Effect of the incoherent earthquake motion on responses of seismically isolated nuclear power plant structure

  • Ahmed, Kaiser (Department of Civil Engineering, Kunsan National University) ;
  • Kim, Dookie (Department of Civil Engineering, Kunsan National University) ;
  • Lee, Sang H. (Power Engineering Research Institute, KEPCO E&C)
  • Received : 2016.11.22
  • Accepted : 2018.01.20
  • Published : 2018.01.25


Base-isolated nuclear power plant (BI-NPP) structures are founded on expanded basemat as a flexible floating nuclear island, are still lacking the recommendation of the consideration of incoherent motion effect. The effect of incoherent earthquake motion on the seismic response of BI-NPP structure has been investigated herein. The incoherency of the ground motions is applied by using an isotropic frequency-dependent spatial correlation function to perform the conditional simulation of the reference design spectrum compatible ground motion in time domain. Time history analysis of two structural models with 486 and 5 equivalent lead plug rubber bearing (LRB) base-isolators have been done under uniform excitation and multiple point excitation. two different cases have been considered: 1) Incoherent motion generated for soft soil and 2) Incoherent motion generated for hard rock soil. The results show that the incoherent motions reduce acceleration and the lateral displacement responses and the reduction is noticeable at soft soil site and higher frequencies.


Supported by : Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)


  1. Abrahamson, N.A. (1993), "Spatial variation of multiple supports inputs", Proceedings of the 1st US Seminar on Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Steel Bridges, A Caltrans and Univ. of California at Berkeley Seminar, San Francisco CA.
  2. Abrahamson, N. (2005), "Spatial coherency for soil-structure interaction", Electric Power Research Institute, Technical Update Report 1012968, Palo Alto, CA, December.
  3. Abrahamson, N. (2007), "Effects of seismic motion incoherency effects", EPRI Palo Alto, CA, TR-1015111
  4. Abrahamson, N.A., Schneider, J.F. and Stepp, J.C. (1991), "Empirical spatial coherency functions for applications to soilstructure interaction analyses", Earthq. Spectra, 7, 1-27.
  5. Adanur, S., Altunisik, A.C., Soyluk, K., Dumanoolu, A.A. and Bayraktar, A. (2016), "Contribution of local site-effect on the seismic response of suspension bridges to spatially varying ground motions", Earthq. Struct., 10(5), 1233-1251.
  6. Ahmed, K. and Kim, D. (2017), "A windowed adjustment function based NRC compliant ground motions for fragility analysis of base-isolated nuclear power plant", KSCE J. Civil Eng., 1-11.
  7. Ali, A., Hayah, N.A., Kim, D. and Cho, S.G. (2014), "Probabilistic seismic assessment of base-isolated NPPs subjected to strong ground motions of Tohoku earthquake.", Nucl. Eng. Technol., 46(5), 699-706..
  8. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010), Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, ASCE, Reston, VA.
  9. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures, ASCE/SEI 4-**, Reston, VA.
  10. Chakraborty, A. and Basu, B. (2008), "Nonstationary response analysis of long span bridges under spatially varying differential support motions using continuous wavelet transform", J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, 134(2), 155-162.
  11. Der Kiureghian, A. and Neuenhofer, A. (1992), "Response spectrum method for multiple support seismic excitation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21, 713-740.
  12. Der Kiureghian, A., Keshishian, P. and Hakobian, A. (1997), "Multiple support response spectrum analysis of bridges including the site response effect and the MSRS code", Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. UCB/EERC-97/02, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  13. EPRI (2005), Effect of Seismic Wave Incoherence on Foundation and Building Response, CA and the U.S. Department of Energy, 1012966.
  14. EPRI (2006), Effect of Seismic Wave Incoherence on Foundation and Building Response, CA and the U.S. Department of Energy, Palo Alto, 1013504.
  15. Ghaffarzadeh, H., Izadi, M.M. and Talebian, N. (2013), "Neural network-based generation of artificial spatially variable earthquakes ground motions", Earthq. Struct., 4(5), 509-525.
  16. Hadidi, A., Azar, B.F. and Rafiee, A. (2016), "Reliability-based design of semi-rigidly connected base-isolated buildings subjected to stochastic near-fault excitations", Earthq. Struct., 11(4), 701-721.
  17. Hao, H. and Duan, X.N. (1995), "Seismic response of asymmetric structures to multiple ground motions", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 121(11), 1557-1564.
  18. Harichandran, R., Hawwari, A. and Sweidan, B. (1996), "Response of long-span bridges to spatially varying ground motion", J. Struct. Eng., 122(5), 476-484.
  19. Harichandran, R.S. (1987), "Stochastic analysis of rigid foundation filtering", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15, 889-899.
  20. Harichandran, R.S. (1991), "Estimating the spatial variation of earthquake ground motion from dense array recordings", Struct. Saf., 10, 213-233.
  21. Harichandran, R.S. and Vanmarcke, E.H. (1986), "Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time", J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, 112(2), 154-174.
  22. Hindy, A. and Novak, M. (1980), "Pipeline response to random ground motion", J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 106, 339-360.
  23. Huang, Y.N., Whittaker, A.S. and Luco, N. (2010), "Seismic performance assessment of base-isolated safety-related nuclear structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 39, 1421-1442.
  24. Huang, Y.N., Whittaker, A.S., Constantinou, M.C. and Malushte, S. (2007), "Seismic demands on secondary systems in baseisolated nuclear power plants", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36, 1741-1761.
  25. Kim, S.H. and Feng, M.Q. (2003), "Fragility analysis of bridges under ground motion with spatial variation", Int. J. Nonlin. Mech., 38, 705-721.
  26. Liao, S. and Zerva, A. (2006), "Physically-compliant, conditionally simulated spatially variable seismic ground motions for performance-based design", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35, 891-919.
  27. Loh, C.H., Penzien, J. and Tsai, Y.B. (1982), "Engineering analysis of SMART-1 array accelerograms", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 10, 575-591.
  28. Luco, J.E. and Wong, H.L. (1986), "Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14, 891-908.
  29. Luco, J.E. and Wong, H.L. (1986), "Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14, 891-908.
  30. Malushte, S. and Whittaker, A.S. (2005), "Survey of past base isolation applications in nuclear power plants and challenges to industry/regulatory acceptance", Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, SMiRT 18, Beijing, China, August.
  31. Mavronicola, E. and Komodromos, P. (2014), "On the response of base-isolated buildings using bilinear models for LRBs subjected to pulse-like ground motions: sharp vs. smooth behavior", Earthq. Struct., 7(6), 1223-1240
  32. Monti, G., Nuti, C. and Pinto, P. (1996), "Nonlinear response of bridges under multi-support excitation", J. Struct. Eng., 122(10), 1147-1159.
  33. Murase, M., Tsuji, M. and Takewaki, I. (2013), "Smart passive control of buildings with higher redundancy and robustness using base-isolation and inter-connection", Earthq. Struct., 4(6), 649-670.
  34. Mwafy, A.M., Kwon, O.S., Elnashai, A. and Hashash, Y.M.A. (2011), "Wave passage and ground motion incoherency effects on seismic response of an extended bridge", J. Bridge Eng., ASCE, 16(3), 364-374.
  35. Novak, M. and Hindy, A. (1979), "Seismic response of buried pipelines", Proceedings of the 3rd Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal, Canada, January.
  36. Saxena, V., Deodatis, G. and Shinozuka, M. (2000), "Effect of spatial variation of earthquake ground motion on the nonlinear dynamic response of highway bridges", Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
  37. Sayed, M.A., Go, S., Cho, S.G. and Kim, D. (2015), "Seismic responses of base-isolated nuclear power plant structures considering spatially varying ground motions", Struct. Eng. Mech., 54(1), 169-188.
  38. Schellenberg, A.H., Sarebanha, A., Schoettler, M.J., Mosqueda, G., Benzoni, G. and Mahin, S.A. (2015), "Hybrid simulation of seismic isolation systems applied to an APR-1400 nuclear power plant", PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center), Report No. 2015/05.
  39. Schellenberg, A.H., Schoettler, M. and Mahin, S.A. (2015), "Review of ANT models and ground motions", PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center), Project Review Meeting, KEPCO E&C, South Korea November 16-17.
  40. Shinozuka, M., Deodatis, G. and Saxena, V. (2000), "Effect of spatial variation of ground motion on bridge response," Technical Report MCEER-00-0013.
  41. Sobczyk, K. (1991), Stochastic Wave Propagation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
  42. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2012), Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, 3.7.2, Seismic System Analysis, NUREG-0800, USNRC, Washington, USA.
  43. Vanmarcke, E., Heredia-Zavoni, E. and Fenton, G.A. (1993), "Conditional simulation of spatially correlated earthquake ground motion", J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, 119(11), 2333-2352.
  44. Vanmarcke, E.H., Fenton, G.A. and Heredia-Zavoni, E. (1999), Conditioned Earthquake Ground Motion Simulator, SMIQKE-II User's Manual, Version 2.1.
  45. Zerva, A. (1993), "Pipeline response to directionally and spatially correlated seismic ground motions", J. Press. Ves. Tech., ASME, 15, 53-58.
  46. Zerva, A. (2009), Spatial Variation of Seismic Ground Motions: Modeling and Engineering Applications, Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press, Florida, USA.
  47. Zerva, A. and Zervas, V. (2002), "Spatial variation of seismic ground motions: an overview", Appl. Mech. Rev., 55(3), 271-297.
  48. Zhao, C. and Chen, J. (2013), "Numerical simulation and investigation of the base isolated NPPC building under threedirectional seismic loading", J. Nucl. Eng. Des., 265, 484-496.