ML20205N832
| ML20205N832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1986 |
| From: | Carfagno S, Con V CALSPAN CORP. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17309A392 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 IEB-80-11, TAC-42910, TER-C5506-262, NUDOCS 8605150118 | |
| Download: ML20205N832 (63) | |
Text
_
il*
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT NRC DOCKET NO. 50-244 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 42910 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 NRC CONTRAC I NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRCTASK 262 MASONRY WALL DESIGN ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPOPATION R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TER-C5506-262
~
Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission FRC Group Leader: V. Con Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Lead Engineer:
N. C. Chokshi May 9, 1986 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or Implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this repon, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
esx Ak A.Odad Mh-Principal A.ethor U
P
' Department rectd T!
N Date:
Date: T7-D Date:
j FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER OlVIS!ON OF ARVIN/CAdPAN 20tn & 3 LC1 STREET 5.PHILADELPntA.PA 19105
.=
I TER-C5506-262 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1
INTRODUCTION 1
2 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND 1
e 3
TECIOiICAL EVALUATION 5
3.1 Licensee's criteria 5
3.2 Panels in the Control Building.
6 3.3 Evaluation of the Nonlinear Analytical Method.
10 3.4 Evaluation of Licensee's Approach to Wall Modifications 22 4
CONCLUSIONS 28 5
REFERENCES 30 5
~
APPENDIX A - SGEB CRITERIA 1
APPENDIX B - EVALUATION OF LICENSEE RESPONSES
- 3 i
APPENDIX C
" EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF MASONRY WALLS IN THE CONTROL BUILDING OF R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT," BY A. A. HAMID 44 iii
lN\\
- ll-4 :
s 5
. )
~
e.
4
,' ?
i(s / '
- l t
f TER-C5506-262 '+
q s.
/
a s
- 4 4.
t!
/'
,l v'
s, y t.
j g
i
}
t
>3
\\
r,..
FORD?9RD J
\\
t J
'f
~
t
. s This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared oy Franklin Research Center i
under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Office of Nuclear Recctor Regulation, Division of Operating Eeactors); for technical c
a assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licens mg actions. The s
technical evaluation was conduc' fed in accordance' with 'c[iteria established by 1
s the NRC.
/
T
/
i iN
., 1 j
8 D
s 4
4 4
4 f
\\
)
,I d
k
)
N y,
.c
/
i
'l
/
I 4
6 s
O g
I e
4 4
t V
h L
s e
o 6 f
ar(
.l.
t t
4 9'
4 s t s
4' w
t' I
,v' i
Y m,_
- )
i
?
Y t i
L
2 TER-C5506-262 1.
INTRODUCTION In an effort to respond to IE Bulletin 80-11 (1]. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), the Licensee of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, submitted its reevaluation of the masonry walls to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and evaluation. Franklin Research Center (FRC) was retained by the NRC to review and assess the Licensee's 3
submittals.
Dr. A. Hamid was retained by FRC to evaluate the nonlinear analysis methodology used by the Licensee in qualifying a number of masonry walls in the plant.
This report represents FRC evaluation and sssessments based on the review of the Licensee's submittals, other published literature, and test data relating to this subject. The report also reflects the results of a number of meetings with the Licensee regarding safety issues of masonry walls in the plant.
In an attempt to qualify a number of walls in the control building, the Licensee relied on test data performed by Southern California Edison Company
_3 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1) to validate a nonlinear analysis
)
technique. Results of the test are considered proprietary information by the Licensee. Therefore, the information concerning the test data presented in this report is proprietary information.
l 4
l l
=.
TER-C5506-262 2.
PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND 1
In response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) provided NRC with letters and attachments dated July 7, 1980 (2],
November 4,~1980 (3), and January 30, 1981 [4] describing the analysis of masonry walls at the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. The information in these documents was reviawed and a request for additional information was sent to the Licensee on September 21, 1983. The Licensee responded in the submittals of July 13, 1984 [5] and October 19, 1984 [6]. As a result of a review of these submittals, more questions arose concerning the analysis method and acceptance criteria for the masonry walls at this plant; the questions were discussed in a meeting and site visit between the NRC, its concultants, and the Licensee on April 2 and 3, 1985.
The original seismic analysis of the masonry walls at the Ginna plant followed the FSAR and did not use floor response spectra.
In its July 13, 1984 submittal, however, the Licensee indicated that the safety-related masonry walls had been reanalyzed using the site-specific SEP earthquake (0.17g r
ground acceleration) and floor response spectra.
t, RG&E reported a total of 37 safety-related masonry walls functioning'as i
shield, partition, or fire walls. These walls were subdivided into 56 panels for engineering purposes.
Typically, the walls are hollow, single-wythe, and reinforced horizon-tally wit' Dur-O-Wall joint reinforcing every 8 or 16 inches. Twelve walls are also reinforced vertically. Most walls are 8 or 12 inches thick. The materials used in construction are as follows:
Hollow masonry units - ASTM C90-665, Grade 11 Interior partition units - Haydite block l
Joint reinforcing - Dur-O-Wal y
I Mortar - ASTM C 270-64T, Type N.
A total of 29 panels satisfied the SGEB criteria after some form of I
l modifications. The modifications consisted of the addition of structural l
steel supports at the edges to assure the assumed boundary conditions and the l
addition of intermediate steel supports across the wall face to reduce span.
~ *,
TER-C5506-262 length. An evaluation of the Licensee's approach to modifications is provided in Section 3.6.
Results of the original evaluation indicated that 27 panels did not meet the SGEB criteria. The failure of one panel (971-2M) was deemed acceptable as explained in Response 8 of Appendix B; the other 26 panels were under consideration for modifications and/or further refined analysis.
l A total of 14 panels will be modified, and the remaining 12 panels in the
~8 control building were considered for further refined analysis (including nonlinear analysis). A meeting was held between NRC, FRC, and the Licensee on April 2 and 3, 1985 to discuss the nonlinear analysis method. A number of questions were raised in this meeting regarding the validity and applicability of this method to the walls in the Ginna plant. On September 24, 1985, another meeting was held to discoss and identify additional investigations regarding the validity of this methodology. 7s a result of this meeting and subsequent conference telephone conversations, the Licensee proposed, with NRC concurrence, the following course of actions:
Further investigation to indicate the number of panels that could be
- )
o qualified relying on the SGEB criteria.
i}
Additional work to validate the nonlinear analytical method before o
using it to qualify the panels in the control building.
4 The Licensee submitted additional information regarding the above actions in letters dated December 19, 1985 (7] and January 14, 1986 (8).
The status of the 56 panels is summarized below:
Twenty-nine panels satisfied the SGEB criteria after soes o
modifications l
Two panels satisfied the SGEB criteria after a refined analysis L-o l
Ten panels were qualified using a nonlinear analysis technique o
One panel was reclassified as non safety-related o
Fourteen panels are scheduled for modifications.
o The Licensee confirmed in a letter dated March 25, 1986 that all modifications are expected to be completed by late 1988 to mid-1989. The l - - -. - - -,.. - -.
TER-C5506-262 Licensee also stated that modifications will be provided to certain safety-related panels to protect them from tornado and missile effects. To install these modifications, the Licensee will take into account the possible damaging effects of seismic motion in light of the requirements of IE Bulletin 80-11.
1 TER-C5506-262 3.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION 3.1 LICENSEE'S CRITERIA This evaluation is based on the Licensee's earlier responses (July 7, 1980; November 4, 1980; January 30, 1981) and subsequent responses (5-8] to the NRC's request for additional information. This evaluation is also a result of a number of meetings and a site visit. The Licensee's criteria were evaluated with regard to design and analysis methods, loads and load combinations, allowable stresses, construction specifications, materials, and any relevant test data.
The criteria used by the Licensee are summarized below:
o For linear elastic analysis:
the working stress design method was used. Allowable stresses are based on ACI 531-79 [9].
o Load combinations are taken from the FSAR.
A damping value of 7% was used for the SEP (Systematic Evaluation o
Program) loading.
i A typical analytical procedure used in the working stress design o
method is summarized below:
determine wall boundary conditions (fixed, pinned, or free) calculate the wall's fundamental frequency using a two-way plate action assumption (computer program SAP IV was used) obtain inertial loading from the average of the response spectra occurring at the top and base of the wall of the walls is supported at the top if the wall is free at the top, the spectrum at the base is used compute stress 4
increase the computed stress 5% to account for higher modes of vibration 1
compare computed stresses with allowable values.
With regard to the linear elastic analysis, the Licensee's criteria are considered satisfactory and acceptable in light of the SGEB criteria. Further discussion on this is given in Appendix B.
The nonlinear analysis technique used to qualify a number of reinforced walls in the control building was developed for the inelastic transverse analysis of centrally reinforced masonry walls. This methodology allows wall deformation to extend beyond its elastic limits. As the wall deformation falls 1 -.
TER-C5506-262 into the inelastic range, plastic hinges are formed; vertical rebars are allowed to yield while the mortar bed joints are in compression only (gap element).
The following criteria were introduced in the nonlinear analysis (10]:
Transverse Loads Maximum displacement of the wall is limited by a maximum steel strain o
to yield strain (ductility ratio) of 45 Masonry face shell strain is limited to 0.003 o
o Wall stability is checked.
Load Combinations Two load cases were used:
l Load Case Out-of-plane In-plane Vertical 1
100%
40%
40%
2 40%
100%
4 0>.
r 1
3.2 PANELS IN THE CON'"ROL BUILDING As previously stated, a total of 12 panels are in the Ginna control building and ten of these walls have been qualified relying on the nonlinear t
analytical procedures. The other two panels were qualified by a refined linear elastic analsysis. The layout of panels in the control building is provided in Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3.
The panels in the control building have the following construction characteristics:
Seven panels extending between two floors (spanning walls) o l'
Five cantilever panels extending partial story height o
The spanning panels are reinforced with one No. 3 bar at every 32 o
inches.
The cantilever panels are reinforced with two No. 3 bars at every 16 o
inches.
Iha joint reinforcement consists of either Dur-O-Wal standard truss o
type at every 8 inches or Dur-O-Wal extra heavy truss type at every 16 iaches.
1 i
1 l
TER-C5506-262 s
i l
3C.
s 1
j D
'N
/
o n
0*
/,
ll '
/y li
/
lI n ).-
Figure 3-1.
Control Building Walls Elevation 289 feet, 6 inches I l
t
O
- a o
TER-C5506-262 x r,
\\
e sh
/
/
i
/
y s
/
l l
v J
\\ /\\
N 19 ~
,u s
V7 7 ~ s
~,~ t n
e i
/
,v. - --/
G 5)=/M 5/
5
?
~
\\
MM\\
N
\\
Wh f
\\
2 I
f, M
- v..
......T.~.~. ; ',, r
~~
/
_e-
O.
e 83=2'eO 4
O y,'
3
%h se
+
c n
):
i 8
Ni! / k t
ee f
3 5
2 h'
no i
ta v
m.
e 2
1
/'
lE s
9i j
- l e.
la W
h
/
l!
N g
n i
f d
~
l g
x i
y/
i u
B
'4 lo N
r t
h
.P ' :N noC M :' -
l 3
l j.
3 f
e N'
rug i
F
/
2 8
!: o y
i Ik 4
l' ll l4 a\\
l
e s
TER-C5506-262 o
The panel height varies between 10 feet 3 inches to 18 feet and is 8 inches thick.-
o The panels are partially grouted.
3.3 EVALUATION OF THE NONLINEAR ANALYTICAL METHOD 4
As discussed in the report prepared by FRC (11] regarding the nonlinear analysis method used by San Onofre Unit 1, a limited correlation was performed to validate the methodology.
In general, the analytical procedures were able to capture the behavior of the test walls for the San Onofre case. However, due to differences in the input values of the test and the analysis, several parameters in the correlation study did not exhibit close agreement. It was judged that additional study should be conducted before using this methodology for walls in other plants (11].
Based on the results of several meetings with the Licensee, an additional i
correlation study of the San Onofre test and analytical data was performed by RG&E to validate the analytical procedures previously used in the San Onofre program so that.they could be applied to the Ginna walls. This correlation j
study was carried out using the actual test data obtained from the San Onofre program.
As a result of this correlation study, the previously developed model has i
been modified and used to quality a total of 10 panels in the control building.
3.3.1 Analytical Procedures The following information highlights the key features of the detailed a
model used in the analysis:
o A finite element model based on the DRAIN-20 and ANSR-II computer l
programs was used.
o Plastic hinges were included in the midsection and the base in the model.
The plastic hinge was modeled as a truss bar which yields in tension.
o o
A minimum of two joints (mortar joints) on either side of the points of maximum moment were included in the model.
o At the mortar joint, the face shell was modeled as truss bar elastic in compression with no tension capacity.
6 e
TER-C5506-262 o
Blocks between nortar joint were modeled as plane stress elements.
Detailed discussions on the modeling techniques are summarized in Reference 11.
The following steps outline the general approach used in the analysis:
Development of a detailed model representing every block and mortar o
joint as well as the rebar and face shell of each joint. Figure 3-4 illustrates this model.
0 Development of a force displacement relationship of the model by o
applying a monotonically increasing lateral load, Development of a substructure model including the force displacement o
characteristics obtained above. This substructure model was basically a simplified version of the detailed model in which the overall hysteresis loop was included as a part of a single yielding element.
Dynamic analysis of the substructure model using the actual test time o
histories, Analysis of the detailed model using the maximum displacements o
obtained from the substructure model. The results of this analysis a
are the maximum masonry compressive strains, the maximum steel strain ratios, the length of yielding rebar, and the maximum gap openings.
4 The above steps are summarized in the flowchart shown in Figure 3-5.
3.3.2 Correlation Study In order to validate the nonlinear analysis method that RG&E intended to apply to the masonry walls at the Ginna plant, RG&E examined the ability of the method to predict the behavior of test walls. To do this, RG&E performed a correlation study of actual test and analytical data from another plant, San p
Onofre, which had used the same nonlinear analysis method.
If the correlation was good, then the analysis method could be considered valid and then could be applied to the walls at the Ginna plant.
To validate the methodology, the following items were examined in the correlation study (this study was carried out using the San Onofre test data):
o eccentricity of rebar o
masonry strains o
steel yield stress length of yielding rebar o,
.a
%s TER-C5506-262 3
b Q
~~
D o
'n i
3 ELASTIC PLANE STRESS ELEMENTS ACE SHELL 7 625' 4
I ESAR ELEMENTS I
sn
~~
w r
d 8
i.
2
~~
_M
_M m
r 1
r
/t
- L li TT%%NT wxus s. s x xw Figure 3-4.
Detailed Wall Representation - - -.-
TER-C5506-262 i
~
a t a t
- g DEVELOPMENT OF l
4 DETAILED MODEL p
j L
INCLuDeNo ALL StoCx8.
y JDINTS. FACE 8HEl.L8 AND l l IESAM.
4 P a O S T'AI N FORCE
{
DISPLACEMENT RELATION 8 HIP FOR DETAILED MDDEL
- g l
P U
k h
DEvEtOP SU.TRoCTuRE 7
f
}
MODEL AND CORRELATE P _
r FORCE DISPLACEMENT
/_A CURWE WITH STEP 2 l,
15 i
I Aa PEMORM STEP-BY-STEP
[b DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ON
^
[
SUSSTRUCTURE MODEL
^%
7 AND OSTAIN MAXIMUM Lg DeP -
U APPLY M AXIM UM DISPLACEMENTS
- s O h
DETAILED MODEL A4D 5
u OSTAIN DETAIL 5D MATERIAL RESPONSE PARAAETEM 1
Figure 3-5.
Flowchart for Evaluation Procedure - - -. - - - - - -.. - - - _, _
- s TER-C5506-262 o
permanent set in the walls o
differences in analytical and test input motions.
For the correlation, the analytical results of the most critical wall of the San Onofre plant (wall FB5 (11]) were compared with test results of three test panels of the San Onofre test program, namely wall types lA, 1B, and 1C (1A, 1B, and 1C are three test samples representing the walls in the fuel storage building of the San Onofre plant).
The analysis was conducted using the actual input test motion and the actual tested yield strength for the rebar.
In addition, the wall self-weight was included in the analysis. The length of yielding rebar was set so
[
that it would vary according to displacement. The rebar eccentricity was also included in this analysis.
A comparison was obtained for the following parameters:
I L
o maximum mid-span deflections o
maximum masonry compressive strains o
maximum steel strain ratios
{
o length of yielding rebar t
o maximum gap openings.
(Further discussions on these parameters are provided in Reference 11.)
[
3.3.3 Correlation Results The results from the San Onofre plant are introduced in Table 3-1 and l
used in this correlation.
The results of the analysis of wall types lA, 1B, and 1C are presented in i
Tables 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.
It is worth noting that the analysis was carried I
for a wall without eccentricity and a wall with eccentricities of 0.4 inch, l
0.6 inch, and 0.8 inch.
l 3.3.4 Evaluation of the Correlation Results i
As previously mentioned, the results of several parameters were obtained and are discussed below:
l i
I l 1
e c,.
o TER-C5506-262 Table 3-1.
Summary of Wall Test Results 4
PROPRIETARY IltFCRlMTI0li HAS BEEil Reft 0VED o
Table 3-2.
Results for Wall Type 1A n
e I
e l
7 'O b XJ mo
'O C3 M mm MM zw 9<
NE,,
m CO M9 N
s
.A mom i
N DJ
-,. ~..
-...e
1 J
d i
I Table 3-3.
Results for Wall Type IB i
1 1
i 1
l l
1 i
i 1
w 8
1 l
l o
SM mO l
7 C1 D i
mM i
mm
= -4>
Mr m,M mOM e-1
<C t'l m "T1 M
CO e
D
()
N"
-i o
i cm O
l l
z um N
I
%> d e
- 4,,
o e
b)
Table 3-4.
Results for Wall Type 1C i
>d CD I
>W mC CD W 4
mW ZH>
WW m4 oM ME aoN ti N
M A
O Z
v.
U1 miNcn N
..,w
C t
TER-C5506-262 i
i 1
I i
PROPRIETARY INFORf!ATION FIAS DEEtJ RE110VED l _ _ _
b.
TER-C5506-262 In general, the methodology is capable of capturing the overall wall o
behavior.
Further assessments of the correlation study are provided in Appendix C.
3.3.5 Analysis Results As a part of the reevelution of 12 panels in the Ginna control building, an analysis was performed using the working stress method to determine whether any of these panels could satisfy the SGEB criteria by elastic analysis prior to employing the nonlinear analysis. One of the key features of the new elastic analysis was to consider the effects of the reinforcement, which was conservatively ignored in the original analysis.
b The results of this analysis are tabulated in Table 3-5.
It is obvious from this table that only two panels, 972-1C and 972-3C, were qualified by elastic analysis. The remaining ten panels have rebar stresses in excess of the allowable limits and therefore would require qualification by the inelastic analysis methodology.
A Three critical panels were selected for nonlinear analysis:
two spanning panels and one cantilever panel. Of the spanning panels, 971-1C and 971-6C l
were selected based on their highest and lowest steel stress ratio obtained from the elastic analysis. In this way, results for other spanning panels can be obtained by interpolating the results of these two panels. Of the three cantilever panels, panel 973-4C had a high stress ratio and low thickness (6 inches). This panel was selected for the analysis.
For the nonlinear analysis, the results of the ccerelation study described in Section 3.3.4 were factored in the nonlinear model, which include the following: the length of the yielding robar was set as a variable in the
[
model (as opposed to a preset fixed length in the original model) such that it would vary according to displacement; the eccentricity of the rebar was also included in the modified model. In addition, the effect of the wall self-weight was included in the modified model.
Panel 971-1C Panel 971-1C is 16 feet high, 38 feet and 1 inch long.
No. 3 rebars are at 32-inch spacing and Dur-O-Wal is in the horizontal direction.
l
~
1 Table 3-5.
Ginna Control Building Walls: Elastic Analysis i
WHALL stA300 subs STMS8ES mmam STMSS RA_TIO. S.._.
1.D.
HOl4200sTAL VERTICAL HOfEZONTAL VER79 CAL _ _,_,
l es -ry si es es
=y aseel asesonry si es asesonry sense l
seassesses umas I
j 971-1C 62 19 0 677 76.3 0.09 0.30 0.67 2.16 l
971-2C 77 17.6 596 69.2 0.17 0.26 0.60 1.92 971-4C 61 14.0 677 55.3 0.06 0.22 0.67 1,54 971-5C 57 13.0 537 62.2 0.06 0.20 0.54 1.73 971-6C 62 14.3 369 45.1 0.06
'O.23 0.39 1.25 i
972-4C/5C 107 24.6 556 64.5 0.11 0.39 0.55 1.79 J
972-6C 92 20.9 616 71.3 0.09 0.33 0.61 1.96 l
CAssTIEVER 41At18 i
i u
Y 972-1C (1) 972-2C 57 13.1 513 51.3 0.06 0.20 0.51 1.43
)
972-3C 64 6.9 337 33.7 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.94 973-3C 40 7.7 450 36.6 0.04 0.12 0.45 1.02 973-4C 92 17.6 579 47.3 0.09 0.26 0.56 1.31 l
i NOTES:
1.
Wall 972-1C did not crack.
s 2.
Stresses are in pel for masonry and kol for sseet.
Mausmem allowable stresses after cracking are assumed to be 0.65f'm for masonry and 0.9Fy for steel.
E 4
3.
The provides 1003 pel for masonry. 63 ksi for Dur-O-Wal and 36 ksi for vertical steel.
[
j O
l i
Ch,
TER-C5506-262 The time histories based on the El Centro, Olympia, and Taft time histories were used in the analysis.
In addition, rebar eccentrities of 0.4 in, 0.6 in, and 0.8 in were evaluated using the El Centro based record. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3-6.
Panel'971-6C Panel 971-6C has construction details that are similar to those of panel f
971-lC; the major difference is the amount of openings. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3-7.
Panel 973-4C Since panel 973-4C is a doubly reinforced panel, the hysteresis shape of the panel is not similar to those of the spanning panels; thus, the detailed model (instead of the substructure model) was employed for the analysis. To account for uncertainties in rebar placement, two eccentricities were considered:
^
o Each bar to be placed against the face shell rather than with a 0.5-in cover.
o One of two bars was assumed to be misplaced by 0.5 in towards the center of the grouted cell.
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3-8.
It can be seen from Tables 3-6, 3-7, and 3-8 that the masonry and steel strain for the three selected panels are well below the Licensee's criteria.
As discussed in Section 3.3.1, the new correlation study of the nonlinear analytical procedures using actual material properties and input motions resulted in a better correlation with test data.
It is, therefore, concluded l
that the panels being analyzed will withstand the postulated seismic excitation.
3.4 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S APPROACH TO WALL MODIFICATIONS Of the 56 safety-related panel panels at the Ginna plant, 29 meet the SGEB criteria after modifications.
t.
.- A2RAf 1
DW I 3 1 1 54.
T f
8 00 E O A C 9
00 35 01 FA S 1
00 25 28 00 T B E 3
R A DC 1 3 I
1 1 P E 52 f
MS O 2
00 e
Y A O 7
00 98 01 3-1 00 1 4 48 00 BM L
2 O
- 8 23 1 1 0
82 8
00 C
=
3 00 72 01 2
00 36 08 00 l
41 C
8 W C 1
7 f
E 9
OC l
M laW D
- 4 r
E 1 3 0
1 1 o
S 62 A
8 00 f
B 8
00 56 01
=
1 00 25 08 00 s
t C
4 D C l
~.
u R
E s
T e
R NEC 6
L E
0 1 3 3
1 1 53
=
2 00 8
00 21 01 e
l 1
00 25 28 00 b
C 3
a C
T E
G T
E W
N)
N S
I E)
S O
0 Ns I
0 e
I f
E h Ms S T
i A
D )s Pc 9
Ee M L
On)
E C h R
c P Ee Os S
An h
P e
I A
N Le R
N Vc h
Mh nt At h O
P O
t t
hc h
Ggn P
S C
g Rig FG g I n O
i S
Dn eO i
ie Te Re tH d
R m NN -
E e
H SH HA s
U-e h
s
- e TB-de B
E d A 6s de Lds a
Ta I
a gel e 08 1
e LRBAeB EaB NRoS l
l 3B Ns 1
Et t
A a
E MT T
E A
C R S S
L B
Y i!11!ll
,4 ii.l' ilii!li, I
i ll l
i
TER-C5506-262 Table 3-7.
Results for Wall 971-6C MSPONSE EL CENTRO OLYMPIA TAFT PARAMETER BASED ftECOfC BASED MCOfW SASED MCOfM)
CENTER DISPLACEMENT Madmem Onches) 1.26 1.s9 2.20 MASONRY COMPMSSIVE STRAIN Mid-Height 0.0011
'O.0011 0.0012 Base 0.0012 0.0013 0.0013 STEEL STRAIN RATICS Mid-Height 2.5 2.9 Base 3.s 5.8 6.5 LENGTH OF YlELDING REBAR Gnches) l Mid-height 40 40 Base a
a a
r.
MA)GMUM GAP OPENING Mie-Height Onches) 0.02 0.06 0.07 Base Onches) 0.09 0.14 0.16 l. -
- ~
. ~.
0 H a$o "~
DW T
i T
f 5
E O 9
0 F S A A C 5
0 2
0 BM 0
4 e
0 T
3 h
MDM 6
f 1
4 NE O 0
0 V A C 5
0 0
0 t S 3
0 3
e 0
BM LO C
4 0
3 5
3 7
9 0
1 2
2 0
=
2 0
3 0
3 0
1 a
0 D C l
l f
C aW O E C
M ro f
s D
57 t
E 3
7 t
l S
1 3
u A
0 3
0 s
B 2
0 5
0 e
=
3 0
2 e
0 R
O C R C T
E 8
N E
3 C
e L
l b
E 0
4 a
1 3
T
=
5 0
9 0
2 0
C 2
0 2
e 0
C E
N)
E W
S S
O a
I s
S I
Wa T
e s
s M
A D3 9 s ne.
e R
E Et e
0 c P*
s S
0 n 0
s Pe 0
N vc S
Ee i
I n
At IO C
0 A
Fa Gc C
n P
A. n R
O e
e S
I T
R M
Fo Y M
Sn R S
As mBe Ue eNe s
e t
A s d
l s Le Di e Na e OIAa Ee oms XB Pa S RB E S s
u A
A T T
E e
O A
T RS S
t h
hI lil ll
}Ii1' l'
!iI, 1
- l llii l
1 ii !
i
'e o,
TER-C5506-262 tiodifications to the 29 panels that meet the SGEB criteria consisted of the addition of structural steel members at the edges to assure that the boundary conditions (pinned) are as assumed in the analysis (Figure 3-6).
In some cases, intermediate supports were added across the face of the panel to reduce the panel span ler.gth.
The Licensee's approach to panel modifications has been reviewed and found adequate.
Of the esmaining 26 panels, 2 panels were qualified by a refined analysis using the working stress method, 10 panels were qualified by the nonlinear analysis method, and the other 14 panels will be modified. The Licensee has made a commitment to complete all modifications by late 1988 to mid-1989.
These 14 panels will be modified in accordance with the table'below:
Panel Corrective ID Measure 973-17A (3)
Provide net to catel: loose blocks 973-17A (4) s 973-17A (7)
,(
972-II Provide device to protect safety-related 972-3I equipment from falling blocks l
972-4I 972-8I 972-10I 972-12I (5) 972-12I (7) 972-121 (8) 973-1I (A) 973-1I (C) 973-1I (D) if I
i 2
f o.
TER-C5506-262 A
EXISTlWG # et deWh (Wr 9dawdh 11 WT M VARIE S (l'MlW.)
P s
W r e-/ kVt A J
-(4% )
% um M
j-,'
arr n.
- s.-
% k*OO( LE%TH
,' t ; 2.'..,','; s. ;....
arkaM
' _'.. i:' b.
R
,?. J,,. Q, T.
AS REQ'O) a
.,.,7 "R'E 8
_
- ExtSTauG MA*0AY WALL c>
Figure 3-6.
Typical Modification l l
(
WJ f
J 1
(
' n9
- f
\\
TER-C5506-262
,/
i i
4 t
3 lt s
4.
CONCLUSIONS
~
t.
y
/
A detailed study was performed to provide a technical evaluation of the mason'ry wa'lls at the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. Review of the Licensee's
?
critsria'and additional information provided by the Licensee led to the conclusions given below.
TheLicensee'sc$riteriahavebeenfoundtechnicallyadequateandin compliance with the SGEB criteria except for ths following areas:
According to the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report (August 22, 1983),
o the loads for the safety-related structures at.the Ginna plant were determined by the Systematic Evaluation Prograv and did not include the OBE loads. The reason for this was consideration of the SSE as the governing case and the major safety concern. Therefore, the evaluation of the masonry walls for only the SSE condition is adequate.
An increase factor of 1.5 for allowable tension stress normal to the o
bed joint was used instead of the factor of 1.3 specified by the SGEB criteria. However, even if the 1.3 factor were used, the factored m
allowable stress would be exceeded in only two cases, walls 3-17A-5 and Z-ZI, by 10% and 7%, respectively.
Of the 56 safety-related wall panels, 29 wall panels meet the SGEB o
criteria after structural modifications. These modifications include the addition of structural steel at the edges to ensure that the actual boundary conditions are as assumed in the analysis.
In some
(
cases, intermediate supports have been added across the wall face to reduce the span length of the wall. Twenty-seven walls do not meet the SGEB criteria, although one ot' these, 971-ZM, is a lead brick wall whose fr.ilure would not damage any safety-related equipment.
Twelve panels were 7.ialified by refined analyses. The remaining 14 panels will be modified as outlined in Section 3.4.
With regard to the nonlinear analytical procedures, the following 1-conclusions are reached:
o The new correlation study of the nonlinear analytical procedures using actual material properties and input motions resulted in better correlation with test data.
o The results illustrated that ductility demand for the walls being analyzed is not high. Steel and masonry strains are well below the specified criteria.
6.,
TER-C5506-262 o
The analytical procedures are judged to be adequate and the walls are expected to perform their intended functions during pc'stulated seismic excitation.
Further assessments of the nonlinear analytical procedures are given in Appendix C.
The Licensee has made a conunitment to modify the remaining 14 panels by
- g late 1988 to mid-1989. The Licensee's approach to wall modifications has been reviewed and judged to be satisfactory.
I i
.3 h
a 1..
TER-C5506-262 5.
REFERENCES 1.
IE Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Wall Design NRC, May 8, 1981 2.
L. D. White, Jr.
Letter with attachments to B. H. Grier (NRC)
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80-11 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation July 7, 1980 3.
J. E. Maier Letter with attachments to B. H. Grier (NRC)
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80-11 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation November 4, 1980 4.
J. E. Maier Letter with attachments to B. H. Grier (NRC)
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80-11 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation January 30, 1981 5.
R. W. Kober Letter with attachments to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC)
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80-11, Request for Additional Information Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation l
July 13, 1984 6.
R. W. Kober Letter with attachments to W. A. Paulson (NRC)
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80-11, Addendum to RG and RE Submittal dated July 13, 1984 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation October 14, 1984 7.
R. W. Kober I
Letter with attachments to G. E. Lear (NRC)
Subject:
Seismic Masonry Wall Analyses, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant l
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation December 19, 1985 8.
R. W. Kober Letter with attachments to G. E. Lear (NRC)
Subject:
Masonry Wall Design, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation j
January 14, 1986 l
9.
Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures Detroit, American Concrete Institute, 1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 l
6 TER-C5506-262 10.
Dr. L. R. Jones Presentation to NRC Computech Engineering Services, Inc., September 24, 1985 11.
" Masonry Wall Design, Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Unit 1," Technical Evaluation Report TER-C5506-405, Franklin Research Center, June 28, 1985 I
J 4, - -
4.,
APPENDIX A I
SGEB CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION (DEVELOPED BY THE STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH (SGEB) OF THE NRC) i l
l
==
l l
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20th & PACE STREETS. PHILADELPHIA.PA 19103
4
. e 4
TER-C5506-158 l
CONTENTS Section Title Page 1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A-1 2
LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS.
A-1 a.
Service Load Combinations A-1 b.
Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions.
A-2 3
ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
A-2 4
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS.
A-3 5
REFERENCES.
A-4 4
I i
-cup iii
a..
4 TER-C5506-158 1.
General Requirements The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection related to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the applicable requirements contained in Uniform Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise, by the provisions in this criteria.
The use of other standards or codes, such as ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is However, when the provisions of these codes are less also acceptable.
conservative than the corresponding provisions of the criteria, their use should be justified on a case-by-case basis.
For In new construction, no unreinforced masonry walls will be permitted.
operating plants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by the
~
Plants which are applying for an operating provisions of these criteria.
license and which have already built unreinforced masonry walls will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
2.
Loads and Load Combinations The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normal loads, severe environmental loads, extreme environmental loads, and Specifically, for operating plants, the load combinations 4
abnormal loads.
For operating license provided in the plant's FSAR shall govern.
applications, the following load combinations shall apply (for definition of load terms, see SRP Section 3.8.4II-3).
l (a) Service Load Conditions (1) D+L (2) D+L+E (3) D + L + W 5I lI If thermal stresses due to To and Ro are present, they should be included in the above combinations as follows:
(la) D + L + To + Ro (2a) D+L+To + Ro + E (3a) D + L + To + Ro + W Check load combination for controlling condition for maximum
'L' and for no
'L'.
A-1
)
a, TER-C5506-158 (b) Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions (4) D + L + To+Ro+E (5). D + L + To+Ro+Wt (6) D+L+Ta+Ra + 1.5 Pa (7) D+L+Ta+Ra + 1.25 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Y ) + 1.25 E m
(8) D + L + Ta+Ra + 1.0 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Y ) + 1.0 E'
{l m
In combinations (6), (7), and (6) the maximum values of P, T '
a a
Y, and Y, including an appropriate dynamic load R
- Yje r
m a
factor, should be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to j.
justify otherwise. Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural acceptance criteria should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Y Y'*
and Y in (7) and (8).
Whenconsideringtheseloads,localsec! ion r
m strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related i
system.
Both cases of L having its full value or being completely absent c
should be checked.
6 3.
Allowable Stresses Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following modifications / exceptions, shall apply.
i>
(a) When wind or seismic loads (OBE) are considered in the loading l
combinations, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted.
(b) Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection r
i category shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with the inspection requirements of the SEB criteria.
l l
(c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in cualifying the s
I unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loading y'
conditions. For reinforced masonry walls, all the tensile stresses 1:
will be resisted by reinforcement.
f (d) For load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal, abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme environmental conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the factors shown in the following table:
A-2
s TER-C5506-158 Type of Stress Factor Axial or Flexural Compression 2.5 Bearing 2.5 Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy Shear reinforcement and/or bolts 1.5 Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1.5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint for reinforced masonry 0
2 1.3 for unreinforced masonry Notes (1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial spalling of masonry unit.
2 (2) See 3(c).
4.
Design and Analysis Considerations (a) The analysis should follow established principles of engineering mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices.
(b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper considerations to boundary conditions, cracking of sections, if any, and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls.
(c) Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis shall be those for i
reinforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
t I
(d) In general, for operating plants, the seismic analysis and Category I l
structural requirements of FSAR shall apply. For other plants, corresponding SRP requirements shall apply. The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, materials, and other pertinent parameters used.
t l
(e) The analysis should consider both in-plane and out-of-plane loads.
(f) Interstory drift effects should be considered.
l i
A-3
As TER-C5506-158 (g) In new construction, grout in concrete masonry walls, whenever used, shall be compacted by vibration.
I (h) For masonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of ACI-531 shall apply.
(i) Special constructions (e.g., multiwythe, composite) or other items not covered by the code shall be reviewed on a esse-by-case basis for their acceptance.
(j) Licensees or applicants shall submit QA/QC information, if available.
for staff's review.
In the event QA/QC information is not available, a field survey and a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design
'f' drawings and specifications (e.g., rebar and grouting).
(k) For masonry walls requiring protection from spalling and scabbing due l'
to accident pipe reaction (Y ),
jet impingement (Y ), and missile I
r impact (Y ), the requirements similar to those of SRP 3.5.3 shall m
apply. However, actual review will be conducted on a case-by-case l
basis.
.l 5.
References (a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.
(b) Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures ACI-531-79 and Commentary ACI-531R-79.
j (c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings - Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06.
(d) Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry - NCMA August, 1979.
(e) Trojan Nuclear Plant Concrete Masonry Design Criteria Safety Evaluation Report Supplement - November, 1980.
I i
A-4
.w.;
l l
l APPENDIX B i
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE RESPONSES I
i l
l l
P FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20th & RACE STREETS. PHILADELPHIA.PA 19103
,. -., - - - - -. - - -.. - - +. -. - - - - - -, - -... -
'e V.
TER-C5506-262 The following is a review of the Licensee's responses [ July 13, 1984] to the NRC's request for additional information.
Question 1 The SGEB criteria [1] do not allow an increase in allowable stresses for load combinations containing OBE or wind loads.
Provide justification for the 1/3 increase in allowable stress (Reference 3, Section 3.4.2]
used for load combinations (normal operating conditions).
Identify the affected walls and include the calculated stresses for each wall. Also
- l explain all conservative measures (if any) used in the analysis to justify the increase in allowable stresses.
Response 1 The Licensee indicated that, according to the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report (August 22, 1983), the loads for safety-related structures at the Ginna plant were defined by the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) and did not include OBE loads; the reason was that SSE was the more severe case and the major safety concern. The masonry walls at the Ginna plant, therefore, were not evaluated for OBE loads. Thus, the 1/3 increase in allowable stress was not used. Also, no increase in allowable stress was used for normal wind loadings.
This response is satisfactory and consistent with the SGEB criteria.
l Question 2 f
Justify the use of an allowable stress increase factor of 1.67 for load combinations containing accident pressures or SSE loads. This is in excess of several factors permitted by the SGEE criteria (1); they are listed below by type of stress:
masonry shear in flexural members 1.3 masonry shear in unreinforced shear walls 1.3 reinforcement takes entire shear 1.5 tension normal to bed joint 1.3 tension parallel to bed joint 1.5 If any existing test data will be used to justify this increase factor, i
discuss the applicability of these tests to the walls at the Ginna plant with particular emphasis on the following:
- boundary conditions
- nature of loads B-1 l
t
A TER-C5506-262
- size of test walls
- type of masonry construction (block or mortary type, grouted or ungrouted).
The Licensee is aisc requested to indicate the number of walls that would not ce qualified if the SGEB criteria were to be used and to specify the percentages of exceedance. The Licensee is advised to explain all conservative measures (if any) used in the analysis to justify this increase factor.
Response 2 In this response, the Licensee indicated that the SGEB increase factors for allowable stress were used with the exception of the factor for tension j
normal to the bed joint, which was 1.5 instead of 1.3.
However, even if the factor of 1.3 was used, the factored allowable stress would be exceeded in only two cases, walls 3-17A-5 and 2-2I, by 10% and 7%, respectively. The actual stresses correspond to increase factors of 1.43 and 1.38.
These i
discrepancies are small, and walls 3-17A-5 and 2-2I are considered acceptable.
i Question 3 When the response spectrum method of seismic analysis is used, the accelerations of walls on a particular floor should be based on the floor response spectrum for the floor elevation. However, as stated in Section 3.5.1 of Reference 2, the Licensee derives all wall accelerations from the ground response spectrum. Justify the use of the ground response spectrum instead of the floor response spectra.
Response 3 The Licensee stated that, although response spectra were not initially used in the evaluation of the walls, all walls have been reanlyzed using the appropriate floor response spectra and the site-specific earthquake (0.17 g) developed as part of the SEP program. Where the wall was supported at both l
the base and the top, the average response from the two elevations was used; if the top was free, the spectrum at the floor elevation on which the wall rests was used. Also, the OBE condition was not considered becvause the SSE condition was the governing case and the major safety concern (see Response 1).
This response is satisfactory.
B-2
TER-C5506-262 Question 4 l
With reference to the reinforcement in masonry walls, the ACI 531-79 Code l
specifies that the minimum area of reinforcement in a wall in either direction, vertical or horizontal, shall be 0.007 (0.7%) times the gross cross-sectional area of the wall and that the minimum total area of steel, vertical and horizontal, shall not be less than 0.002 (0.2%) times the gross cross-sectional area.
In view of this, clarify whether the reinforced walls at this plant meet the above requirements. The Licensee is also requested to provide the type and spacing of vertical reinforce-ment and the total number of vertically reinforced walls.
It should be l
noted that the horizontal reinforcement is inst &lled to satisfy the minimum reinforcement requirement for a reinforced walls.
With reference to the joint reinforcement, identify the number of walls qualified by the tensile strength of joint reinforcement and indicate the type and spacing of the joint reinforcement.
Based on the review of existing codes and published literature, the NRC does not, at present, approve the use of joint reinforcement, as a structural element. A staff position on this issue is being developed and will be provided to the licensee in the future.
Response 4 In this response, the Licensee indicated that 12 of the 37 safety-related walls contain vertical reinforcement:
seven have one #3 bar on 32-inch centers t
and five have two #2 bars on 16-inch centers. Dur-O-Wal joint reinforcement is presented in all walls but was not used in the structural analysis. All 29 wall panels meeting the SGEB criteria (see Response 15) were qualified as unreinforced walls. Therefore, the amount of vertical or horizontal reinforcement in these walls is irrelevant.
For walls in the control building, the response is satisfactory.
Question 5 Indicate the boundary conditions used in the analysis and verify that they resemble the real physical conditions. Identify all of the mechanisms used to transfer shear and moment (if any) with particular emphasis for walls qualified by arching action.
If any doubt exists (i.e., whether simply supported or fixed-end conditions should be assumed), verify that the assumed boundary conditions will produce conservative results.
B-3
C).
TER-C5506-262 Response 5 The Licensee indicated that the boundary conditions may be fixed, pinned, or free. The fixed condition is found only at wall bases where steel dowels tie the wall to the concrete slab.
Pinned conditions occur where translation is restricted by a mortar joint or inctalled modifica'tions, such as a structural steel member supporting the edge. Most of the analyzed walls have pinned boundary conditions.
This response is satisfactory.
Question 6 j
Indicate how interstory drift effects, both in-plane and out-of-plane, were considered in the analysis. Also, indicate and justify by available test data the permissible strains used for both confined and unconfined walls.
i Respor.se 6 Regarding in-plane interstory drift effects, the Licensee indicated that no structural mechanism existed that would induce significant in-plane drift in ths walls and that no walls at the Ginna plant served to resist building shear loads. With respect to out-of-plane interstory drift effects, the Licensee indicated that these were also insignificant because none of the masonry walls have fixed ends at both the base and ceiling; therefore, a small out-of-plane interstory displacement will not have a severe effect on the walls.
This response is adegaate and complies with SGEB criteria.
Question 7
?
Indicate whether concrete block walls are stacked or running bond.
If l
any stack bond wall exists, provide sample calculations for stressses in l
a typical wall. Also identify the number of stacked bond walls and their appropriate allowable stresses.
Response 7 The Licensee stated that all safety-related masonry walls at the Ginna plant are running bond.
B-4
.6, TER-C5506-262 Question 8 Reference 2 indicated that some brick walls were constructed at the plant.
Indicate that number of brick walls and specify the allowable stresses from appropriate codes used in the analysis. If any increase factor were used for SSE loading case, justification should be provided.
Response 8 In this response, the Licensee stated that one wall, 971-2M, was con-structed of lead brick.
It was also determined, upon further investigation, that the wall was adequately restrained in one direction by a framework of steel members and failure in the other direction will not affect any safety-related equipment. Wall 971-2M, therefore, is not dependent on any masonry allowable stresses but is nevertheless, adequate seismically.
This response is acceptable.
Question 9 With reference to Section 3.2.5 of Reference 2, the Licensee indicated that accident pressure and associated temperature loads are considered
- a only inside containment when applicable. Provide a sample calculation
]
(and any explanations necessary to make it understandable) illustrating the analysis procedure in this case.
Response 9 i
The Licensee stated that no safety-related masonry walls are subject to pressure or temperature differentials. Therefore, the analysis for these g
conditions is not applicable.
This response is adequate.
Question 10 In Section 3.5.1 of Reference 2, the Licensee indicated that the computed stresses are increased 5% to account for higher modes of vibration.
i Justify by sample calculation that 5% is an appropriate percentage for l
multimode effects, i
B-5
. ~
Ca,
- a TER-C5506-262 Response 10 In this response, it was indicated that all of the masonry walls have been reanalyzed.
In the latest analysis, all modes of vibration up to 33 Hz were combined to determine the response of the wall. Walls with natural frequencies greater than 33 Hz were considered rigid and the floor response acceleration for 33 Hz was used for analysis.
This response is adequate and complies with the SGEB criteria.
Question 11 Provide sample calculations (with explanations necessary to make the calculations understandable) for:
- a single-wythe wall analysis
- a multi-wythe wall analysis
- a brick wall analysis t
I Response 11 4
There are no multi-wythe masonry walls or brick walls at the Ginna plant.
L As for the single-wythe wall analysis, sample calculations were provided showing that the walls were analyzed as finite element plate models. The walls geometry, boundary conditions, material properties, and loadings were input into a SAM 4 computer program, which calculated the stresses. The computed stresses were then compared with allowables defined in ACI 531-79 (3].
This response is satisfactory and consistent with the SGEB criteria.
Question 12 According to Attachment 3 of Reference 2, only 84 walls were identified as safety-related; however, in a meeting at the NRC on January 20, 1983 with regard to the use of the nonlinear analysis technique (arching l
theory), the Licensee identified 101 walls qualified by arching theory.
Explain this discrepancy.
Response 12 The Licensee responded that in its initial submittal (2] in response to IE Bulletin 80-11, 84 safety-related walls were reported; however, these walls a
f i
B-6
. - - _, ~
'e TER-C5506-262 correspond to 101 panels. The walls were subdivided into panels to facilitate engineering analysis.
Since the initial submittal, the number of walls and panels have been reduced due to work done under the SEP program. The current number of safety-related walls is 37, which corresponds to 56 panels. Arching action was not used to qualify any walls at the Ginna plant.
This response is adequate.
. g.
Question 13 Indicate how the uncertainties due to variations in mass, materials, and sections properties were accounted for in the analysis.
Response 13 In this response, the Licensee stated that the floor response spectra were broadened by 15% in the seismic analysis to account for uncertainties in the physical characteristics of the wall.
.a This response is adequate and consistent with SGEB criteria.
i
,f Question 14 Indicate whether collar joint strength has been used in the analysis.
If so, provide and justify the allowable stresses of the collar joint.
i Response 14 There are no multi-wythe safety-related masonry walls at the Ginna plant. The question of collar joint strength is, therefore, not applicable.
This response is adequate.
Question 15 Confirm whether all modifications have been completed and the modified walls are in compliance with the SGEB criteria.
l l
B-7
b.
TER-C5506-262 Response 15 With the modifications currently installed, 29 out of 56 panels meet the SGEB criteria. Of the remaining 27 panels, one failure was deemed acceptable, wall 873-3M (see Response 8).
Twenty-six panels require further modifications to meet the SGEB criteria. However, as indicated in Section 4 of this report, only 14 of 26 panels will be modified (the other 12 panels were qualified by refined analysis).
This response is adequate.
Question 16 Explain how earthquake motions in three directions are treated in the analysis.
Indicate whether any walls are subject to in-plane loading.
If so, provide a sample calculation illustrating how the wall is qualified with respect to the SGEB criteria.
Response 16 I
The Licensee explained that the walls were evaluated for vertical plus out-of-plane earthquake directions and vertical plus in-plane earthquake directions. The vertical plus out-of-plane combination was the governing case.
A sample calculation was also provided showing an analysis for in-plane loading. In this calculation, the wall was assumed to act as a vertical canti-lever with vertical seismic reactions and horizontal seismic reactions and horizontal seismic reactions combined at the base.
This response is satisfactory and consistent with the SGEB criteria.
Question 17 Explain and justify how cracked and uncracked moment of inertia was l
calculated.
l Response 17 The Licensee indicated that no walls to date have been qualified using a cracked section analysis. Uncracked moments of inertia were calculated based l
on the geometry of the masonry units and conventional mechanics.
B-8 I
i
C4 TER-C5506-262 This response is adequate (nonlinear analysis).
Question 18 In Attachment 4 of Reference 2, the Licensee provided the test data for the compressive strength of concrete masonry walls. Provide the basis for selecting those five specimens for testing and indicate whether they represent the variety of material construction in all buildings. Since no detailed records relating to the masonry blocks walls construction were maintained, justify the stength of the mortar used in the analysis.
Response 18 The Licensee responded that two 12-inch hollow blocks and one 8-inch hollow block were removed from unreinforced walls in the intermediate building and that two 8-inch blocks were removed from the control building where the majority of reinforced walls are located. The selection was based on the representation of the greatest number of similar walls, according to thickness and wall construction type. Approximately 55% of the safety-related masonry walls have 12-inch-thick blocks and 45% have 8-inch-thick blocks. The mortar strength used for analysis was in accordance with ASTM C270-64T, Type N, which a
was specified in the construction specification, SP-5360.
This response is satisfactory.
i W
l l
f B-9
4 TER-C5506-262 4
REFERENCES 1.
SGE3 Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wa Evaluation Developed by the Structural and Geotechnical Branch of the NRC, July 1981 2.
J. E. Maier Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC
Subject:
.IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Rochester Gas and Electric Corp., 04-Nov.-80 I:
3.
Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 i
i V.
i I-B-10
'e k
l l
l i
APPENDIX C n
" EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF MASONRY WALLS IN THE CONTROL BUILDING OF R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT," BY A. A. HAMID i
'.)
'r I
l e
e FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENT ER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20tn & RACE STREETS, PHILADELPHI A.P419103
A Technical Report on EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF MASONRY WALLS f
IN THE CONTROL BUILDING OF R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT submitted to Dr. Vu Con Nuclear Engineering Department Franklin Research Center Philadelphia,PA by Dr. Ahmad A. Hamid. P. E.
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA April 1986
'i Table of Contents
- 1. INTRODUCTION 3
- 2. REVIEW OF CORRELATION OF SONGS-1 TESI DATA
.2.1 Approach 4
2.2 Procedure S
2.3 Correlation Study S
r
- 3. REVIEW OF ANALYSIS OF GINNA WALLS 3.1 Approach 6
3.2 Elastic Analysis 7
3.3 Inelastic Analysis 8
- 4. CONCLUSIONS 9
S. REFERENCES 10 2
, ~..,
'M
- 1. INTRODUCTION Reinforced block masonry walls at R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant have originally been analyzed by Gilbert Associates, Inc. using elastic analysis of one-way bending and SEB criteria for allowable stresses. A
[
total of 12 walls in the Control Building were not qualified based on elastic analysis because maximum stresses exceeded the allowable stresses specified for working stress design of masonry. Steel stresses in some walls exceeded the yield stresses indicating an inelastic response under SSE loads.
The NRC and FRC staff and consultants discussed during the meeting of May 22,1985 with R.E.&G. staff the need for more rigorous analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of Ginna walls to resist SSE input motion with 7
adequate ductility. The licensee proposed to perform an inelastic one-way q
analysis of masonry walls at Ginna Plant.
f Computech Engineering Services, (CES), conducted an inelastic dynamic analysis of the critical walls utilizing the nonlinear analytical f
methodology that was developed for SONGS-1 walls with necessary modification for Ginna walls.
The NRC required, as a condition for e
accepting the use of the methodology at the Ginna Piant, that a more detailed correlation study of the Computech nonlinear analytical methodology be performed.
This report presents the writer's review and evaluation of CES 3
M 4
anaytical methodology for Ginna walls as presented in Reports R 562-N3 (3) and R 562-N4 (2).
- 2. REVIEW OF CORRELATION OF SONGS-1 TEST DATA 2.1 Approach g
Following completion of SONGS-1 test program a limited correlation study was performed. The NRC and FRC staff and consultants indicated that parametric study will help in providing more confidence in the proposed analytical methodology (1). Due to the fact that dynamic tests I
of walls representing actual construction at SONGS-1 demonstrated the adequacy of the walls to resist SSE load, further correlation was not r
deemed necessary for SONGS-1 walls. The staff in their evaluation of SONGS-1 data indicated that more detailed correlation study including actual parameters must be conducted prior to the application of the metnodology to the Ginna walls. These parameters include differences in analytical and test material properties and input motion, possible eccentricity of rebar, length of plastic hinge and permenant set (1).
Computech new correlation study (2) using actual material properties b
and input motions contains parametric study of the effect of rebar eccentricity and length of plastic hinge.
The correlation stud; was performed by numerically comparing the match between the ar.alytical and experimental results of walls l A,18 and IC. It is noted that test walls were driven to the inelastic range as evident from the steel strain ratios 4
Y 6
PROPRIETARY INFOR!% TION HAS BEEll REMOVED 5
t %
performed with rebar eccentricities of 0.0, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 inches. The results are listed in Tables 2.2,2.3 and 2.4 of Ref. 2 for walls l A, IB and IC, respectively. The resuts indicate the sensitivity of wall displacement to rebar eccentricity. Other parameters such as steel strain ratio and masonry strain are less sensitive to rebar eccentricity. It is interesting to notice that maximum response does not correspond to maximum 4
eccentricity.
It is not clear from the results that including bar eccentricity provides better correlation with test results. The effect of eccentricity on wall dynamic response is not well explained. However, the study showed a + 3515 difference in response parameters due to the effect of eccentricity with the trend of higher response with larger i
eccentricities.
T The analysis was not able to predict the permenant set experienced af ter wall tests. This parameter, however, should not be critical for Ginna walls due to the small displacement predicted. The new analysis with
(
actual input data resulted in a better correlation with the test data for steel strain ratio and length of yleiding compared to the analysis that have been previously conducted for SONGS-1 walls.
- 3. REVIEW OF ANALYSIS OF GINNA WALLS l
3.1 Approach Elastic two-way analysis was conducted on the 12 walls in the control building.
Inelastic analysis was limited to the worst-case 9
6
AiT spanning wall and cantilever wall. The walls in the control building have the same construction details. Therefore, limiting the analysis to the worst-cases of the two types is justifiable.
3.2 Elastic Analysis A finite element two-way analysis was performed for the 12 walls in the control building. If stresses exceeded the specified tension values then the wall was considered cracked and stresses in masonry and in vertical and horizontal steel were checked aganist the allowable stress criteria ( 0.85 f'm for masonry and 0.9 f for steel ). If the stresses are y
within these allowables the wall is considered qualified. If not, inelastic analysis, was considered.
i I
Wall cracking was based on the bond strength of the mortar. In grouted masonry, grouting significantly increases the cracking load of the wall. Values for masonry tension used in the analysis highly underestimate the cracking capacity of the walls. They are, however, lower bound values and would lead to conservative results.
Results of the elastic analysis ( Table 2.1, Ref. I ) revealed that stresses in the vertical steel exceeded the criteria limit ( 0.9 f ) in all y
the seven spanning walls and in three of the five cantilever walls, and therefore inelastic analysis deemeo necessary.
l l
7
1 "< k I
3.3 Inelastic Analysis Spanning wall 971-IC has the highest steel rallo ( actual / 0.9 fy) and therefore was cciccted for inciastic analyclo. Wall 973-4C was also oclected for the inciactic analysis because it had the highcot otcci ratio of the 6" thick cantilever walls. An additional spanning wall ( 971-6C )
having lower stect ratio was also analyzed to provide a basic for interpolation of the remaining walls.
The inciactic analycia of wall 971-lC was conducted for different rebar cccentricitico and different I
input motions are presented in Tabic 4.1 of Ref.1. The maximum wall displacement of 2.38' reprcocnto a low ratio of displacement to wall 4
height which indicatco no problem regarding wall inctability. The results chow the ocncitivity of wall displacemento to rebar cccentricity with the f
highcot response corrcoponds to the largcat cccentricity.
I Reculto for wall 971-6C ( Tabic 4.2, Ref.1. ) chowed a much higher i"
t reponse for Taf t and Olympia motions than for El Centro which was not the caso for wall 971-lC.
It is intercating to notice that mm" "m displacement of wall 971-6C for Taft motion was higher than that for wall 971-lC which 1c, according to clactic analyclo, the most critical wall. This could be attributed to the censitivity of wall response to the l
characteristico of input motion.
l Displacement-time hictory plot for wall 971-IC presented in Fig. 4.3 of Ref. I chows uncymmetric response for Olympia based record which was l
not the cacc for other input motions and/or with other walls with the 8
~
same motion.
In the inelastic analysis the contribution of joint reinforcement was Ignored and the walls were analyzed for one-way bending in the vertical direction.
This assumption is conservative and would lead to an upper bound for stress &s.in the vertical steel. The ductility demand, range from 1.1 to 2.4, was not high and steel and masonry strains were well below i
the criteria limits.
- 4. CONCLUSIONS J
The new correlation study of the inelastic analysis for SONGS-1 test walls considering actual material properties and input motions resulted in l
a better correlation with test data. The analysis indicates the sensitivity of wall response to rebar eccentricity.
l
.I Despite the lack of explanation of the effect of some of the parameters on wall response and the inability of the model to predict I
permenant set, the methodology is reasonably capable of capturing the overall wall response. Assumptions used in the analysis of Ginna walls are conservative. The results indicate that ductility demand for the walls in the Control Building is not high. Steel and masonry strains are well below the criteria limits indicating satisfactory performance of Ginna walls under the SSE loading.
9
[.
- 5. REFERENCES
- 1. Harris, H. and Hamid, A, " Technical Evaluation of The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ( SONGS ), Unit 1 Masonry Walls,"
Franklin Research Center, June 1985.
2.
Computech Engineering Services, Inc., " Reinforced Masonry Wall Evaluation - Correlation of SONGS-1 Test Data," Report No.
R 562-N3, December 1985.
3.
Computech Engineering Services, Inc., "R.E. Ginna Power Plant-Evaluation of Control Building Reinforced Walls."
Report No.
R 562-N4, December 1985.
t l
l 10
_