ML20339A053
Text
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 704 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 APPENDIX 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS by JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 705 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 BM Containment Insulation SP-5290 Ginna Plant
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 706 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 2 of Cover Letter
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 707 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Report No. E455-T-268, VINYLCEL (4 pcf) - Water Vapor Permeability and Humid Aging Tests
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 708 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 2 of Report No. E455-T-268
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 709 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 3 of Report No. E455-T-268
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 710 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 4 of Report No. E455-T-268
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 711 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Report No. E455-T-266, VINYLCEL (4 pcf) - Effect of Heat and Pressure
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 712 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 2 of Report No. E455-T-266
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 713 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 3 of Report No. E455-T-266
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 714 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 4 of Report No. E455-T-266
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 715 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 5 of Report No. E455-T-266
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 716 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 6 of Report No. E455-T-266
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 717 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 7 of Report No. E455-T-266
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 718 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Report No. E455-T-258, VINYLCEL - Resistance to Flame Exposure
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 719 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 2 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 720 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 3 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 721 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 4 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 722 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 5 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 723 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 6 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 724 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 7 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 725 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 8 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 726 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 9 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 727 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 10 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 728 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 11 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 729 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 12 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 730 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 13 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 731 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 14 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 732 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 15 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 733 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 16 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 734 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 17 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 735 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 18 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 736 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 19 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 737 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 20 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 738 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 21 of Report No. E455-T-258
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Page 739 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Sheet 22 of Report No. E455-T-258
- 1.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 740 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 APPENDIX 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON BY THE FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 741 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 3F.1 Introduction 3F.1-1 3F.2 AISC 1963 Versus AISC 1980 Summary of Code Comparison 3F.2-1 3F.3 ACI 318-63 Versus ACI 349-76 Summary of Code Comparison 3F.3-1 3F.4 ACI 301-63 Versus ACI 301-72 (Revised 1975) Summary of Code Comparison 3F.5 ACI 318-63 Versus ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 2, 1980, Summary of Code Comparison 3F.4-1 3F.5-1
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 742 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 3F.1 INTRODUCTION The Franklin Research Center, under contract to the NRC, compared the structural design codes and loading criteria used in the design of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant against the corresponding codes and criteria currently used for licensing of new plants at the time of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). The current and older codes were compared para-graph by paragraph to determine what effects the code changes could have on the load carry-ing capacity of individual structural members.
The scope of the review was confined to the comparison of former structural codes and crite-ria with counterpart current requirements. Correspondingly, the assessment of the impact of changes in codes and criteria was confined to what can be deduced solely from the provisions of the codes and criteria.
In order to carry out the code review objective of identifying criteria changes that could potentially impair perceived margins of safety, the following scheme of classifying code change impacts was used.
Where code changes involved technical content (as opposed to those which are editorial, organizational, administrative, etc.), the changes were classified according to the following scheme.
Each such code change was classified according to its potential to alter perceived margins of safety a in structural elements to which it applied. Four categories were established:
Scale A Change - The new criteria have the potential to substantially impair margins of safety as perceived under the former criteria.
Scale AX Change - The impact of the code change on margins of safety is not immediately apparent. Scale AX code changes require analytical studies of model structures to assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon margins of safety.
Scale B Change - The new criteria operate to impair margins of safety but not enough to cause engineering concern about the adequacy of any structural element.
Scale C Change - The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited under the former criteria.
This appendix is the summary of the code comparison findings. It has been reproduced directly from Appendix B to the Franklin Research Center Report, TER-C5257-322, Design Codes, Design Criteria and Loading Combinations (SEP Topic III-7.B), R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, dated May 27, 1982, which was transmitted by letter to RG&E from the NRC, dated January 4, 1983.
- a.
That is, if (all other considerations remaining the same) safety margins as computed by the older code rules were to be recomputed for an as-built structure in accordance with current code provisions, would there be a difference due only to the code change under consideration.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 743 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Table 3F.2-1 AISC 1963 VERSUS AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection AISC 1980 AISC 1963 Structural Elements Potentially Affected 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under ten-sion, except for pin connected members 1.5.1.2.2 Beam and connection where the top flange is coped and subject to shear, failure by shear along a plane through fasteners, or shear and tension along and perpendicular to a plane through fasteners Comments Limitations Scale Fy 0.833 Fu C
0.8333 Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu B
Fy 0.875 Fu A
See case study 1 for details.
1.5.1.4.1 Subpara.6 1.5.1.4.1 Subpara.7 1.5.1.4.1 Box-shaped members (subject to bending) of rectangular cross section whose depth is not more than 6 times their width and whose flange thick-ness is not more than 2 times the web thickness 1.5.1.4.1 Hollow circular sections sub-ject to bending New requirement in the 1980 Code New requirement in the 1980 Code 1.5.1.4.4 Lateral support requirements for box sections whose depth is larger than 6 times their width 1.5.2.2 1.7 Rivets, bolts, and threaded parts subject to 20,000 cycles or more New requirement in the 1980 Code Change in the requirements 1.7 &
Appendix B 1.7 Members and connections subject to 20,000 cycles or more Change in the requirements
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 744 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 1.9.1.2 &
Appendix C 1.9.2.3 &
Appendix C 1.7 Slender compression unstiff-ened elements subject to axial compression or compression due to bending when actual width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.1.2 Circular tubular elements sub-ject to axial compression New provisions added in the 1980 Code, Appendix C. See case study 10 for details.
New requirement in the 1980 Code 1.10.6 1.10.6 Hybrid girder - reduction in flange stress 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in compos-ite beams 1.11.5 Composite beams or girders with formed steel deck New requirements added in the 1980 Code. Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. See case study 9 for details.
New requirements added in the 1980 Code regarding the distribu-tion of shear connectors (eqn.
1.11-7). The diameter and spacing of the shear connectors are also introduced.
New requirement in the 1980 Code 1.15.5.2 1.15.5.3 1.15.5.4 Restrained members when flange or moment connection plates for and connections of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns New requirement in the 1980 Code 1.13.3 Roof surface not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free drainage or ade-quate individual drains to pre-vent the accumulation of rain water (ponding) 1.14.2.2 Axially loaded tension mem-bers where the load is trans-mitted by bolts or rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members New requirement in the 1980 Code 2.4 1st Para.
2.3 1st Para.
Slenderness ratio for columns.
Must satisfy:
See case study 4 for details.
Fy 40 ksi 40 < Fy < 44 ksi Fy 44 ksi Scale C
B A
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 745 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, M, or S shapes and similar built-up single-web shapes subject to compression 2.9 2.8 Lateral bracing of members to resist lateral and torsional dis-placement See case study 6 for details.
Fy 36 ksi 36 < Fy < 38 ksi Fy 38 ksi See case study 7 for details.
Scale C
B Appendix D Web tapered members New requirement in the 1980 Code Scale B 1.9.2.2 1.9.2 Flanges of square and rectan-gular box sections of uniform thickness, of stiffened ele-ments, when subject to axial compression or to uniform compression due to bending The 1980 Code limit on width-to-thickness ratio of flanges is slightly more stringent than that of the 1963 Code.
1.10.1 Hybrid girders Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. Application of the new requirement could not be much different from other rational method.
1.11.4 1.11.4 Flat soffit concrete slabs, using rotary kiln produced aggre-gates conforming to ASTM C330 1.13.2 Beams and girders supporting large floor areas free of parti-tions or other source of damp-ing, where transient vibration due to pedestrian traffic might not be acceptable 1.14.6.1.3 Flare type groove welds when flush to the surface of the solid section of the bar 1.16.4.2 1.16.4 Fasteners, minimum spacing, requirements between fasten-ers 1.16.5 1.16.5 Structural joints, edge dis-tances of holes for bolts and rivets Lightweight concrete is not per-mitted in nuclear plants as struc-tural members (Ref. ACI-349).
Lightweight construction not applicable to nuclear structures which are designed for greater loads
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 746 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 1.15.5.5 Connections having high shear in the column web New insert ion the 1980 Code 2.3.1 2.3.2 Braced and unbraced multi-story frame - instability effect Instability effect on short buildings will have negligible effect.
2.4 2.3 Members subject to combined axial and bending moments Scale C 1.3.3 1.3.3 Support girders and their con-nections - pendant operated traveling cranes The 1963 Code requires 25%
increase in live loads to allow for impact as applied to travel-ing cranes, while the 1980 Code requires 10% increase.
1.5.1.5.3 1.5.2.2 Bolts and rivets - projected area - in shear connections Fp = 1.5 Fu (1980 Code)
Fp = 1.35 Fy (1963 Code) 1.10.5.3 1.10.5.3 Stiffeners in girders - spacing between stiffeners at end pan-els, at panels containing large holes, and at panels adjacent to panels containing large holes 1.11.4 1.11.4 Continuous composite beams; where longitudinal reinforc-ing steel is considered to act compositely with the steel beam in the negative moment regions Procedure used in the 1963 Code for the interaction analysis is replaced by a different procedure.
See case study 8 for details.
The 1963 Code requirement is more stringent, and, therefore, conservative.
Results using 1963 Code are con-servative.
New design concept added in 1980 Code giving less stringent require-ments. See case study 5 for details.
New requirement added in the 1980 Code
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 747 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Table 3F.3-1 ACI 318-63 VERSUS ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Section ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Structural Elements Potentially Affected 7.10.3 805 Columns designed for stress reversals with variation of stress from fy in compression to 1/2 fy in tension Comments Splices of the main reinforcement in such columns must be reason-ably limited to provide for ade-quate ductility under all loading conditions.
Chapter 9 9.1, 9.2, &
9.3 most specifically 10.1 &
10.10 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying members or elements of the structural system are poten-tially affected All primary load-carrying members Definition of new loads not nor-mally used in design of traditional buildings and redefinition of load factors and capacity reduction fac-tors has altered the traditional analysis requirements.*
Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.*
11.1 All primary load-carrying members 11.13 Short brackets and corbels which are primary load-carry-ing members 11.15 Applies to any elements loaded in shear where it is inappropriate to consider shear as a measure of diagonal ten-sion and the loading could induce direct shear-type cracks 11.16 All structural walls - those which are primary load-carry-ing, e.g., shear walls and those which serve to provide protec-tion from impacts of missile-type objects Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.*
As this provision is new, any exist-ing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria and failure of such elements could be non-duc-tile type failure. Structural integ-rity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements.
Structural integrity may be seri-ously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements.
Guidelines for these kinds of wall loads were not provided by older codes; therefore, structural integ-rity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements.
18.1.4 &
18.4.2 Prestressed concrete elements New load combinations here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.*
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 748 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Chapter 19 Shell structures with thickness equal to or greater than 12 inches Appendix A All elements subject to time-dependent and position-depen-dent temperature variations and which are restrained such that thermal strains will result in thermal stresses Appendix B All steel embedments used to transmit loads from attach-ments into the reinforced con-crete structures Appendix C All elements whose failure under impulsive and impactive loads must be precluded This chapter is completely new; therefore, shell structures designed by the general criteria of older codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter. Additionally, this chapter refers to Chapter 9 provi-sions.
New appendix; older Code did not give specific guidelines on tem-perature limits for concrete. The possible effects of strength loss in concrete at high temperatures should be assessed.
New appendix; therefore, consid-erable review of older designs is warranted.**
New appendix; therefore, consid-erations and review of older designs is considered important.**
Scale B 1.3.2 103(b)
Ambient temperature control for concrete inspection - upper limit reduced 5 (from 100F to 95F) applies to all struc-tural concrete 1.5 Requirement of a "Quality Assurance Program" is new.
Applies to all structural con-crete Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Any elements containing steel with fy > 60,000 psi or light-weight concrete Tighter control to ensure adequate control of curing environment for cast-in-place concrete.
Previous codes required inspection but not the establishment of a quality assurance program.
Use of lightweight concrete in a nuclear plant not likely. Elements containing steel with fy > 60,000 psi may have inadequate ductility or excessive deflections at service loads.
3.2 402 Cement This serves to clarify intent of pre-vious code.
3.3 403 Aggregate Eliminated reference to light-weight aggregate.
3.3.1 403 Any structural concrete cov-ered by ACI 349-76 and expected to provide for radia-tion shielding in addition to structural capacity Controls of ASTM C637, "Stan-dard Specifications for Aggregates for Radiation Shielding Concrete,"
closely parallel those for ASTM C33, "Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates."
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 749 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 3.3.3 403 Aggregate To ensure adequate control.
3.4.2 404 Water for concrete Improve quality control measures.
3.5 405 Metal reinforcement Removed all reference to steel with fy > 60,000 psi.
3.6 406, 407, &
408 Concrete mixtures Added requirements to improve quality control.
4.1 & 4.2 501 & 502 Concrete proportioning Proportioning logic improved to account for statistical variation and statistical quality control.
4.3 504 Evaluation and acceptance of concrete 5.7 607 Curing of very large concrete elements and control of hydra-tion temperature 6.3.3 All structural elements with embedded piping containing high temperature materials in excess of 150F, or 200F in localized areas not insulated from the concrete Added provision to allow for design specified strength at age >
28 days to be used. Not considered to be a problem, since large cross sections will allow concrete in place to continue to hydrate.
Attention to this is required because of the thicker elements encountered in nuclear-related structures.
Previous codes did not address the problem of long periods of expo-sure to high temperature and did not provide for reduction in design allowables to account for strength reduction at high (> 150F) tem-peratures.
7.5, 7.6, &
7.8 805 Members with spliced rein-forcing steel Sections on splicing and tie requirements amplified to better control strength at splice locations and provide ductility.
7.9 805 Members containing deformed wire fabric 7.10 & 7.11 Connection of primary load-carrying members and at splices in column steel New sections to define require-ments for this new material.
To ensure adequate ductility.
7.12.3 7.12.4 Lateral ties in columns To provide for adequate ductility.
7.13.1 through 7.13.3 Reinforcement in exposed concrete New requirements to conform with the expected large thicknesses in nuclear related structures.
8.6 Continuous nonprestressed flexural members.
Allowance for redistribution of negative moments has been rede-fined as a function of the steel per-centage.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 750 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 9.5.1.1 Reinforced concrete members subject to bending - deflection limits 9.4 1505 Reinforcing steel - design strength limitation Allows for more stringent con-trols on deflection in special cases.
See comments in Chapter 3 sum-mary.
9.5.1.2 through 9.5.1.4 Slab and beams - minimum thickness requirements Minimum thickness generally would not control this type of structure.
9.5.2.4 909 Beams and one-way slabs Affects serviceability, not strength.
9.5.3 Non-prestressed two-way con-struction Immediate and long time deflec-tions generally not critical in struc-tures designed for very large live loadings; however, design by ulti-mate requires more attention to deflection controls.
9.5.4 &
9.5.5 Prestressed concrete members Control of camber, both initial and long time in addition to service load deflection, requires more attention for designs by ultimate strength.
10.2.7 Flexural members - new limit on B factor 10.3.6 Compression members, with spiral reinforcement or tied reinforcement, non-prestressed and prestressed.
Lower limit on B of 0.65 would correspond to an f c of 8,000 psi.
No concrete of this strength likely to be found in a nuclear structure.
Limits on axial design load for these members given in terms of design equations.
See case study 2.
10.6.1 10.6.2 10.6.3 10.6.4 1508 Beams and one-way slabs Changes in distribution of rein-forcement for crack control.
10.6.5 Beams New insert 10.8.1 10.8.2 10.8.3 912 Compression members, limit-ing dimensions Moment magnification concept introduced for compression mem-bers. Results using column reduc-tion factors in ACI 318-63 are reasonably the same as using mag-nification.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 751 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 10.11.1 10.11.2 10.11.3 10.11.4 10.11.5 10.11.5.1 10.11.5.2 10.11.6 10.11.7 10.12 915 916 Compression members, slen-derness effects For slender columns, moment magnification concept replaces the so-called strength reduction con-cept but for the limits stated in ACI 318-63 both methods yield equal accuracy and both are acceptable methods.
10.15.1 10.15.2 10.15.3 10.15.4 10.15.5 10.15.6 1404 - 1406 Composite compression mem-bers New items - no way to compare; ACI 318-63 contained only work-ing stress method of design for these members.
10.17 Massive concrete members, more than 48 in. thick New item - no comparison.
11.2.1 11.2.2 11.7 through 11.8.6 Concrete flexural members For non-prestressed members, concept of minimum area of shear reinforcement is new. For pre-stressed members, Eqn. 11-2 is the same as in ACI 318-63.
Requirement of minimum shear reinforcement provides for ductil-ity and restrains inclined crack growth in the event of unexpected loading.
Non-prestressed members Detailed provisions for this load combination were not part of ACI 318-63. These new sections pro-vide a conservative logic which requires that the steel needed for torsion be added to that required for transverse shear, which is con-sistent with the logic of ACI 318-
- 63.
This is not considered to be criti-cal, as ACI 318-63 required the designer to consider torsional stresses; assuming that some ratio-nal method was used to account for torsion, no problem is expected to arise.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 752 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 11.9 through 11.9.6 11.10 through 11.10.7 Deep beams Special provisions for shear stresses in deep beams is new. The minimum steel requirements are similar to the ACI 318-63 require-ments of using the wall steel lim-its.
Deep beams designed under previ-ous ACI 318-63 criterion were reinforced as walls at the mini-mum and therefore no unrein-forced section would have resulted.
Slabs and footings New provision for shear reinforce-ment in slabs or footings for the two-way action condition and new controls where shear head rein-forcement is used.
Logic consistent with ACI 318-63 for these conditions and change is not considered major.
11.11.1 1707 Slabs and footings The change which deletes the old requirement that steel be consid-ered as only 50% effective and allows concrete to carry 1/2 the allowable for two-way action is new. Also deleted was the require-ment that shear reinforcement not be considered effective in slabs less than 10 in. thick.
Change is based on recent research which indicates that such rein-forcement works even in thin slabs.
11.11.2 through 11.11.2.5 Slabs Details for the design of shearhead is new. ACI 318-63 had no provi-sions for shearhead design. This section for slabs and footings is not likely to be found in older plant designs. If such devices were used, it is assumed a rational design method was used.
11.12 Openings in slabs and footings Modification for inclusion of shearhead design.
See above conclusion.
11.13.1 11.13.2 Columns No problem anticipated since pre-vious code required design consid-eration by some analysis.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 753 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Chapter 12 Reinforcement Development length concept replaces bond stress concept in ACI 318-63.
The various 1d lengths in this chapter are based entirely on ACI 318-63 permissible bond stresses.
There is essentially no difference in the final design results in a design under the new code com-pared to ACI 318-63.
12.1.6 through 12.1.63 918(C)
Reinforcement Modified with minimum added to ACI 318-63, 918(C).
12.2.2 Reinforcement New insert in ACI 349-76.
12.2.3 12.4 Reinforcement of special members New insert.
Gives emphasis to special member consideration.
12.8.1 Standard hooks Based on ACI 318-63 bond stress 12.8.2 allowables in general; therefore, no major change.
12.10.1 12.10.2(b)
Wire fabric New insert.
Use of such reinforcement not likely in Category I structures for nuclear plants.
12.11.2 Wire fabric New insert.
Mainly applies to precast pre-stressed members.
12.13.1.4 Wire fabric New insert.
Use of this material for stirrups not likely in heavy members of a nuclear plant.
13.5 Slab reinforcement New details on slab reinforcement intended to produce better crack control and maintain ductility.
Past practice was not inconsistent with this in general.
14.2 Walls with loads in the Kern area of the thickness Change of the order of the empiri-cal equation (14-1) makes the solution compatible with Chapter 10 for walls with loads in the Kern area of the thickness.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 754 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 15.5 Footings - shear and develop-ment of reinforcement 15.9 Minimum thickness of plain footing on piles 16.2 Design considerations for a structure behaving monolithi-cally or not, as well as for joints and bearings.
17.5.3 2505 Horizontal shear stress in any segment 18.4.1 Concrete immediately after prestress transfer Changes here are intended to be compatible with change in concept of checking bar development instead of nominal bond stress consistent with Chapter 12.
Reference to minimum thickness of plain footing on piles which was in ACI 318-63 was removed entirely.
New but consistent with the intent of previous code.
Use of Nominal Average Shear Stress equation (17-1) replaces the theoretical elastic equation (25-1) of ACI 318-63. It provides for eas-ier computation for the designer.
Change allows more tension, thus is less conservative but not consid-ered a problem.
18.5 2606 Tendons (steel)
Augmented to include yield and ultimate in the jacking force requirement.
18.7.1 Bonded and unbonded mem-bers Eqn. 18-4 is based on more recent test data.
18.9.1 18.9.2 18.9.3 18.11.3 18.11.4 18.13 18.14 18.15 18.16.1 Two-way flat plates (solid slabs) having minimum bonded reinforcement Bonded reinforcement at sup-ports Prestressed compression mem-bers under combined axial load and bending. Unbonded tendons. Post tensioning ducts.
Grout for bonded tendons.
Intended primarily for control of cracking.
New to allow for consideration of the redistribution of negative moments in the design.
New to emphasize details particu-lar to prestressed members not pre-viously addressed in the codes in detail.
18.16.2 Proportions of grouting mate-rials Expanded definition of how grout properties may be determined.
18.16.4 Grouting temperature Expanded definition of tempera-ture controls when grouting.
Scale C 7.13.4 Reinforcement in flexural slabs
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 755 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 10.14 2306 Bearing - sections controlled by design bearing stresses 11.2.3 1706 Reinforcement concrete mem-bers without prestressing 13.0 to end Two-way slabs with multiple square or rectangular panels 13.4.1.5 Equivalent column flexibility stiffness and attached torsional members ACI 318-63 is more conservative, allowing a stress of 1.9 (0.25 f c)
= 0.475 f c < 0.6 f c Allowance of spirals as shear rein-forcement is new. Requirement, where shear stress exceeds of 2 lines of web rein-forcement was removed.
Slabs designed by the previous cri-teria of ACI 318-63 are generally the same or more conservative.
Previous code did not consider the effect of stiffness of members nor-mal to the plane of the equivalent frame.
17.5.4 17.5.5 Permissible horizontal shear stress for any surface, ties pro-vided or not provided Nominal increase in allowable shear stress under new code.
Special treatment of load and loading combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
Since stress analysis associated with these conditions is highly dependent on definition of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may vary significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 756 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Table 3F.4-1 ACI 301-63 VERSUS ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced Section ACI 301-72 ACI 301-63 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Comments 3.8.2.1 3.8.2.3 3.8.2.2 3.8.2.3 309b Lower strength concrete can be proportioned when "work-ing stress concrete" is used 309d Mix proportions could give lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) bases proportioning of concrete mixes on the specified strength plus a value determined from the stan-dard deviation of test cylinder strength results. ACI 301-63 bases proportioning for "working stress concrete" on the specified strength plus 15 percent with no mention of standard deviation. High standard deviations in cylinder test results could require more than 15 percent under ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975)
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires more strength tests than ACI 301-63 for evaluation of strength and bases the strength to be achieved on the standard deviation of strength test results.
17.3.2.3 1704d Lower strength concrete could have been used ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires core samples to have an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 percent of the specified strength.
ACI 301-63 simply requires "strength adequate for the intended purpose." If "adequate for the intended purpose" is less than 85 percent of the specified strength, lower strength concrete could be used.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 757 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 17.2 1702a 1703a Lower strength concrete could have been used ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) specifies that no individual strength test result shall fall below the specified strength by more than 500 psi.
ACI 301-63 specifies that either 20 percent (1702a) or 10 percent (1703a) of the strength tests can be below the specified strength. Just how far below is not noted.
15.2.6.1 1502b1 Weaker tendon bond possible ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires fine aggregate in grout when sheath is more than four times the tendon area.
ACI 301-63 requires fine sand addition at five times the tendon area.
15.2.2.1 15.2.2.2 15.2.2.3 1502e1 Prestressing may not be as good ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives considerably more detail for bonded and unbonded tendon anchorages and couplings. ACI 301-63 does not seem to address unbonded tendons.
8.4.3 804b Cure of concrete may not be as good 8.2.2.4 802b4 Concrete may be more nonuni-form when placed 8.3.2 803b Weaker columns and walls possible 5.5.2 Poor bonding of reinforcement to concrete possible 5.2.5.3 Reinforcement may not be as good ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for better control of placing tem-perature. This will give better ini-tial cure.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for a maximum slump loss. This gives better control of the charac-teristics of the placed concrete.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for a longer setting time for con-crete in columns and walls before placing concrete in supported ele-ments.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for cleaning of reinforcement.
ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for use of welded deformed steel wire fabric for reinforcement.
ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section.
5.2.5.1 5.2.5.2 503a Reinforcement may not be as good when welded steel wire fabric is used ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides a maximum spacing of 12 in. for welded intersection in the direc-tion of principal reinforcement.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 758 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 5.2.1 Reinforcement may not have reserve strength and ductility ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has more stringent yield requirements.
4.6.3 406c Floors may crack ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for placement of reshores directly under shores above, while ACI 301-63 states that reshores shall be placed "in approximately the same pattern."
4.6.2 Concrete may sag or be lower in strength 4.6.4 Concrete may sag or be lower in strength 4.2.13 Low strength possible if rein-forcing steel is distorted 3.8.5 Possible to have lower strength floors ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for reshoring no later than the end of the working day when stripping occurs.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for load distribution by reshoring in multistory buildings.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires that equipment runways not rest on reinforcing steel.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) places tighter control on the concrete for floors.
3.7.2 3.4.4 Embedments may corrode and lower concrete strength ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires that it be demonstrated that mix water does not contain a deleteri-ous amount of chloride ion.
3.4.2 3.4.3 Possible lower strength ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) places tighter control on water-cement ratios for watertight structures and structures exposed to chemically aggressive solutions.
1.2 Possible damage to green or underage concrete resulting in lower strength ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for limits on loading of emplaced concrete.
Scale C 3.5 305 Better strength resulting from better placement and consoli-dation ACI 301-63 gives a minimum slump requirement.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits minimum slump which could lead to difficulty in placement and/or consolidation of very low slump concrete. A tolerance of 1 in above maximum slump is allowed pro-vided the average slump does not exceed maximum. Generally the placed concrete could be less uni-form and of lower strength.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 759 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 3.6 306b Better strength resulting from better placement and consoli-dation 3.8.2.1 309b Higher strength from better proportioning 4.4.2.2 404c Better bond to reinforcement gives better strength 4.5.5 405b Better strength and less chance of cracking or sagging 4.6.2 406b Better strength and less chance of cracking or sagging 4.7.1 407a Better strength by curing lon-ger in forms ACI 301-63 provides for use of single mix design with maximum nominal aggregate size suited to the most critical condition of con-creting.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) allows waiver of size requirement if the architect-engineer believes the concrete can be placed and consol-idated.
ACI 301-63 bases proportioning for "ultimate strength" concrete on the specified strength plus 25%.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) bases proportioning on the specified strength plus a value determined from the standard deviation of test cylinder strengths. The require-ment to exceed the specified strength by 25% gives higher strengths than the standard devia-tion method.
ACI 301-63 provides that form coating be applied prior to placing reinforcing steel.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits this requirement. If form coating con-tacts the reinforcement, no bond will develop.
ACI 301-63 provides for keeping forms in place until the 28-day strength is attained.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for removal of forms when speci-fied removal strength is reached.
Same as above but applied to reshoring.
ACI 301-63 provides for cylinder field cure under most unfavorable conditions prevailing for any part of structure.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides only that the cylinders be cured along with the concrete they repre-sent. Cure of cylinders could give higher strength than the in-place concrete and forms could be removed too soon.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 760 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 5.2.2.1 5.2.2.2 5.5.4 5.5.5 Better strength, less chance of cracked reinforcing bars 505b Better strength from reinforce-ment ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has less stringent bending requirement for reinforcing bars than does ACI 318-63.
ACI 301-63 provides for more overlap in welded wire fabric.
12.2.3 1201d Better strength from better cure of concrete 14.4.1 1404 Better strength resulting from better uniformity 15.2.1.1 1502-c1b Higher strength from higher yield prestressing bars 15.2.1.2 1502-c2 Higher strength from better prestressing steel 16.3.4.3 1602-4c Better strength resulting from better cylinder tests 16.3.4.4 1602-4d Better strength, less chance of substandard concrete ACI 301-63 provides for final cur-ing for 7 days with air temperature above 50F.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for curing for 7 days and compres-sive strength of test cylinders to be 70 percent of specified strength.
This could allow termination of cure too soon.
ACI 301-63 provides for a maxi-mum slump of 2 in.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives a tolerance on the maximum slump which could lead to nonuniformity in the concrete in place.
ACI 301-63 requires higher yield stress than does ACI 301-72 (Rev.
1975).
ACI 301-63 requires that stress curves from the production lot of steel be furnished.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires that a typical stress-strain curve be submitted. The use of the typical curve may miss lower strength material.
ACI 301-63 requires 3 cylinders to be tested at 28 days; if a cylinder is damaged, the strength is based on the average of two.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires only two 28-day cylinders; if one is damaged, the strength is based on the one survivor.
ACI 301-63 requires that less than 100 yd3 of any class of concrete placed in any one day be repre-sented by 5 tests.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) allows strength tests to be waived on less than 50 yd3.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 761 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 17.3.2.3 1704d Better strength could be devel-oped ACI 301-63 requires core strengths "adequate for the intended purposes."
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires an average strength at least 85 per-cent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 per-cent of the specified strength. If "adequate for the intended pur-pose" is higher than 85 percent of the specified strength, the concrete is stronger.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 762 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Table 3F.5-1 ACI 318-63 VERSUS ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980,
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection Sec. III 1980 ACI 318-63 Structural Elements Potentially Affected Comments CC-3230 1506 Containment (load combina-tions and applicable load factor)*
Definition of new loads not nor-mally used in design of traditional buildings.
Table CC-3230-1 1506 Containment (load combina-tions and applicable load factor)*
Definition of loads and load combi-nations along with new load factors has altered the traditional analysis requirements.
CC-3421.5 Containment and other ele-ments transmitting in-plane shear CC-3421.6 1707 Peripheral shear in the region of concentrated forces normal to the shell surface New concept. There is no compara-ble section in ACI 318-63, i.e., no specific section addressing in-plane shear. The general concept used here (that the concrete, under cer-tain conditions, can resist some shear, and the remainder must be carried by reinforcement) is the same as in ACI 318-63.
Concepts of in-plane shear and shear friction were not addressed in the old codes and therefore a check of old designs could show some significant decrease in overall pre-diction of structural integrity.
These equations reduce to when membrane stresses are zero, which compares to ACI 318-63, Sections 1707 (c) and (d) which address "punching" shear in slabs and footings with the factor taken care of in the basic shear equation (Section CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 10).
Previous code logic did not address the problem of punching shear as related to diagonal tension, but control was on the average uniform shear stress on a critical section.
See case study 12 for details.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 763 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 CC-3421.7 921 Torsion New defined limit on shear stress due to pure torsion. The equation relates shear stress from a biaxial stress condition (plane stress) to the resulting principal tensile stress and sets the principal tensile stress equal to
. Previous code superimposed only torsion and transverse shear stresses.
See case study 13 for details.
CC-3421.8 Bracket and corbels New provisions. No comparable section in ACI 318-63; therefore, any existing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria and failure of such elements could be non-ductile type failure.
CC-3532.1.2 Where biaxial tension exists ACI 318-63 did not consider the problem of development length in biaxial tension fields.
CC-3900 All sections in this chap-ter Scale B Concrete containment*
New design criteria. ACI 318-63 did not contain design criteria for loading such as impulse or missile impact. Therefore, no comparison is possible for this section.
CC-3320 Shells Added explicit design guidance for concrete reactor vessels not stated in the previous code.
Acceptance of elastic behavior as the basis for analysis is consistent with the logic of the older codes.
CC-3340 Penetrations and openings Added to ensure the consideration of special conditions particular to concrete reactor vessels and con-tainments.
These conditions would have been considered in design practice even though not specifically referred to in the old code.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 764 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Table CC-3421-1 1503(c)
Containment-allowable stress for factored compres-sion loads ACI 318-63 allowable concrete compressive stress was 0.85 f c if an equivalent rectangular stress block was assumed; also ACI 318-63 made no distinction between primary and secondary stress.
ACI 318-63 used 0.003 in./in. as the maximum concrete compres-sive strain at ultimate strength.
CC-3421.4.1 1701 Containment and any section carrying transverse shear Modified and amplified from ACI 318-63, Section 1701.1.
- 1. factors removed from all equations and included in CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 17.
- 2. Separation of equations applica-ble to sections under axial com-pression and axial tension. New equations added.
- 3. Equations applicable to cross sections with combined shear and bending modified for case where < 0.015.
- 4. Modification for low values of will not be a large reduction; therefore, change is not deemed to be major.
CC-3421.4.2 2610(b)
Prestressed concrete sections ACI 318-63, Eqn. 26-13 is a straight line approximation of Eqn.
8 (the "exact" Mohr's circle solu-tion) with the prestress force shear component "V" added.
(Ref. ACI 426 R-74) ACI 318-63, Eqn. 26-12 modified to include members with axial load on the cross section and modified to reflect steel percentage. Remain-ing logic similar to ACI 318-63, Section 2610.
Both codes intend to control the principal tensile stress.
CC-3422.1 1508(b)
Reinforcing steel ACI 318-63 allowed higher fy if full scale tests show adequate crack control.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 765 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 CC-3422.1 1503(d)
All ordinary reinforcing steel CC-3422.1 All ordinary reinforcing steel The requirement for tests where fy
> 60 ksi was used would provide adequate assurance, in old design, that crack control was maintained.
ACI 318-63 allowed stress for load resisting purposes was fy. How-ever, a capacity reduction factor of 0.9 was used in flexure.
Therefore, allowable tensile stress due to flexure could be interpreted as limited to some percentage of fy less than 1.0 fy and greater than 0.9 fy.
Limiting the allowable tensile stress to 0.9 fy is in effect the same as applying a capacity reduction factor of 0.9 to the theoretical equation.
ACI 318-63 had no provision to cover limiting steel strains; there-fore, this section is completely new.
Traditional concrete design prac-tice has been directed at control of stresses and limiting steel percent-ages to control ductility.
The logic of providing a control of design parameters at the centroid of all the bars in layered bar arrange-ment is consistent with older codes and design practice.
CC-3422.2 1503(d)
Stress on reinforcing bars ACI 318-63 allowed the compres-sive steel stress limit to be fy; how-ever, the capacity reduction factor for tied compression members was
= 0.70 and for spiral ties = 0.75, applied to the theoretical equation.
As this overall reduction for such members is so large, part of the reduction could be considered as reducing the allowable compres-sive stress to some level less than fy; therefore, the 0.9 fy limit here is consistent with and reasonably similar to the older code.
CC-3423 2608 Tendon system stresses ACI 318-63 Section 2608 is gener-ally less conservative.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 766 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 CC-3431.3 Shear, torsion, and bearing ACI 318-63 does not have a strictly comparable section; however, the 50% reduction of the ultimate strength requirements on shear and bearing stresses to get the working stress limits is identical to the ACI 318-63 logic and requirements.
Table CC-3431-1 Allowable stresses for ser-vice compression loads Allowable concrete compressive stresses are less conservative than or the same as the ACI 318-63 equivalent allowables.
CC-3432.2 1003(b)
Reinforcing bar (compres-sion)
ACI 318-63 is slightly more con-servative in using 0.4 fy up to a limit of 30 ksi. The upper limit is the same, since ACI 359-80 stipu-lates max fy = 60 ksi.
CC-3432.2 (b), (c) 1004 Reinforcing bar (compres-sion)
Logic similar to older codes.
Allowance of 1/3 overstress for short duration loading.
CC-3433 2606 Tendon system stress Limits here are essentially the same as in ACI 318-63 or slightly less conservative; ACI 318-63 limits effective prestress to 0.6 of the ulti-mate strength or 0.8 of the yield strength, whichever is smaller.
CC-3521 Reinforced concrete Membrane forces in both horizon-tal and vertical directions are taken by the reinforcing steel, since con-crete is not expected to take any tension. Tangential shear in the inclined direction is taken, up to Vc by the concrete, and the rest by the reinforcing steel. In all cases, the ACI concept of is incorpo-rated in the equation as 0.9. While not specifically indicating how to design for membrane stresses, ACI 318-63 indicated the basic prem-ises that tension forces are taken by reinforcing steel (and not concrete) and that concrete can take some shear, but any excess beyond a cer-tain limit must be taken by rein-forcing steel.
CC-3521.2.1 1701 Nominal shear stress Similar to ACI 318-63, with the exception of, which equals 0.85, being included in the Eqn. 17.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 767 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Placing in the stress formula, rather than in the formulae for shear reinforcement, provides the same end result.
CC-3532 Where bundled bars are used Bundled bars were not commonly used prior to 1963; therefore, no criteria were specified in ACI 318-
- 63.
In more recent codes, identical requirements are specified for bun-dled bars.
CC-3532.1.2 918(c)
Where tensile steel is termi-nated in tension zones CC-3532.1.2 1801 Where bars carrying stress are to be terminated Similar to older code, but maxi-mum shear allowed at cutoff point increased to 2/3, as compared to 1/
2 in ACI 318-63, over that nor-mally permitted. Slightly less con-servative than ACI 318-63. This is not considered critical since good design practice has always avoided bar cutoff in tension zones.
Development lengths derived from the basic concept of ACI 318-63 where:
bond strength = tensile strength With = 0.85 CC-3532.3 919(h) 801 No change in basic philosophy for
- 11 and smaller bars.
Hooked bars Change in format. New values are similar for small bars and more conservative for large bars and higher yield strength bars. Not con-sidered critical since prior to 1963 the use of fy > 40 ksi steel was not common.
If then
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 768 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 CC-3533 919 Shear reinforcement Essentially the same concepts.
Bend of 135 now permitted (ver-sus 80 formerly) and two-piece stirrups now permitted. These are not considered as sacrificing strength. Other items here are iden-tical.
CC-3534.1 Bundled bars - any location Provisions for bundled bars were not considered in ACI 318-63.
Bundled bars were not commonly used before the early 1960s. Later codes provide identical provisions.
CC-3536 Curved reinforcement Early codes did not provide detailed information, but good design practice would consider such conditions.
CC-3543 2614 Tendon and anchor rein-forcement CC-3550 Structures integral with con-tainment Similar to concepts in ACI 318-63, Section 2614 but new statement is more specific.
Basic requirements are not changed.
Statement here is specific to con-crete reactor vessels.
The logic of this guideline is con-sistent with the design logic used for all indeterminate structures.
ACI 318-63 did not specifically state any guideline in this regard.
CC-3560 Foundation requirements There is no comparable section in ACI 318-63.
These items were assumed to be controlled by the appropriate gen-eral building code of which ACI 318-63 was to be a referenced inclusion. All items are considered to be part of common building design practice.
Scale C CC-3421.9 2306 (f) and (g)
Bearing ACI 318-63 is more conservative, allowing a stress of 1.9 (0.25 f c) =
0.475 f c < 0.6 f c CC-3431.2 2605 Concrete (allowable stress in concrete)
Identical to ACI 318-63 logic.
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Page 769 of 769 Revision 29 11/2020 Appendix II Concrete reactor vessels ACI 318-63 did not contain any criteria for compressive strength modification for multiaxial stress conditions. Therefore, no compari-son is possible for Section II-1100.
Because of this, ACI 318-63 was more conservative by ignoring the strength increase which accompa-nies triaxial stress conditions.
This section probably does not apply to concrete containment structures.
CC-3531 All Rather conservative for service loads. Using of 0.9 for flexure, for ACI 318-63. By using the value of 2.0, the upper limit of the ratio of factored to service loads is employed.
Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.