ML19253D000
| ML19253D000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1979 |
| From: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253C999 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912120489 | |
| Download: ML19253D000 (25) | |
Text
PUBLIC SERVICE CC:4PldiY CF !IDI F21PSIIIRE SEABROOK STATION FI!IAL REPORT
$31 DISCPIPA!!CY I!! DPX<lI!!GS WITII FISPECT "O DESIGII CALCULATIO!!
CG!! CRETE REI!!FORCOtE!iT RECUIRE!E!iTS FOR Tl!E CC:! TROL AND DIESEL GE!iERATOR BUILDI!!GS
\\S41 09b Date Dece:nber 5, 1979 8f 7912120
CONTROL AND DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT DISCREPANCY INTRODUCTION As a result of a field force inquiry regarding the re-arrangement of reinforcing bars in one of the walls of the Control and Diesel Generator Building, design calculations were reviewed and it was discovered that the calculation requirements were not fully shown on the design drawings issued for construction.
HISTORY On Thursday, November 1,1979, UE&C field forces contacted M. K. Sanghavi of UE&C Philadelphia Engineering Department requesting the rearrangement of certain reinforcing in the subject buildings as a convenience in placing.
In reviewing the calculations. to substantiate the rearrangement requested, it was discovered (and confirmed on Friday, November 2, 1979) that certain of the reinforcing shown on the drawings did not agree with the reinforcing required by the latest calculations.
Drawings and Calculations initially examined were as follows:
Drawing 101350 Rev 2 dated 3-4-79 Control Building Concrete Sections Sheet 4 Calculation Set CD-16 Rev 1 dated 3-2-78 Common Wall Design Column Line 5 Subsequently the remainder of drawings and calculations involving the reinforcement of the Control-Diesel Generator Building were examined and again certain of the reinforcement required by the calculations was not shown on the design drawings.
Drawings and Calculations subsequently examined were as follows:
Drawings 101349 Rev 2 dated 3-1-79 Control Building Sections - Sheet 3 1013); Rev 2 dated 3-1-79 Control Building Sections - Sheet 6 101391 Rev 2 dated 7-24-79 Diesel Generator Building Sections - Sheet 4
\\bk\\
Calcula tions CD-12 Rev 1 dated 2-28-78 North Wall Design Column Line A CD-13 Rev 1 dated 12-30-77 South Wall Desiga CD-14 Rev 1 dated 12-15-77 East Wall Design Column Line 1 The results of this examination are shown in Appendix 2.
As of the time of the deficiency discovery no concrete had been placed that was affected by the lack of reinforcing indicated on the calculations.
Immediate steps were taken to notify construction forces of the need to modify reinforcement in the work then under way and appropriate Engineering Change Authorizations (ECA) were issued directing the field to install the required additional reinforcement. An interim status report was forwarded to D. H. Rhoads, Engineering Manager, per UE&C Memorandum MM#-5204A on 11/6/79 by A. J. Hulshizer. The incident was reported to the Owner per UE&C letter SBU-31428 on 11/6/79 and telephoned to the NRC on 11/6/79 by J. DeVincentis of Yankee Atomic Electric Company (See Telecon J. DeVincentis to Joseph Mattia). Copias of correspondence included in Appendix 1.
In the cases where the required reinforcement can be corrected and supplied through the normal drawing revision cycle, Design Change Notices (DCN) have been issued to identify and record the drawing revision work yet to be accomplished. A summary of the reinforcing calculation-drawing com-parison and resultant action taken is tabulated in the Appendix 2.
Although no placed concrete was affected by the discovered reinforcement deficiency, additional dowels should have been provided (per the existing calculation) from the placed concrete into two of the wall areas in question.
These areas are identified in the Appendix 2 tabulation as items A2 and A4.
In these two cases the calculation results were found to be conservative and only minor refinements necessary to justify the acceptance of the doweling supplied.
SAFETY IMPLICATIONS No completed concrete work has been affected by the reinforcing discrepancy between the calcul ations and design drawing.
(Completed concrete work was below elevation 21'-6").
Positive, docun ated steps have been taken to insure that the required reinforcing will be installed in the concrete work yet to be done.
In summary, due to the steps taken to correct enf neawings for concrete work yet to be done and the adequacy of the inplace c.; rete work, no design deficiency will exist in the subject structure when completed.
} f)k \\
~
2
If the deficiency had gone undetected, the structural integrity of the Control and Diesel Generator Building could be jeopardized under a design basis seismic event. However, due to a number of conservative areas in design o f the building, it is likely that a detailed engineering reana1.ysis would verify the adequacy of the structure. Since in all cases the deficiency has been corrected, the design of the building is acceptable and no reanalysis of the building design for the deficient condition will be conducted.
Several of the conservative areas utilized in the design of the Control and Diesel Generator Building are:
a.
The design of the Control and Diesel Generator Building employs finite element modeling of the entire structure to determine the structural behavior under various loading combinations.
In per-forming the final design for each, the structural component stresses are combined and areas reinforced in practical manners which result in conservatisms that provide inherent structural strengths beyond that actually required. Greater refinement in calculations would result in reducing certain of the calculated reinforcing requirements, b.
In the case of the Control and Diesel Generator Building, an additional conservatism exists in that the seismic analysis of the building was done based on damping values of 22 and 5% (of critical damping) for the Operating Basis Earthquake and Safe Shut Down Earth-quake respectively, vhereas damping values of 4% and 7% are acceptable (per NRC Regulatory Guide 1.6.1).
Utilization of higher damping values will result in lower seisnde forces and consequently lower seismic related stresses which are che major contributor to the strteture's concrete reinforcement requirements.
c.
An analysis of the structure taking into account the actual strength of concrete (which generally runs 1000 psi above the design mininum) will result in reduced reinforcemcat cequirements.
d.
In all loading cases examined, the governing loading is associated with the Operating dasis Earthquake (the lower o f the two design earthquakes).
SOURCE OF DEFICIENCY Calculations for the Control and Diesel Generator Building were performed in two phases under Calculation Set No's CD-12, CD-13, CD-14 and CD-16.
The first issue of these calculations (Rev 0) did not contain the reinforcement which was ultimately left off the drawings. Subsequent design work resulted in determining the need for additional reinforcing in certain elements of the building and calculations were revised accordingly and all completed as Revision 1.
The latest of these is dated 3-2-78.
As of the time of the latest available calculations (Rev 1) the drawings had not been finished or issued for construction.
Subsequently the drawings were acsigned to be made and checked in a routine manner with respect to Revision 1 of the appropriate calculations.
1541 MB 3
Drawings were completed and signed off by the assigned checker (M. R. Sachdev) as being in conformance with the latest revisien of the calculations (Rev 1) and issued for construction as Revision 0 on 7-14-78.
However, an investigation of the discrepancy between the drawings and the calculations indicated that in fact the drawings only contained the reinforcement requirements of Revision 0 of the calculations.
The checker involved was interviewed with respect to the disparity between the calculations and the drawings. He indicated that he had examined the cal-culations in question and felt that the approach used contained conservatisms that did not require the additional reinforcing as shown in the calculations.
He therefore did not instruct the draf tsman to correct either the original issue or subsequent revisions of the drawings.
The action taken by the checker was a violation of UE&C Engineering &
Design procedures GEDP-0005A,Section VII, Subsection as follows:
D.
"If differences in results are obtained, the differences shall be resolved by the Design Supervisor or Responsible Engineer."
E.
" Checking shall be considered complete when the Designer and Checker agree on changes and correction. Unsettled disagreement shall be resolved with Design Supervisor."
Also, no revisions to completed calculations are permitted without authorization, which is to be documented on the standard form " Calculation Revision Control Sheet" form SB-10.
In this case, the checker made an unauthorized, unilateral, undocumented decision which resulted in the drawings not conforming to the reinforcing requirements as shown in the pertinent calculations.
In further discussions with M. R. Sachdev, he indicated that he had reviewed his opinion on the " design conservatisms" with his immediate design supervisor, B. K. Talukdar, who had in M. R. Sachdev's mind planned to take appropriate ac tion to have calculations re-examined.
B. K.Talukdar is no longer employed by UE&C and no attempt has been made as of now to contact him concerning the situation.
M. R. Sachdev has formulated a memo and issued it to A. J. Hulshizer on 11/26/79 (MM1-5298A) describing his technical reasons for arriving at the
" unnecessary reinforcing" for all but the " common wall", which he now agrees should have also contained the additional reinforcing. A copy of this memo is in Appendix 3.
Review of the memo MM#-5298A by UE&C, Seabrook Project Structural design personnel does not confirm M. R. Sachdev's position and it is concluded to reinforce the walls as required by Revision 1 of the calculations.
In summary the checker, with all good intentions, knowingly allowed the drawings to be issued against a void issue of calculations while at the same time signing the drawings off against the la ter (Rev 1) issues.
In addition to the other violations stated, the checker certified wrong information.
1541 099 4
CORRECTIVE ACTION Drawi.ng Deficiency Action has been taken to have reinforcing supplied as required by th appropriate calculattens. Specifics of the actions taken are given in th HISTORY section of this report.
Procedural Errors A special QA training session was held with the entire Seabrook Stru.
Engineering-Design group to review the procedural errors involved, to ass-proper compliancy with pertinent project procedures and to instill the se:
ness of certifying to only correct information. Similar training session:
will be held with all other Seabrook Engineering-Design personnel.
Verification of Drawing-Calculation Information A comparison of all Seabrook concrete design drawings and calculatior issued to date has been initiated to assure that no design deficiencies e:
with respect to calculated requirements for any of the other structures.
cedures instituted for the comparison are given in Appendix 4 As of this report, 1336 calculation reinforcement items have been ini compared on 182 drawings which represents about 90% of the design drawings to date. The review has been completed for all concrete work now in place of the Safety Related buildings.
Subject to final verification, the extensive drawing-calculation revi the concrete work for drawings issued to date has not revealed any finding would indicate a design deficiency if the s tructures were constructed in a with the drawings as presently issued.
CONCLUSIONS The reinforcement " deficiencies" resulting from discrepancies between "as calculated" requirements and that shown on the design drawings have be or are in the process of being fully corrected to agree with the calculati As a result there will be no design deficiency in the Control and Diesel G.
Building when constructed.
Measures have been instituted to assure that the type of incident pro.
the discrepancy should not be repeated.
All other Seabrook structures have been reviewed to assure that the incident was isolated to one man's action in a given situation.
Nothing has been determined ta date to indicate that any design deficiencies exist in any of the Safety Related Building concrete work.
1541 100 5
APPENDIX 1 COI T20L AND DIESEL GE:;ERATOR BUItpryg CORRESPONDENCE 1541 101
MEMORANDUM hmited engineem a-~
Jon No.
9763.006 OFFICE:
Philadelphia D Ee r.
Engineering - Power DATE:
November 6, 1979 To:
D. H. Rhoads COPt ES :
Gy Cole AM Ebner GE Sarstan FROM:
A. J. Hulshizer File: 3.5.7 11.2
- 1. 0.1 "
11*5*4 MMi!- 520!A Sua;EcT: Public Service Co=pany of New Hampshire Seabrook Station Discrepancy in drawings with-respect to Design of Reinforcing Bars for the Control Buildinz During review of our calculations, we have discovered a discrepancy be-tween the reinforcing required by the current calculations and that shown on the drawings as now issued for'the Control Building. The following infor-mation will provide the history of the situation, the resultant problem, the resolution and corrective action taken to prevent reoccurance.
HISTORY On Thursday, November 1, 1979, UE&C field forces contacted our Engineering Depart =ent requesting the rearrangement of certain reinforcing in the subject i
building as a convenience.
In reviewing the calculations to substantiate the rearrang ent requested, it was discovered (and confirmed on Friday, Novem-ber 2, 1979) that the reinforcing shown on the drawings did not agree with the reinforcing required by the latest calculations, although the drawin;:s had been signed-off as being checked against those specific calculations.
(For effected drawings, see attached list).
The checker involved was interviewed with respect to the disparity between the calculations and the drawings.
He indicated that he had examined the cal-culations in question and f61t that the approach used contained conservatism that did not require the additional reinforcing as shown in the calculations.
He therefore, did not instruct the draf tsman to correct either the original issue or subsequent revisions of the drawings.
PROBLEM The action taken by the checker was a violation of UESC Engineering & De-sign procedures CEDP-0005A,Section VII, Subsection as follows:
B.
"If differences in results are obtained, the differences shall be resolved by the Design Supervisor or Responsible Engineer.
E.
" Checking shall be considered complete when the Designer and Checker agree on changes and correction. Unsettled disagreement shall be resolved with Design Supervisor, 15g W2
November 6, 1979
,' Project Manager D. H. Rhoads MM#-
authori-Also, no revisions to completed calculations are permitted without zation, which is to be docu=ented on the standard form " Calculation Revision Control Sheet" form SB-10.
the checker made an unauthorized, unilateral, undocu=ented de-In this case, cision which resulted in the drawings not conforming to the reinforcing re-quire =ents as shown in the pertinent calculations.
As a result, drawings show portions of certain walls in the subject structure not containing reinforcing as required by the calculations, resulting in an over-stresses.
RESOLUTION No work completed in the field has been af fected by the discrepancy between the calculation and drawings.
(Co pleted concrete work is below elevation 21'-6).
Reinforcing currently being installed in walls between elevations 21'-6, and 49'-0 will be corrected to reflect the reinforcing as shown in the calcu-1979.
lations by ceans of ECAs to be issued no later than Wednesday, Nove=ber 7, Reinforcing above elevation 49'-0 will be corrected on the design drawings and
{
placing drawings to reflect calculation require =ents.
In suc=ary,.the steps taken to correct the drawings to reflect the calculation requirements will assure that no design deficiency will exist in the subject structure when completed.
CORRECTIVE ACTION All drawings checked by the individual checker involved in the above dis-cussion are being compared against the original calculations to assure correctness of the design drawings.
A review of all of the structures is being made to compare the calculation reinforcement requirements against that shown on the drawings.
A AQ training session has been held with the entire Structural Design Squad to assure proper compliancy with pertinent project procedures.
.m.khne A. J. Hulshizer Supv. Struct. Engineer AJH:1s Attachment i541 103
GF Cole 0600 J Casolari 06U9 WR Morrison 14U7 Dil Rhoads 06U0 DD Boyle 06U9 MP llancon Field AW Cole 06U0 llE Flora /JK Shaw 06U9 JF Vought Fic1d
< WE IInug 06U0 GM Aggarwal/AS Calahan 05U7 Field DCC Field LS Nascimep,to 06Ul*
RA Mabry/LL Tipton 05U9 RI Phelps Field g_ AJ lluishizer/Wil Reading 06U4 DE Mc Caig 02U0 JR Uhitaker Field e
5 S Kasturi/C Trautman 06US Ell Case, II 02U1 P lloward-Johnson coston m Illi Ka t a 06US JR D.nytryk 12U4 Serial File 06U1 N JJ Parisano 06U6 WC Stevenson/GC Cipra 12U6 DA Fertig 06U1 NB Pauling/WJ Breslin 06U7 SVIlclitip0P1ER 14U4 November 6, 1979 SBU-31428 File:
3.1.6 Catg:
NRCD No Response Required Mr. John DeVincentis, Project >bnager Yankee Atomic Electric Company Seabrook Station 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, tussachusetts 01581
Dear Mr. DeVincentis:
~
Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Station Discrepancy in the Reinforcing Bar for the Control Buildine The purpose of this latter is to advise you of a discrepancy in the reinforcing bar design for the Control Building.
During a recent review of our calculations for the Control Building we discovered that four (4) drawings issued for construction for this building do not contain all the reinforcing bar included in the calculations.
None of the work completed in the field is af fected by this discrepancy.
Engineering changes are in the process of being issued to the four affected drawings to add the reinforcing bar required by calculations.
A review of all the Seabrook structures is being made to ensure that the reinforcing bar required by the calculations is shown on the drawings.
It is our belief that this design discrepancy is a reportable item in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) and it is, the re fo re, reco=nended that it be reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
7ery truly yours,
[(
/,4fs
/ G. F. Cdle _
Project Manager GFC:hr cc:
Messrs. John DeVincentis - YAEC - 4L B. B. Beckley
- PSNil - 3L J. D liaseltine - PSNll - IL T. M. Sherry
- YAEC - lL g
J. 11 lierrin
- PSNil - YAEC Field Of fice - IL
))
T
'D**D *D'J
~
~,
o
- 7 W*g*
MEMC,RANDUM 9
TO Distribution f:ovember 7, 1979 FRoM J.
cevincentis Fat TF"253 m...
SU BJECT Recortina 10 CFR 50.55 (e) Desian Defi-icncies S D n - 7 a - : A GrcotE
- uo'(gu a vaea <
- s n l. /
osasoAcs n ot/inu n aan.va, y
~Ertona w ges vc ca s
- i l AW CcLE _, _ __ XU C l l.A.,1vdA
- i;;
- l ]
On Tuesday :ovember 6, 1979 I called Joseph "attia, "PC N :isn I ISE Inspector for Seabrook Statien to report two signi:icant
.u.gn deficiencies under 10 CFR 50.55 c.
The telephone call ' ras placrl cr the same day as notification was received from UC&C via SBU-31426 and SBU-31428.
The deficiency as identified in 500-314?6 involved use of incorrect seismic amplified response spectra in the desirin of components surnorted by the containment annular steel frame.
The arnlified res onse trectra used for the correnent desian was that of the contair ent intertar c:n rete instead of the annular steel frame. The structured mcriers which make uc the annular frame have not been fabricated and vill re redesit;ncd with braces added to stiffen the structure in order to reduce the ":" values.
The design of all components located in this area will then be creckcc.
against the redesianed annular s:cci frame and its resulting arpliflu response spectra.
The deficiency reported in 50U-31428 involvei four drawinmi, issued for construction of the control building, which d d not contain Til t r.c reinforcing bar included in the calculations.
.;cne of the ucrk comcleted in the field is affected by this dincrepancy A review of all Scabrock structures is being conducted to insure that the reinfercinc har requt:cd by the calculaticns is shown on the drawings.
The inspector cautioned me that the reculatien require, within 30 days, a report to be filed with substantial detail describine there deficiencies including an analysis of safety implications, corrective action taken and sufficient information to permit analysis and evaluation of the deficiencj and of the corrective action.
Mr. Mattia asked me when I first had W wiedge of the deficiencies.
I stated that I was inforned by mail today that both of the items described above were considered reportable significant defi-ciencies as defined in 10 CFR 50.55 c.
I stated that about tuo,eeks ago we had been informed by UESC that a discrepancy existed in the response spectra that was used for piping and supports of ecuipment in the containment annular area and that UEr.C was conducting an evaluatica to determine the extent of the discrepancy.
I have instructed UESC to initiate preparation of these reports.
If more than 30 days are required to prepare such a report, we can submit an interim report within 30 days and state the date for tne final renort.
SEAIAL FILE C6U11/I 4N P A A E A G.3 J
PSNH pp DCC N 'l
? EE dWY
'I RECEIVd.D BY ceNTRot uo
.mut s m:E a wi# mac wo
- s.
CoRRESPONCENCE U E & C INC.
3 g asit;p, w n / cc o.te:a m.ua m,
f.c. -
RESPONSE REo D dA/
NOV 14197 CD Bovu DN*'V8> WL0"i F E L *J ' * '
sue; ou o.3
...s,~0 mu m
-isscN m
RESPONSE BY NgpAUpNa J6U 'l /$ aC M*3 A V
2' LS NASCMENfo ttu4Iv
- L casetam Mu si ls ! YvAAA.U
%-'u j
RESPONSE
ym u m,g
.cs:s y
,,. _ sc<c w E
,.- c... s c..
Reporting to 10 CPR 50.55c Movenbrr 7 I have also instructed Yankee's CAD to audit t'Er.C recorda rega discovery and extent of the deficiency and the corrective actions t or to be taken.
((
- s o' v'
/
/
I John Devincentic Project 2:anager JDV:tla cc: Di!!
WJM I
b DEV WPJ T::S RPP J RJi FDB A'IS PROJECTS FEGreenman SCDoret G.F. Cole S3-8551
\\54\\
\\D6
APPE:: DIX 2 C0!, TROL AND DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDI! C SU:@tARY OF DISCREPANCIES AND SPECIFIC ACTION TAKE!!
\\54) 107
APPENDIX 2 tg FINAL REPORT E!1 CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT DISCREPANCY CONTROL & DIESEL CENERATOR BLDC.
RUOR WALLS "A" - 1st Wall lifts between El. 21'-6" & 49'-0" & below Wall Calculation Provided on ACTION Location Reauirements Design Drawine Taken and/or Required Al Common Wall Between
/11012 + #6@l2
- 11012" Ea.
Field Addition #9024' Control & D.G. Bldg.
Ea. Face Horiz.
Face Horiz.
Ca. Face Horiz.
Line 5 (CD-16)
(F-101350)
ECA 01/1101A A2 North Wall along Col.
- /1036 Ea. Face 410912 Ca.
Field Addition "10J12" A aprox.
18'-0" horiz.
Vert. in 18'-0 Face Vert.
Ea. Face Vert. splicing length at Col. Line I length (CD-12)
(F-101350) with 41126" DWLS. (in.
14'-0" width)
ECA 01/1101A revise calc. to reflect reinf.
requ'd in 14'-0" width only A3 North wall along Col.
- 8912 + #4@l2
!!8?l2 Ea.
Field Addition #6@24
'A' Between El. 34'-0" Horiz. Ea. Face Face Hori.
Ea. Face Horiz. in this
& 51'-6 9 Col. Line (CD-12)
(F101391) area ECA 01/1101A 5 & 5.5 A4 Near South Wall 3
- 10@l2" Ea.
- 9912" Vert.
- 9912" Ea. Face Vert.
Walls of Stair 'A' Face Vert.
(F-101349) acceptable.
Revise (CD-13)
Calc. Set CD-13 DCN--01/ll84A AS South Wall 1 to 5
- 11012 Ea.
- 1106 Ea.
Provided more reinf.
@ Col. Line E Face Vert.
Face Vert..
than Reg'd.
(CD-20)
(F-111343) 1541 108
Page 2 of 3 APPENDIX 2 "B" - 2nd Wall lifts between El.
50'-6" & 76'-6" Wall Calculation Provided on ACTION Location Recuirements Desien Drawing Taken and/or Recuired B1 Common Wall Between
- 11@6" Horiz.
- 976 Iloria. Ea.
Revise Design DWG. to Control & D.G Bldg.
Ea. Face (CD-Face (F-101350) revise r!9 to //11 bars Line 5 16)
DCN 01/1134A B2 South Wall Between
- 9@6 Vert. Ea.
- 11@l2 Vert.
Revise Design DWG. to Col. Line 5 & 9 Face (CD-13)
Ea. Face add additional reinf.
(F-101391) as dowels and vert. bars ECA 01/1109A & ECA 01/1181A B3 North Wall Between
- 9@6 Vert. Ea.
111@l2" Vert.
Revise Design DWG. to Col. Line 5 & 9 Face (CD-12)
Ea. Face add additional reinf.
(F-101391) as dowels and vert. bars ECA 01/IlC9A & ECA 01/1181A B4 Near South Wall -
- 9012 + #6@l2
- 9012 Vert.
Revise Design DWG. to Stair 'A' Vert. Ea. Face Ea. Face add additional reinf.
(1) 22'-0" Long (CD-13)
(F-101349) as dowels & vert, bars.
South Wall FCA nl/1109A &
DCN 01/ll84A (ii) East & West
- 8@l2 + #4@l2
- 8@l2 Horiz.
Revise Design DWG. to Wall Horiz. Ea.
Ea. Face add additional reinf.
Face (CD-13)
(F-101349)
DCN 01/ll84A
} )k
Sheet 3 of J APPEMI)f X 2 "C" - 3rd. Wall lifts above El.
76'-0" Wall Calculation Provided on ACTION Location Recuirements Desien Drawine Taken/and/or Recuired C1 Common Wall Between
- 11012 Horiz.
48312" Hori=.
Revise Design DWG. to Control & D.G. Bldg.
Ea. Face Ea. Face add additional reinf.
Line 5 (CD-16)
(F-101350)
DCN 01/1184A C2 East Wall along
- 9912 Horiz. Ea. #8@l2 Horia.
Revise Design DWG. to Col. Line 1 Face Ea. Face add additional reinf.
(, CD-14)
(F-101350)
DCN Ol/ll84A C3 South Wall O Col.
- 8@l2 + #4012
- 8012 Horia.
Revise Design DWG. to Line E Between 1 & 3 Horiz. Ea Face Ea. Face add additional reinf.
above El. 86'-0 (CD-13)
(F-101352)
DCN 01/1184A C4 South Wall O Col. E
- 996" Vert.
Ill1012 Vert.
Revise Design DWG. to Be tween 5 & 9 Ea. Face Ea. Face add additional reinf.
(CD-13)
(F-101391)
DCN 01/1184A C5 Stair A - 3 Walls
- 8@l2 Hori:.
- 7@l2 Horiz.
Revise Design DWC. to (CD-13)
Ea. Face add additional reinf.
(F-101349)
DCN 01/1184A
\\6h\\
\\
APPENDIX 3 CONTROL AND DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING M. R. SACHDEV MDio ii3298A
\\S41
\\\\\\
O
a un 1.u.,
. MEMORANDUM hmited engineelm-~
Jon No.
9763.006 OFFICE:
Philadelphia DEPT.
Engineering - Power Division D ATE:
- 'ovembe r 26, 1979
!ci: 5298A To:
A. J. Hulshizer COPIES:
M. R. Sachdev File 3.5.2 3.3.7 DCC FROM:
M. R. Sachdev SUDJECT:
Public Service Company of !;ew Hampshire Scabrook Station Control & Diesel Generator Bldg.
Discrecancies between drawines and desien calculations I have reviewed the drawings showing walls of the building and the corresponding calculations to find the reasons for the discrepancies between them.
Since these d'rawings were first issued in May 1978, it is difficult to establish with full certainty the causes of discrepancies.
The review indicates that, in the case of common wall, drawings were developed using a copy of calculations having older revision. However, the control sheets for the drawings were prepared by referring to the origiaal sheets of calculations having latest ravision. This resulted in proper control sheets but drawings with superseded information.
For the rc=aining walls, latest revisions of calculations were reviewed and discussed with then Design Supervisor Mr. B. Talukdar and it was decided that robar shown in the calculations could be simplified if somewhat less conservative approach is used. Thus, the modified rebar arrangement was shown on the drawings and it was decided to revise the calculations at the same time. Somehow, the calculations were not revised to date, resulting in the discrepancies between the drawing and the calculations.
In " Attachment A",
explanations regarding the discrepancies and the reasons for somewhat less conservative approach are outlined.
If these reasons are acceptable, the presently shown rebar in !! orth, South, East and West walls will be OK.
D ' $* $ WO U M. R. Sacudev MRS:mbs} Attachment
ATTACICIENT A 1. NORTH WALL A. Lower East Corner, Elements 462 & 446. Refer to page 28 of calculation set CD-12. In the design of lower east corner, the loads from adjacent element from east wall have been added to the loads from element 462. The reason for this was a large opening in the floor G north east corner. This opening has since been replaced by slab on the beams. Thus element 545 in east wall is supported by the slab O El. 21'-6" and loads frem this element need not be added to element 462. Thus existing rebar #10@l2" vertical is adequate. B. Vertical rebar above elevation 50'-O", Elements 424,440. Refer to page 37 of calculation set CD-12. In the design for. compression, cm = 1.0 is used in the formula d5"1-Pu y> Pc However cm = 0.6 is acceptabic since under seismic loads M1/M2 will be negative. Using cm = 0.6, Mu = 134 K' Pu = 25.08 Kips and plotting the values on the interaction diagram on page 38 of set CD-12, #11@l2" vertical rebar will be acceptable. C. Horizontal rebar, Element 454 Refer to page 53 of calculation set CD-12 Method of combining shear, coment and tension (in some elements of wall) to obtain the horizontal rebar is conservative, considering the fac t that the potential shear failure plane must extend through all horizontal rebar. Also ef fect of moment in addition to tension is to reduce tension on one face and to increase on the other face. It seems that small moments could be neglected in obtaining the ultimate shear capacity. Using this approach, maxi =um rebar for element 454 will be 0.73 in2 & #6012" will be adequate. 2. SOUTH WALL A. Vertical rebar above El. 51'-6", D.C. Bldg. Elements 360 & 344 Refer to page No. 41 of calculation set CD-13 In the design of wall, cm = 1.0 has been used. As discussed earlier, cm = 0.6 may be used. Using this, 6 = 1.0, Mu ;- 129.85 K-Ft, Pu s 58.86 Kips. Plotting these values on the interaction diagram on page 44. CD-13, #11 @ 12" rebar is acceptable. 1541 113 e
B. Horizontal rebar above elevation 78'-6", Control Blde. Element 320 Refer to page 57 of CD-13 As discussed earlier, ef fect of small =cments may not be cembined to find the total rebar. Thus combining shear and tension, re-quired rebar is 0.73 in2/f t 1C 0.78 in. Thus #8@l2" will be adequate. 2 C. Stair Tower Design. Refer to page 65, Calculation Set CD-13 Stair tower has not been included in the ccmputer model. However, adding this tower will reduce seismic accelerations due to increased stiffness. Also tower would provide added shear area in both directions. Referring to page 65, calculation set CD-13, Shear for 10'-0" long wall, (2'0" thick) is 1740 Kips. This compares with total shear of 12822 Kips for 4'0" thick wall, 88'-0" long (see page 9_of calculation set CD-16). So shear used is high considering the relative stiffness of the wall, and design approach used is very conservative. Because of small relative stiffness, nominal rebar for the stair tower is adequate. 3. EAST WALL Horizontal rebar above elevation 75'0", element 491 Refer to Page nc. 40, calculation see L0-14 As discussed earlier, since the direct tension is localized in the center of wall (near the intersection with floors), method of com-bining moment, shear and tension is conservative. If only shear, and tension are combined, area of steel required would be 0.56 in-/Ft. Thus #8@l2" rebar is adequate. 4. WEST WALL No discrepancies are found between the calculations and the drawings. 5. COMMON WALL Even though design of wall is based on larger assumed openings (as compared to actual openings) and genemlly conservative approach, additional rebar indicated by the calculations are reco== ended. 1541 II4
APPENDIX 4 STRUCTURAL PROCEDURES OR DRAWING-CALCULATION COMPLIANCE REVIEW 1541 115
1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of the Drawing-Compliance Review is to check issued de-sign drawings against the latest calculation sets to determine if the design requirements set forth in the calculations have in fact been fully displayed on the issued design drawings. 2.0 GENERAL PROCEDURE 2.1 All initiated reviews shall be fully documented in the manner described herein. 2.2 Review shall be made with respect to a given set of calculations. Once review has been initiated, checking shall continue until the calculation has been reviewed in its entirely with respect to pertinent drawings. 2.3 Only pertinent drawings are to be reviewed. 2.4 The purpose of the review is only to be sure that the drawings contain the proper design information. The method or character of displaying information is not part of this review. Do not enter findings with irrelevent cpinions or methods of display or drawing techniques unless they convey wrone information. 2.5 Once a set of calculations have been throughly reviewed and the findings and corrective recommendations duly noted the forms and calculations shall be co=pletly turned over to the responsible design supervisor. 2.6 The design supervisor shall initiate an independent check of the findings and corrective recommendations which shall be duly recorded. Disagree-ment on findings and/or corrective recommendations shall be satisfactorily settled. No initlal findings are to be erased from the forms. 2.7 Discrepancies shall be noted and course of action officially resolved. Disposition shall be recorded for action by either an ECA or a DCN. All dispositions shall be approved by the Supervising Discipline Eng-ineer prior to taking final action. 2.8 Upon completion of forms (fully signed thru) the record forms shall be filed as follows: 2.8.1 A copy filed in subject file No. 11.5.4.1 by Building and Cal-culation set No. 2.8.2 Original copies of review forms not requiring further action or action completed filed in a loose leaf note book by Building and Calculation Set No. 2.8.3 Original copies of review forms pending action filed in a sep-erate (from 2.8.2) loose leaf note book by Building and Cal-culation Set No.
REVIEWED l C ALCUL ATION & cor citructors unc SET NO PSNH SEABROOK STATION REV DRAWING - CALCULATION COMPUANCE REVIEW REV1EW SHEEI v
SUMMARY
ONE OF BUILDING / AREA PART COVERED REVIEW AUTHORIZED BY DATE REVIEW STARTED BY DATE h REVIEW COMPLETED BY DATE DRAWING REVIEW CONCLUSIONS REVIEW OF RECCMMENDATIONS REF NO REV BY '3 CALC DWG CORRECTIVE O PAGE RECOMMENDATIONS A 5 DATE l ^ l a l l l C D l e F { } H J I f K ADDITIONAL. REMARKS & CONCLU5 IONS : ( IDENTIFY BY ITEM ) RESOLUilON OF CORRECilVE RECCMMENCATIONS 1541 117 ESIGN SUPER COGN15 ANT ENG'R SDE CHECK BELOW FINAL gy IF ITEMS CCNTD DISPOSITICN CN NEXT PAGE APPROVE D iT E MS CONT.NU E D Soem 58-21 11/ 7 9
1 REVIEWED j g g j CALCULATION PSNH SEABROOK STATION SET NC DR AWI NG - CALCULATION REV ~ COMPLIANCE REVIEW VI SHEET
SUMMARY
SHEET CONTINUED Tv DRAWING REVIEW CCNCLUSIONS REVIEW CF RECOMMENDATiCNS g REF CALC DWG l BY = COR R ECTIVE [ NO REV PAGE OK R EM ARKS { AS 15 RECOMMENDATICNS DArE L M N P l i l I o R l l I S i l' i T v U l l l V f l W l x f Y Z ADDITIONAL REMARKS & CONCLUSIONS ~ ( IDENTIFY BYITEM) 1541 118 F orm SA-?? 11/ 77
REVIEWED a constructors v PSNH SEABROOK STATION REV NO DRAWING - CALCULATION COMPLIANCE REVIEW REVIEW SHEET REVIEW DETAILS op A9 03M31A3M a Z 5a w-3 5h s n O $:E U v0 2 = 2 M 60"2 8E E5! 3 E z ha f ze u os 33 as 29 Um 1 338 ed '31v 3 z O 3k tec O bN $$O !s 1 541 1 19 Da F,= t e 't I1/70 .}}