .'~.. ..v pies .
}', f.cported' to: coelstelPS.r,_My N M :; ...-er Eqbkr M,-17_0Tf' -
.>r.
, p p..* . .. . .
- 4 ' ," cnt1 a ...t.s.' .' .*E.be.,c.1.4A
.c. ; . .. .
.y I)G/.';'I t.
.. . . '; o-
;; '~:. ' .F.ro.}det:
r: rand GiI.f tuele
- - -- - ar . site. s .-
- .. s i tyI i,~
,c e7 i __ 9.'.#[. N .}~; Pro)c[t'.ipe.c:f.[9f45-C 191.0 (~'#'N D ,
0*y.cNbdod.h$t[,.s.w. .-
- p ;!~.:.... .
/.~.
. y':.
u .
*y.. f. ' :*. '.:. . . .,. . . ... ....-. .... ..~. ... . : : .i .
F ..
- G.P.0UT .. C.U!'.E CollPEF.8310N T' EST 'l:1TonT -
MPG -M 3
.. a N 1 0 E' * ' " * '. .- Report Nunchcr:
- b. -e.a. .. : .. .:. ha.t.e , of. Report: '
M _&,. - M'i . Cancrete Place:-en: 't: umber: -
- Gsota .
4:**,'. - .
?' . C'ener..tc Elece.r.ei t location:
Cc mgM MS .,_b,.OL__WL_(.fM W, -
~
.crout Cias=:I.,'s'.h.9pa_ Psi ncquircua.ny 9 23 d.-*/a: 7.Jd'; .,
- 4. ."...paLa Cest: ~8. - W-. .] "i -
- Concrc:.c Timperature: *.Y 4 _"
, f,8 1.5
- Air' Content: .
*4 . .[ Ifetrei .a1 /.ren '= 4.0 square inches .. . . .
g,. i J ,* - - - - - - l . , _ . , _ . _ twrpre:mivr: AcLwit A"" Toral 14 .w.t l*/
- lk. 8'7.hv>1e !!:ite Ar.e Ten;l _ftrennt:t r:T Pt.:th In .
Area C;p.nt_ V. .'.* l n.::l>cr - _T_an t'r:d . .
*I,',[, . N{N I 3D10--- 6.c.I.4 " ..d f L - _4'M.'.-.
.~1'l ._"L .J.7JE0 Y. i .~.' _
gy
. 3 h ---- _df4 i m.mo ?_,QAQ
>i,!:2 1 M _L.-_ ..
5 s.
!.0. v.t: w - 3 A:> . ADO-Q ~
- e. __7_ D.,. W o .519.9 Loc-3.r.:s 2 l 3- %. -71
^
n_ 25ffO_ 4M,a W.zan +00
'.9%.w.a dco----'l.A.Da-rg. -
- o. aq_. 2..c.3p..o - 'Gr3o- 135.r 7.nt W-
<< 72 22,MO _.RGa._--._h Un UD 22--
N'....*- t .ou . ' i 18 Of' ater than 4.0'> s.; in or less than 3.94'.e.; 'n , If. .he actuel . len of the s cr rden
..g. .
2* w,e the actual aren for calculating the unit 1 cad.' se.. '
. . a.
-.ry; -
- .- . .y. .
1
%=, [.3 ' Tant, speci:r.cn results' ces.T / vith'specifi.:a nix denicu ntrength . 'cnl U Te$t stic iEen resuicE .do not co.:bly with 'specified sah design' amn81i
- . rc .
N.1. . . and b . . .foesC does not .:oeply dith critarla as cutlined in /.C
).Cf ,
Tested by: _____k,, CNT ' ECVC1:* 'E **
. restiEs.his us : _.P.ir. h27_ .,
,, . = . .
4- (
- e. ., .
T-o .,
-._p / 0 .fri.h. 6 _
s 9.i.m. q. . Toi~i C-109b b*
)
- p. n, -
y.evic -'e ip'el II AKSI E'+5.2.6) Jlqi U -(,q- p'_'. ,
. i W.
d y t\.) . er '.
- - - -- :. 1. : .:y .
,.,Jstta c hmen t . >-
_..Be..st Co y Ava.ilable. .
.../.. :
...c.. .
....a... r.. . . . .: .. . :: .r ..;..
m n ..
.n .
4
<4 .
e . 7.i.'. D. .. .rr.TM.
. d,RD.,.N..,'i
". t .e...-
T.,E$,m.6. .N..,.5,
* + s .c .YL.Ai.5.U...N
'..s;.5 .*.*.. g l *
. o,s '.3'. ;. . . R.,'q : f. : <l T. *- l : %e *, . ;, 2 M. .-:. q'.:
. .; .: .: -- ,l -9~%^:' .Y e * % . ., y: .
j,",.f. s . . - . /, -
.<.u
" * *-l%:-
* .r . .u ,a. .n.' . %. . '.
.. V Y . :
,.. .:.a..,,. . .. n..o. . .a . :.. .s..v . . .a.,. .s.s . . . . ..
...............,..,,a.%....
-w-
.. .. ~. c. . . ,
.. . x .
e., e ..... . . ... .
... . . . . . .,..........,...........y.. . ... ... , . . . . .
c . . .: . ... . . . m . . .
.: : g :.
n.s.. w ,. .
- 5. a
- e. . . .s.w: ..s-p. e. .,,u.. o. .. .cc : :...
.:. .. . ? - .
....kcirtcUEM'Ibl'P"giEs'oaTNs$N..
IdEr' d b M N O 4 4'79 ' k.,* N - h*h
.Y.2 *
!, . :5,. '
& .'.h i - / N AQ *:s.F~'W.<- f f $
- .,h:.&.
O ,db p;;, Pro ccc:-' Cddd Culi' N O}:?:.a#.-4 N Nuclear >.G.*N.w Si,.$te~ N5'.%s : T V.-YClie. ht $'F yudb E::-{ /'d.3*": .
.u,._ w- :. . 8. - : .
x.e - : . ;.=.e: . . . . . . . . . : .. . .m:
. i 004.2 .' ' ~ .c' .. .
SG. .l,tbod i t;.v:.a. i.ic.ti . c - Irs k 4. :v:M 9 g. fro.seceSpee:.-
- w. .. :.:. . . . , . - y . . .y,:..,s. .;.:;:. . . a..S..;&.
. :- e... . .: ;.: :.u .
- -4. 4 :. W;.y.;..
.- ..i. .... .,. . .
s . . ...... . . . . . .
. . . .a..
. :.......a... .
. . .- =.. .. ...- ..
34....4.... . .,. . GROL*T CU3.E COMPRESSION T.EST REPORT
.),,
. APA 8. u___ .? , P.Jporc number: mp m. 4.
.' .: -4 mate o'r mepor.c: .
. . y. , -
. la .. .
'..J.
. -. . Conc. rete Plac. aren..t .
Numbe.r:.. .. ..
.. . ~ '
Oe....-neogn; Mda.E(h.\4R
. :. - Cor.c trM Place::arig, Location: _
' . ;..- r
.:r. g., .. . . .. . -
PSI "Requirem nt 0 28' days: Z.g
. Crout,Clas,s: Mt r R .-' . .
Mate Cast: _ 1 4 YL e ., .
... . . =
Cencrete Tc:.gerature: _/,O g
... .- ' Air Contien't: .N c3 ' -
L .
- p. .. .
.- . - . . .e
. Konninal A.rca = 4.0. square .. c inches. .
Jw. ..- .
,z. .- , .. . u. . . .. . -
p.s. . .
- _q. . ,
- - a
. Total; Cor.iprc:;sive- L'mnth/ Actual- I Arc; l *.:' . S::sp1a .; Dste . .
Width in Area" ! Ilse
~ Strennht P51_
Testa
.-' ' . ::urd.er'- A:ie I.o s a ",.
. . ~
3 12 SOD ' 1OD '2iovi. 'Mn al~2O_4 _ _4.fcC _
- 2. 1t, l 1
. ./. ; .
$.e-i *l - ..
U OC
'n
; .; .~ . -- t.ot:L*T b*t _ *,_ D_La '
- . v-. -
y:- . 9 . n50 ^ - v-
\stO 2 .
LO_1.__.i 4 C'
'j.:y,[t -
M-
. If
'7 ' TIS O _ INib- 3oM Oi
'*n o So '2 cm . r e,a_ 4 q.o_.__ ._ 'h.?
"l? 6. AQo ,_ '
g.-p *2. A-l d l t I [:a. *f .'. On 4o.a_.. ._.3.5 i
- v. 'i. .
'i- 1- it i2 sno_ .
~51So 1
Iso.19 . .
. . .. ~ *
' 3250_
' Esp __,'_T s.g. '& oc ' . d.
}", -.
'li 'll. -[ $
goo Nea of ttE spe:cimen l's greater than 4.06 sq in.or Icss t1 sn.3.94,eq h [ ;g, *
-: l. . > " ::4 .':N- v - .Q" % .: ' .. i l .. ' -
y" ..,.; If the . ;s . . accus'1c:\ddh' fictuni sren foi . . - cateulatifg'y . ; ..a.-O
.. L .
. .. . . a' .. , : ,
a * <
.: ....e:.. r. ..
. :e.. ;* ..
. .. , ~ ear . r .
. . . . . .:.:;.,.y
; ...y. .y . . . . .. ., ;..~. . ...
#~
t 7,." .[ p" ,5e .
. N....'N. E.h. .ec6u[u.- results ec;uply 'v'ith spbcifit*J, Six design strungt r , -
~
. b . dest's.h eimen resules .. .. . .
h do not coc i, ., . ,....d,h with sp
.~ ....
~.
r.'.
~
.1 and O eoes G does === ;; ..
. cawe2'* . . . vich crit *ri"
..: *' *"*2i"
. .d
. . *"- ^ct
.. 2t'>
tevel: 1-PTL #'2i_ [ rested by:[ Sihee t j
'. ' T st c:acf.'in's used: . . L..: .~. ' . . ; .: . . d. 'r . :
. ~ : ~~ .
... ., .. .. . .' sle -
cc[
; f . . .. T . . , .-
p . , . 1 . . ,
.fReview Lc h.. Al II AMI _ N45.2 - - - - - - - - __}}