ML17209A679
| ML17209A679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17209A678 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8103030062 | |
| Download: ML17209A679 (26) | |
Text
STLUCIE'L'ANT
-UNITNO.1NRCIEBULLETIN80"11FINALREPORTPREPAREDBYEBASCOSERVICESINCORPORATED FORFLORIDAPOWER.,&LIGHTCOMPANY8l03P30D4 TABLEOPCONTENTSSectionTitle~PaeIIIIIIVVIVIIIntroduction Description ofMasonry-WallsConstruction Practices Inspection ofMasonryWallsDesignVerification ResultsofInspection andVerification Summary1720 I.Introduction OnMay8,1980theNRCissuedIEBulletin80-11onthesubjectofdesignofmasonrywalls.FloridaPower&LightCompanyinresponse, throughtheirarchitect-engineer, EbascoServicesIncorporated, instituted afieldinspect-ionprogramanddesignre-evaluation programtoverifytheadequacyoftheexist-ingmasonrywalldes'ignasrequested bythebulletin.
Thefieldinspection programwascompleted inOctober,1980.Bythenthere-evaluation criteriahadbeenfinalized andtheanalysisportionoftheprogramwasunderway.
There-evaluation ofthewallswasessentially com-pletedbytheendofDecember1980.Thereremainedonlythefinalanalysisofafewwallsandtheinvestigation oftheceilingattachments forthefull>>heightwalls.Thisportion.of.theprogramwas,completed inJanuary1981.FPLinitsinitialresponse=
toBulletin80-11ofJuly24,1980(LtrL-80-233)addressed items,1,2a,and3ofthebulletin, describing theplanned/inspection andre-evaluation phase'softheprogram.A"secondinterimre-sponseofNovember4,1980(LtrL-80-374) reportedthecompletion ofthefieldinspection andthedevelopment ofthere-evaluatioq criteriaandrequested anextension toFebruary9,1981forsubmittal ofthefinalreporttotheNRC.Thefollowing reportpresentsindetailtheinformation requested initem2.bofBulletin80-11.Theprocedures fortheinspection andverification programsarediscussed, aswellastheresultsofthoseprogramsandcorrect-iveactionstaken.,
EI.Description ofMasonryWalls204masonrywallswereconstructed intheReactorAuxiliary BuildingandFuelHandlingBuildingforStLucieUnit1.All'hesafety-related masonrywal'lsarelocatedintheReactorAuxiliary Building.
Thefunctions ofthewallsincludepressureretention (primarily formaintaining HVACflowbal-ancing),security, personnel controlandshielding forradiation expos-urereduction.
Wallconstruction includedbothstackedandrunningbondtypes.Where.multiplethicknesses wereprovidedforshielding
- purposes, thejoints.werestaggered.
Ofthe203wallsintheRAB,.101wereoriginally designedforseismicloading.The-remaining 102wallsintheRABandonewallintheFHBwerenotdesignedfor'\seismicloading.Theseismically designedwalls,wereprovidedwithverticalrein-'orcement consisting ofeightAreinforcing bars,fourineachcell,andthecellswerefilledwithmortar..Thesereinforced unitsarespaced4'0oncenters."Dur-0-Wal" horizontal trussreinforcement wasplacedat.everymortar-joint.duringerectionofthereinforced masonrywalls.Thewallsnotdesigned, for.seismicloadingwereprovidedwithreinforcement consisting of"Dur-0-Wal" everythirdcourse.Thesearedescribed as"unre--inforcedwalls"elsewhere inthisreport.Nomasonrytiesbetweenthewytheswereprovidedformulti-wythe walls.Thematerials ofconstruction usedwereasfollows:MasonryUnits-.ASTMC90GradeNMortar-ASTMC270TypeSReinforcing Steel.>>ASTMA615Grade40Structural Steel(supporting angles,embedmnts)-ASTMA36Masonrywallswhichareinproximity toorhaveattachments fromsafety-relatedpipingorequipment suchthatwallfailurecouldaffectasafety-relatedsystemaredesignated assafety-related walls.
3Theinspection program'dentified 90wallsfallingintothiscategory.
Ofthese,65werereinforced and25wereunreinforced.
Allsafety-related wallsrequireddesignverification toestablish structural adequacytocarrypostulated designloads.Thedesignverification programisdescribed inSectionVofthisreport.Theremaining 114wallsweredesignated "notsafety-related;"
nofurtherevaluation ofthesewallswasrequired.
III.Construction Practices A-Reinforced BlockWallsTheblockwallsaresupported bya2.'0highconcretestarterwallwhichi:s~doweledintothefloorslabwithnumber.6reinforcing barson12inchcentersoneachface.Thereinforced blockwallunits,spacedatevery4feet,re-ceived8number4reinforcing bars.Thepositioning cfthereinforcing barswasaccomplished bybuildinguptheblockwalltofourcourseshighthenfil'ingthecellswithtype"S"mortar,roddingthemortartoachievehomogeneity.
Thenthe3'0longreinforcing barswereinsertedintothemortar-filled cellsleavingaprojection of'Burinchesbeyondtheblocks.Eightsplicebarswereintroduced adjacenttotheoriginalbars,projecting threefeetand.splicing1'0withtheinitialrebar.Next'theblocksvereinsertedovertheprojecting reinforcing andbuiltuptofouradditional courses,continually fi11ingthe.cellswithmortarandroddingthemortar.Thesequencewasrepeatedunti.lthewallwasbuilt,uptowithinfourcoursesoftheceiling.'IInordertopositionthelastfourcoursesinsuchawaythattherein-forcingwascontinuous totheceiling,thesidewalloftheblockwaschippedoutandtherebarinsertedhorizontally.
Thecellwasthenfilledwithmortarandthechippedoutsidewalloftheblockrepairedwiththesamemortar.Horizontal reinforcing (Dur-0-Wal) wasplacedateverymortarjointduringtheerectionoftheblockwall.
Horizontal reinforcement spliceswerestaggered vertically sothat,nosplicesintwoadjoining coursesarelessthan8incheshorizontally apart.Whereamultiplethickness wallwasrequiredduetoshielding considerations theverticaljointswerestaggered.
B-Unreinforced BlockWallsA3/8"mortarbeddingis.providedon.topoftheslabandtheblockislayedonthisbedding.everythirdcoursereceives"Dur-0-Wal" horizontal reinforcing.
)Forpartialheightwalls<thatreceiveaprecastslaboverthem,thelastcourseisaprecastbondbeamwithtwo,number 5reinforcing bars(continuous).
The.bondbeamisconnected totheroofslabbynumber4barsat3'4O.C.Thecellisthenfilledwithmortar;.,
Full'eight wallsspanningfromfloortoceilingreceivedDur-0-Wal ateverythirdcourseanda.bond,beamatapproximately mid-height andatthetopofthewall,withsimilarrenforcingand,groutingtothatprovidedforthepartial.heightwalls.IV.InsectionofMasonryWallsPursuanttotherequirements ofNRCIEBulletin80-11datedMay8,1980,afieldinspection programwasdeveloped to"identify allmasonrywallsinyourfacilitywhichareinproximity toorhaveattachments fromsafety-related pip-ingorequipment such.that wallfailurecouldaffectasafety-related system."Inaccordance withtheProcedure forInspection ofConcreteMasonryWalls,FL0-128-4.800, Rev3,thefieldinspection programconsisted oftwophases.PhaseI.inspection included.
areviewofthesitegeneralarrangement andconcretemasonrywalldrawings, todetermine theextentoftheinspection.
Amastersetofreference drawingsshowingallmasonrywallswasassembled andeachwall,wasassignedauniqueidentification number.Thesemasterreference drawingsaremarked-up reproducible copiesofgeneralarrange-5mentdrawings, showingwalllocationandidentification andissuedunderBackfitChangeSketchnumbersBCS128-4.300 thru.304.Aninspection datasheetwasprepared(FLO128-4.800 Att81)foreachwallandthePhaseIportionofthesheetcompleted.
Thisportionincludedthewalluniqueidentification numberandorientation ofthewallasshownonthedesigndrawings.
Reference wasmadetothemasterreference drawing(BCS)showingthewall,andadescription oftheplantlocation, including
- building, floorelevation andreference tomajorequipment inthe.area.Inaddition, thedesignfunctionofthewallwaslistedatthistime.Theseincludedpressureretaining orprimarily formaintaining HVACflowbalancing, securityor.partition wallsforpersonnel controlandshieldwallsforradiation exposurereduction.
Phase,Iworkalsoincludedareviewofthewalldesignconstruction drawingsandalistingofthethickness andcomposition ofthewall,including reinforcement detailsandmultiplewytheconstruction.
llUponcompletion of,thePhaseIportionoftheinspection datasheets,thefieldinspection programorPhaseIIportionwasimplemented.
Inspectors performing PhaseIIfieldinspections wereEbascodesignorengineering personnel, familiarwith,powerplantoperation andsafety-related equipment identification.
Theinspectors werebriefed.documented, certified, inaccordance withInspection Procedure FLO128-4.800.
ThePhaseIIfieldinspection consisted oflocatingeachwallidentified onthemasterreference drawings.
Afterlocationofeachwall.,aninspection wasmadewithaJamesElectronics R-Meter,toverifytheexistence ofverticalreinforcing rebarand/orhorizontal reinforcing Dur-O-Wal, ifcalledforinthedesignconstruction drawings.
Thisinspection wasasamplingverif-icationtodetermine theexistence ofatleastoneverticalreinforced rebarcolumnand.-twohorizontal reinforced Dur-0-Wal joints.Afterfur'therfieldverification ofwallthickness andcomposition (whereverifiable),
theappro--.priatesectionoftheinspection datasheetwaschecked.
r 6-Following this,aninspection ofeachwallwasmadetodetermine iftherewasanysafety-related equipment mountedorincloseproximity ofthewall.Thisequipment
- included, butwasnotlimitedto,safety-related pipingandsupports, conduit,cables,electrical boxes,pumps,heatexchangers andinstrumentation.
Forthepurposeofthisinspection, "closeproximity" wasdefinedas:i)adis-tanceequaltoapproximately.
five(5)feetforreinforced andun-reinforced fullheightwallsor,ii)adistanceequaltotheheightplusone(1)footforcantilevered reinforced walls.This,distancewasmeasuredasaperpendicular distancefromthewal'othesafety-related equipment.
Uponthedetermination thatnosafety-related equipment wasattached, orincloseproximity toawall,theinspection datasheetwasmarked"notSafety-Related"andsignedoff,withnofurtherverification required.
Ifanysafety-.relatedequipment wasidentified, asketchofthewallwasmade,locatingallsafety-related and-significant non-safety relatedequipment loadsonthewall.."Significant,"
asusedinthisinspection, wasdefinedasanyequipment whichintheveryconservative judgement oftheengineers performing theinspection contributed aload.tothemasonrywallgreaterthantwenty-five (25)poundspersquarefootwallsurface.Inaddition, allwallpenetrations forHVAC,-electrical, cabletrays,ductworkandgrillpenetrations wereshownonthewallsketch.Allloadshavingacenterofgravitygreaterthanonefootfromthewallsurfacewerenoted,aswellasanygeneralobservations bytheinspector con-cerningthe"as-built" condition ofthewall.Sincetheintent.ofBulletin80-11isawallfailureoccur,a.detailed listtoawallwasdeveloped forwallsfortoidentifyequipment affectedshouldofsafety-related equipment inproximity whichanengineering evaluation mightshowfailureunder-certainpotulatedloadconditions.
Uponcompletion oftheinspection datasheets,copiesweretransmitted totheEbascoNYOLeadCivilEngineerforreview,inaccordance with"Uerification ofConcreteMasonryWallDesign"Procedure FLO128-4.802.
Duringthisreview,andattherequestoftheleadCivilEngineer, anadditional inspection wasmadeoftwenty-four (24)of-themasonrywalls.-Forthisinspection, two(2)one-halfinchholesweredrilledintothecellsoftheselectedblockwallst'overify' 7theexistence ofthegroutormortarfill.Inadditiontothefieldinspections performed atthesitetoverifythe"as-.built"condition ofconcretemasonrywalls,severalQualityAssurance audits-wereperformed inaccordance withthe"QualityAssurance Procedure forCompli-..ancewithNRCBulletin80-11"FLO128-4.801.
TheseauditsofthePhaseIand.Phase-IIportionsoftheinspection wereperformed jointlybyFPLandEbascoandincludedverification ofinspector training,.
datacollection anddocu<<mentation offindings.
V.DesienVerification Masonrywallsidentified bythefieldinspection programassafety-related, i.e.havingsafety-related equipment mountedonthewallorlocatedintheIvicinityofthewallsuchthatitcouldbedamagedbypossiblewallfail-ure,requiredadesignre-evaluation todemonstrate theircapacitytowithstand, postulated designloads.Adesignverification program'forthispurposewas-conducted inaccordance withProcedure 128-4.802, "Procedure fo-Verification ofConcreteY~sonryMallDesign."Themasonrywallsarenotshearresistant elementsinthebuildingstruct-uresystem,norloadbearingwalls..Theyprimarily functionasshielding andpartition wallsexceptinonecaseas'apressureboundary.
Therefore, theprimaryconcernofthemasonrywallre-evaluation wasfocusedonthebehaviorofthemasonrywallsintheeventofthesafeshutdownearth-quake.A.LoadsandLoadCombinations Theloadsthatareimposedonthemasonrywallsare:1)DeadLoad(D)-Thisincludestheweightofthewallandstructures orequipment supported bythewall,Theattachment loadsarecon-duits,smallpipes,junctionboxes,switchesandtransformers.
2)SeismicLoads,a)Feqo-Thisistheloadgenerated bytheoperating basisearth-quake(OBE)specified forthesiteoftheplantanddeveloped forthewallbytheseismicanalysesofthebuilding.
Theseismicaccel-erationsareappliedtothemassofthewallandallattachedequip-ment.In-planeandout-of-plane loadingsandthe,effectsofinter-storydriftofwallsareconsidered.
b)Feqs-Thisisthe'loadgenerated bythesafeshutdownearthquake (SSE)specified forthesiteoftheplant,anddeveloped asdescribed aboveforOBE.3)PressureLoad(Pa)-Thisisthepressureequivalent staticloadwithinthemasonrywallcompartment causedbyfailureofequipment.
Theloadincludesanappropriate dynamicloadfactordetermined byanalysis.
Sinceallwallsarelocatedindoors,therearenowindortornadoloads'hewallsarenot,subjected topiperupturereactionloads.Therearethreepossibleloadcombinations whencombining theabovefour(4)different individual loads:Allowable Stresses1)SevereEnvironmental Condition 2)ExtremeEnvironmental Condition
=D+OBE=D+SSE3)AbnormalExtremeEnvironmental Condi-=D+SSE+PationS(Table1)U(Table2)U(Table2)Sincetheallowable stressesusedforcombination (2)areingeneralonly1.67timesthoseusedforcombination (1).,whiletheSSEloadingistwicetheOBEloading,loadcombination (1)isnotgoverning.
Thepostulated loadcombinations areconsistent withtheFSARcommitments.
Sincethe-FSARdoesnotspecifyallowable stressestobeusedfordesignofmasonrywalls,theallowable stresseslistedinTables1and2arebasedonACE531-79,,"Building CodeRequirements forConcreteMasonryStructures."
'-9-Table1:Allowable StressesinUnreinforced MasonryDescription Allowable (psi)Maximum(psi)owaoe(psi)xxmum(psi)Compressiye)
AxialFlexuralBearingOnFullareaOnone-third areaorlessShear2,3)FlexuralmembersC2)ShearWallsTensionNormaltobedjointsHollowunitsSolidorgroutedParallelto.bedjoints(4)HollowunitsSolidorgroutedGroutCoreCollarjointsShear0'.22f'0.33f'0.25fm0.375f'.l.l~f'.9~f'.5~m'.0Jm'.0~m.01.5/m02.5J~1000120090012005034254050800.44f'0.85f'0.62f'm0.95f'1.7Jf'.35Jf' 0.83Jm1.67~m1.67~m02.5~m4.2JY200030002250300075.516267'3412TensionNotestoTable1:.3.(1)Thesevaluesshouldbe-multiplied hy(1-(&i))ifthewallhasasignificant verticalload'I(2)Usenetbeddedareawiththesestresses.
(3)Forstackedbondconstruction usetwo-thirds ofthevaluesspecified.
(4)Forstackedbond,construction use.two-thirds'f thevaluesspecified fortensionnormaltothebedjointsintheheadjointsofstackedbondconstruction.
(5)Note:ForStLucieUnit81,m=1800psif'900psim
~~10-Table2:Allowable StressesinReinforced MasonryDescription Allowable siMaximumsilllowablesiMaximumsi)Compressive Axial.(1)FlexuralBearingOnfullareaOnone-third areaorlessShear(2)Flexuralmembers'ShearHalls'3,4)MasonryTakesShearM/Vd>1M/Vd=0Reinforcement TakesShearM/Vd>1M/Vd=0Reinforcement Bond0.22f'0.33f'0.25f'.375f
'1.1~f'9~f'2.0Jf'.5~f 2.0~1000120090012005075120.44f'.85f'62fm.95f'.7~f'5A'4~f 2.5~f'20002400C1800240056123125180PlainBarsDeformedBarsTensionGrade40!Grade60IJointh'ireICompression 6014020,000'4,000.5For30,0000.4FIV801860.9F0.9F0.9F0.9F PhNotestoTable2:3h(1)Thesevaluesshouldbemultiplied by(1-(40t))ifthewallhasasign-ificantverticalload.(2)Thisstressshouldbeevaluated usingtheeffective areashowninfigurebelowexceptasnoted'n(6).IIi~v/r<<'rr~Mr6tot$04cln9neheenleeslnrtvnninybond~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs>><<~>>r~
~~'~~~~~'~~~Acestaumcdt<<~iveinlltxvrsicomota)ion furcanormal<otact(3)Netbeddedareashallbeused'iththesestresses.
(4)ForH/Vd.val'uesbetween0and1interpolate betweenthevaluesg'venfor0andl.(5)'ote:ForStLucieUnit/PI.m~1800psi0f'900psi(6)IfDur-0-Wal reinforcement isprovidedforstackbondwallstheeffective widthofthereinforced uni.tscanbe'increased tothesameamount-as thatused.forrunningbondwalls.
12B.Analytical ModelAllmasonrywaLlsweretransformed intoequivalent homogeneous plateelementsspanningvertically toresistout-of-plane bendingloads.Forreinforced masonrywalls,thetopsupportwasassumedtobesimplysupported, sincethewallsarerestrained bytwoclipangleson'bothsides.Thebottomsupportwasassumedtobefixedbecausedowelsinsidethewallscantransferbendingmomentstothestarterwalls.Theeffective widthofeachreinforced unitisalittlelessthanthespacingofthe-reinforcing unitsforthestackbond~-wallsaccording toACT-531-79.
However,DUR-0-MAL reinforcement wasprovidedforeverycourse,andcementmortarisfilledinthecellcoresofallblockssothattheentirewidthof,thewallwasconsidered effective forthemodel.Forunreinforced walls,thesimplysupported condition wasassumedforbothtopandbottomsupports.
Rigidarchingwasalsoassumedwhenarchinganalysiswasperformed, sincenogap-wasdetected-atthetopsupportduringinspection.
(Seefigure'1; and,2)AFiniteelementmodelswereusedtorepresent themasonrywalls.Alllargeopeningswereincludedinthemodel.Theweightsofattachments wereinputasmassforfrequency analysis.
Alloftheattachments excepttransformers arerigidlyconnected tothewallswiththecenterofmasslessthanafootfromthewallsurface.Alsothemaximumweighteftheattachment islessthan1%ofthetotalweightofthemasonrywall'itself.Therefore, dynamicamplification
'ftheattachments wasnotconsidered, exceptinthecaseofthetransformers, whereanindependent dynamicanalysiswasperformed.
TheAHSYScomputerpro-gramwasusedforalltheanalyses.,
Tha.analysisofmulti-wythe wallsdoesnotassumecomposite actionbetweenthewythes.
13151617\8Fly;'LQe~lllestretfay tae.Nffereaces
$aNotfoaSeteeeaRfyfdeadCsppedArcMay.2'125Ikmaplip).3132335A343536Ay,2.FtaelodFNeyreasShoetayForces1a81yfdeadOappedArchway.
C.DynamicandStaticAnalysesThefrequency analysisofthemasonrywallisthesameasforordinaryplateelementsexceptthatbothuncracked andcrackedsectionsarecon-sideredforthereinforced masonrywalls.Thecriticaldampingvaluesusedingeneration offloor,responsespectraforSSEwere7%forreinforced crackedwallsano2%for-uncracked walls(bothreinforced andunreinforced).
Seismicacceleration valueswereselectedfromthefloorresponsespectrumatthebottomofthewallorthefloorresponsespectrumatthehigherelevation, whichever yieldedthemaximumresponseatthepredetermined frequency.,
AI25%variation ofthefrequency rangewasalsoconsidered dueto'variations ofmasonrymaterialandotherfactors.Alltheloadingsincluding deadweightof,themasonrywall,attachment loadsandseismic,loads(horizontal andvertical) wereinputintothecomputer.
Theoutputstresseswerecomparedwiththeallowable stresseslistd'nTables1and,2.D.SpecialAnalysesSincethere-evaluation.
ofthemasonrywallsisbasedon,theassurance of"nocollapse."
ofthewallsforthemostcriticalloadcombination, iftheflexural.
stressesexceededthedesignallowables atonesectionofthewall,thewallisstillnotnecessarily considered tofailsTwospecialanalysistechniques wereusedtoevaluatethistypeofsituation.
The"Yield-Line Theory"or"PlasticDesign"wasusedforthereinforced masonrywalls;whi.lethe."Arching'Analysis" wasutilizedfortheunreinforced masonrywalls.1)YieldLineTheory-Asstatedabove,intheanalyt'cal modelthere-inforcedmasonrywallwasassumedfixedatthe.bottomandsimplysupported atthetop.Thisisconsidered anindeterminate structure.
Therefore, alineofhingeswasinsertedinthemodelwheretheflexural.
stressesatthat-location exceededtheallowable.
Thebendingmomentwasthenre-distributed byre-analysis ofthe.wall.lftheresulting bendingstresses 15-D.'pecialAnalyses(Cont'd)werefoundtobeacceptable atallotherlocations and.thedisplacements
-werenotexcessive; thewallwasconsidered tobequalified.
2)ArchingAnalysis-Thebehaviorofacrackedunreinforced wallmaybeconsidered asthat'fa3-hingedarchwithhingesformedatmidspan,topandbottomsupports.
Ifagapexistsatthetopofthewall,gappedarchingaction,shouldbeassumed;otherwise, rigidar'ching actionisassumedasillustrated inFigure1.Thereactions forthe3-hingedarchcanbesolvedbymeansofthefree-body diagramsshowninFigure2.E.Interstory DriftAlthoughtheS"Lucie.Unit1concretemasonrywalls-arenotintendedtocarryasignificant partofthe.buildingstoryshear,,in-planeshearmaybeimposedonthembytherelativedisplacement betweenfloorsduringseismicevents.,Thestrainacceptance criteriawasusedforevaluation ofin-planeinterstory drift.Therelativedisplacement betweenfloors-ncludestwotypesofdis-placements.
Oneisduetobendingdeformation ofthestructural shearwalls;theotherisduetosheardeformation.
Thebendingdeformation ofthestruct-uralshearwallswillonlycausethemasonry,wallstoelongateorshortenonthesides.Itisthe,shearingdeformation ofthestructural shearwallsbe-tweenfloorswhichwillcausethemasonrywallstohavein-planeshearingstraineffects.Itisthesestrainswhichareevaluated asdescribed below:Thegrossshearstrainisdefined-tobe:rWhere5=,strain=relativedisplacement betweentopandbottomofwallH=heightofwallThepermissible in-planeshearingstrainsare:
16-E.Interstory Drift(Cont'd)=0.0001forunconfined walls~u=0.001.forconfinedwalls-cTheaboveval'ueswereusedfornormalandsevereenvironmental loadcombin-ations.Forotherloadcombinations, theallowable strainsweremultiplied by1.67.+Anunconfined wallisattachedononeverticalboundaryanditsbase.'Aconfinedwallisattached, inoneofthefollow'ing ways:(a)onallfoursides;(b)onthetopandbottomofthewall;(c)onthetop,bottomandoneverticalsideof.thewall;(d)onthebottomandtwoverticalsidesofthewall.fTheout-of-plane interstorv drift.ofthewallduetodifferential displace-mentsbetweenthetwofloorswillnotbesignificant.
duetothefollowing reasons:k1)Ifthewall.issimplysupported atthetopandbottom,thesamebendingmomentcapacitywillremainafterconsidering theout-of-plane drifteffects.2)Ifthewallisfixedatthebottomandsimplysupported atthetop,the.out-of-plane drifteffects'willcauseatmostthefixedendsupporttoyield.Themaximumbendingmomentcapacityofthewallwillremainthesame.Therefore, theout-of-plane drifteffectswerenot.inputintothecomputeranalysis.
SeveralQualityAssurance auditsofthe.designverification workwereperformed inaccordance withProcedure FLO128-4.801, "QualityAssurance Procedure forCompliance withNRCBulletin80-.11."Theauditswereperformed byEbascoandFPLQualityAssurance personnel.
17VI.ResultsofInsectionandDesin-Verification A-Inspection TheinitialPhase,IandPhaseIIinspection program(described inSectionIVofthisreport)wascompleted inearlyOctober.1980.Theinspection included204masonrywalls,ofwhich.90wereidentified assafety-related.
In.thecourseofthisinspection, 14safety-related wallswerefoundtobemissingthetopsupportanglescalledforintheoriginaldesign.Itwasdecidedtoimmediately installtheanglestobringthewallstotheoriginaldesigncon-figuration without-firstperforming ananalysistodetermine whetherinfactwallfailurewouldoccurwithoutthetopsupport.Subsequently itwasdeter-minedthatthestructural'.
integrity ofthewallsduringaseismiceventcouldnotbedemonstrated withoutass~ingthepresenceottheangles.One-wallside(inaccessible duringplantoperation),
willberepairedduringthe1981refueling outage.Thiswall.cannot.failinsuchawayastoaffectsafetyrelatedecpxxpment.
Asupplementary inspection wasconducted forthosesafety-related wallswherethecomplexity oftheattachment configurations indicated theneedforamoreprecisedefinition ofloadingapplication onthewallinordertoobtainamorerepresentative analytical model.Thisportionofthe.inspection program'was'completed in,lateOctober1980.Manymasonrywallsshownondesigndrawingsasunreinforced nevertheless hadcellsfilled.withmortarorgroutforradiation shielding purposes.
Duringthecourseofthedesignre-evaluation, itbecamenecessary todetermine whethersomeunreinforced wallsdidinfacthavefilledcells.Anadditional inspection of.24wallswasconducted inmid-December 1980toverifythepresenceofcellmortar,asdescribed, inSectionIVofthisreport.13ofthewallswerefoundtocontainmortarintheircellsandthisfactwasincorporated intotheanalysis.
Alltheunreinforced'alls wereultimately qualified byanalysisexceptwall114,whichrequiredmodification asdescribed below.
0 18-B-DesignVerification TheanalyticaL efforttoverifythedesignadequacyofthe90safety-related masonrywallsbeganinOctober1980withtheissuanceofthere-evaluation
- criteria, Bythistime,mostofthefieldinspection datahadbeenreceived.
EvaLuation ofthemasonrywalldesignswascompleted inDecember1980;andtheevaluation ofthetopsupportsandanchorages wascompleted inJanuary1981.AttheendofDecember1980,6safety-related wallsremainedwhichappearedtonotsatisfytheestablished re-evaluation criteria.
Afinalinspection ofthesewallswasconducted onJanuary6and7,.1981toexplorefeasiblemethodsofstrengthening thewalls.Itwasestablished, thatapparentcracksintwoofthewallswerefacialonlyandnotstressrelated.Repairwasaccomplished byenl'arging
'thecracksandfillinginwithmortar.Thepre-senceofreinforcing inathirdwaLLwasconfirmed andanewanalysisre-suited.inqualification ofthat~aLL.,Theremaining, 3walls-weredeemedtorequiremodification asdescribed below:1.Wall114-Theanalysisofthisunreinforced wallresultedinunaccept-ablylargecompressive andshearstresses.
Theheightofthewallwasre-ducedto60percentofitsoriginally assumed.valuebytheintroduction ofa.supporting structural memberacting.'nconcertwithaslabframingintothewallatthesameelevation.
Anewanalysisresultedinqualification ofthewall.asmodified.
2~Mall159-Anexcessive numberof'argeopeninginthisreinforced wallpreventthevertical.
reinforcing barsfromrunningallthewaythrough.TheanalyticaL modelwasrevisedwiththeadd'tionofsupporting anglestotheverticaledgesofthelowerhalfofthewall,fastenedtotheadjacentreinforced concretecolumnorwall.Theadditional supportsresultedinthequalification of.thewall.
193.Mall203-ThiswallhadthesameproblemsWall159.Inaddition, partofthetopsupporting anglewasmissingduetoblockedaccessfromductwork.
Afixwasdeveloped similartothatprovidedforWall159,tobeappliedalongoneverticaledgeofthewall.Asupporting channelpairwasaddedalongthetopedgewhererequired, tobeboltedintotheceilingwnereaccess.permitted.
Astiffening channelpairextending fromthetopchannelsdowntoamoresubstantial areaofthewallpro-videssupport.fortheremainder ofthetopedge.Anewanalysisre-sultedinqualification ofthewallasmodified.
Allwallattachments wereanalyzedlocallyforblockpullout,aswellasbeingintegrated intotheoverallanalytical modelforthewall.Nostressproblemsaroseinthisarea.Onebracket-type supportforatransformer requiredanindependent analysistodetermine thedynamicamplification imposed.onthewall.Asthestressanalysesforthewallswerecompleted,
.thereactions atthetopsofthewallswereused'oevaluatetheadequacyofthesupporting ang'esandanchorages wherethesewereprovided.
Areviewofthedesigndetailsindicated that,for20walls,thesupporting angleattachment tothebuildingstructure hadtobemodifiedtoaccommodate thecalculated reactions.
Thefollowing tableexplainsthemodifications tothetopsupports:
WallNumberDescriation ofModification Additionofclipanglesexpansion anchoredtoceiling1lA34,74,125165,200,201202,205Addition.
ofclipangleexpansion anchoredtoceilingandplateweldedtoceilingembedment Additionofexpansion anchorsforclipanglesupport WallNumberDescritionofModification 62AAdditionofclipangles,fillerplateweldedtoceilingembeddedplate80,123,124Thru-bolting clipanglesoneithersideofwall81,82,163,174Thru<<bolting clipanglesoneithersideofwall,Add'ition ofexpansion anchorsforclipanglesupport160Additionofexpansion anchorsforclipanglesupportAdditionofmortartoenableblockwalltobearonadjacentconcretebeam166AdditionoffilletweldbetweenclipangleandfillerplateVII.SummarvThe.inspection anddesignverification ofmasonrywall:;forStLucieUnit1.conducted betweenSeptember 1980andJanuary'981established thefollow-ing:Numberofwallsinspected
--204NumberNumberNumberNumberof.wallsclassified assafety-related
-90ofwallsclassified asnotsafety-related
-114'fsafety-related wallswheremissingclipangleswerereplaced-14+ofsafety-related wallsre-evaluated
-90NumberNumberofwallsrequiring.
fieldmodification
-3ofwallsrequiring reinforcement oftopedgesupport-20Documentation, toincludeinspection procedures anddesignverification detailswillbeavailable attheSt.Luciesiteforinspection andreviewandhasnotbeenattachedtothisreport.,*Furtherclipanglework.isrequiredfor1walltobringittooriginaldesign+
00 STATEOFFLORIDA))COUNTYOFDADE)SS~RobertE.Uhrig,beingfirstdulysworn,deposesandsays:ThatheisaVicePresident ofFloridaPower6LightCompany,theLicenseeherein;Thathehasexecutedtheforegoing document; thatthestate-mentsmadeinthissaiddocumentaretrueandcorrect.tothebestofhisknowledge, information, and,belief,andthatheisauthorized toexecutethedocumentonbehalfofsaidLicensee.
RobertE.UhrigSubscribed andsworntobeforemethis'Ijidayoti9K(4~~NOTARYPUBLICinandforthecountyofDade,StateofFloridaNotaryPublic.StateofRoridaatLargeMyCommission ExpiresOctober30,1983~Nycommission expires: