Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Optimal earthquake intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand models of ARP1400 reactor containment building

  • Nguyen, Duy-Duan (Department of Civil Engineering, Vinh University) ;
  • Thusa, Bidhek (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Azad, Md Samdani (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Tran, Viet-Linh (Department of Civil Engineering, Vinh University) ;
  • Lee, Tae-Hyung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2021.04.19
  • Accepted : 2021.06.20
  • Published : 2021.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study identifies efficient earthquake intensity measures (IMs) for seismic performances and fragility evaluations of the reactor containment building (RCB) in the advanced power reactor 1400 (APR1400) nuclear power plant (NPP). The computational model of RCB is constructed using the beam-truss model (BTM) for nonlinear analyses. A total of 90 ground motion records and 20 different IMs are employed for numerical analyses. A series of nonlinear time-history analyses are performed to monitor maximum floor displacements and accelerations of RCB. Then, probabilistic seismic demand models of RCB are developed for each IM. Statistical parameters including coefficient of determination (R2), dispersion (i.e. standard deviation), practicality, and proficiency are calculated to recognize strongly correlated IMs with the seismic performance of the NPP structure. The numerical results show that the optimal IMs are spectral acceleration, spectral velocity, spectral displacement at the fundamental period, acceleration spectrum intensity, effective peak acceleration, peak ground acceleration, A95, and sustained maximum acceleration. Moreover, weakly related IMs to the seismic performance of RCB are peak ground displacement, root-mean-square of displacement, specific energy density, root-mean-square of velocity, peak ground velocity, Housner intensity, velocity spectrum intensity, and sustained maximum velocity. Finally, a set of fragility curves of RCB are developed for optimal IMs.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No. 20201510100020).

References

  1. A. Elenas, K. Meskouris, Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures, Eng. Struct. 23 (6) (2001) 698-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00074-2
  2. K. Kostinakis, A. Athanatopoulou, K. Morfidis, Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings, Eng. Struct. 82 (2015) 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.035
  3. J.R. Pejovic, N.N. Serdar, R.R. Pejovic, Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand models of RC high-rise buildings, Earthq. Struct. 13 (3) (2017) 221-230. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.3.221
  4. J.E. Padgett, B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches, Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 37 (5) (2008) 711-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782
  5. V. Jahangiri, M. Yazdani, M.S. Marefat, Intensity measures for the seismic response assessment of plain concrete arch bridges, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16 (9) (2018) 4225-4248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0334-8
  6. C. Zelaschi, R. Monteiro, R. Pinho, Critical assessment of intensity measures for seismic response of Italian RC bridge portfolios, J. Earthq. Eng. 23 (6) (2019) 980-1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1342293
  7. H.N. Phan, F. Paolacci, Efficient intensity measures for probabilistic seismic response analysis of anchored above-ground liquid steel storage tanks, in: Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016.
  8. Z. Chen, J. Wei, Correlation between ground motion parameters and lining damage indices for mountain tunnels, Nat. Hazards 65 (3) (2013) 1683-1702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0437-5
  9. D.D. Nguyen, D. Park, S. Shamsher, V.Q. Nguyen, T.H. Lee, Seismic vulnerability assessment of rectangular cut-and-cover subway tunnels, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 86 (2019) 247-261.
  10. H. Shakib, V. Jahangiri, Intensity measures for the assessment of the seismic response of buried steel pipelines, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14 (4) (2016) 1265-1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9863-6
  11. C. Li, C. Zhai, S. Kunnath, D. Ji, Methodology for selection of the most damaging ground motions for nuclear power plant structures, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 116 (2019) 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.039
  12. D.D. Nguyen, B. Thusa, T.S. Han, T.H. Lee, Identifying significant earthquake intensity measures for evaluating seismic damage and fragility of nuclear power plant structures, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (1) (2020) 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.06.013
  13. EPRI, Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities, Report TR-103959, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1994.
  14. T.K. Mandal, S. Ghosh, N.N. Pujari, Seismic fragility analysis of a typical Indian PHWR containment: comparison of fragility models, Struct. Saf. 58 (2016) 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.08.003
  15. T.T. Tran, A.T. Cao, T.H.X. Nguyen D. Kim, Fragility assessment for electric cabinet in nuclear power plant using response surface methodology, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (3) (2019) 894-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.12.025
  16. I.K. Choi, Y.S. Choun, S.M. Ahn, J.M. Seo, Probabilistic seismic risk analysis of CANDU containment structure for near-fault earthquakes, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (6) (2008) 1382-1391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.11.001
  17. Y.N. Huang, A.S. Whittaker, N. Luco, A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants: (II) Application, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (9) (2011) 3985-3995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.050
  18. J.W. Jung, H.W. Jang, J.H. Kim, J.W. Hong, Effect of second hardening on floor response spectrum of a base-isolated nuclear power plant, Nucl. Eng. Des. 322 (2017) 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.06.004
  19. X. Bao, M.H. Zhang, C.H. Zhai, Fragility analysis of a containment structure under far-fault and near-fault seismic sequences considering post-mainshock damage states, Eng. Struct. 198 (2019) 109511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109511
  20. D. Wang, C. Wu, Y. Zhang, Z. Ding, W. Chen, Elastic-plastic behavior of AP1000 nuclear island structure under mainshock-aftershock sequences, Ann. Nucl. Energy 123 (2019) 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.09.015
  21. C. Zhao, N. Yu, Y. Oz, J. Wang, Y.L. Mo, Seismic fragility analysis of nuclear power plant structure under far-field ground motions, Eng. Struct. 219 (2020) 110890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110890
  22. D.D. Nguyen, B. Thusa, H. Park, M.S. Azad, T.H. Lee, Efficiency of various structural modelling schemes on evaluating seismic performance and fragility of APR1400 containment building, Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.02.006. In press.
  23. C.A. Cornell, F. Jalayer, R.O. Hamburger, D.A. Foutch, Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines, J. Struct. Eng. 128 (4) (2002) 526-533. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)
  24. N. Luco, C.A. Cornell, Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for nearsource and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthq. Spectra 23 (2) (2007) 357-392. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2723158
  25. P. Giovenale, C.A. Cornell, L. Esteva, Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 33 (8) (2004) 951-979. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.386
  26. S.L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall. Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, 1996.
  27. SeismoSignal - a computer program for signal processing of strong-motion data, available from, http://www.seismosoft.com, 2017.
  28. R. Dobry, I.M. Idriss, E. Ng, Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 68 (5) (1978) 1487-1520.
  29. A. Arias, Measure of Earthquake Intensity, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Cambridge. Univ. of Chile, Santiago de Chile, 1970.
  30. Y.J. Park, A.H.S. Ang, Y.K. Wen, Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, J. Struct. Eng. 111 (4) (1985) 740-757. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(740)
  31. J.R. Benjamin, A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, Report No. EPRI NP-5930, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA, 1988.
  32. V. Thun, Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams, in: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II-Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation, 1988.
  33. G.W. Housner, Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes, in: Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures, Los Angeles, California, USA, 1952.
  34. O.W. Nuttli, The Relation of Sustained Maximum Ground Acceleration and Velocity to Earthquake Intensity and Magnitude, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA, 1979.
  35. N. Shome, C.A. Cornell, P. Bazzurro, J.E. Carballo, Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses, Earthq. Spectra 14 (3) (1998) 469-500. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586011
  36. S.K. Sarma, K.S. Yang, An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameter A95, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 15 (1) (1987) 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290150109
  37. PEER ground motion database. http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database, 2019.
  38. RG 1.60, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, 1.60, Regulatory Guide, Rockville, Maryland, USA, 2014. Revision 2.
  39. Y. Lu, M. Panagiotou, I. Koutromanos, Three-dimensional beam-truss model for reinforced concrete walls and slabs-part 1: modeling approach, validation, and parametric study for individual reinforced concrete walls, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 45 (9) (2016) 1495-1513. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2719
  40. Y. Lu, M. Panagiotou, Three-dimensional beam-truss model for reinforced concrete walls and slabs-part 2: modeling approach and validation for slabs and coupled walls, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 45 (11) (2016) 1707-1724. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2720
  41. S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, OpenSees Command Language Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, PEER) Center, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006.
  42. D.C. Kent, R. Park, Flexural members with confined concrete, J. Struct. Division 97 (7) (1971) 1969-1990. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0002957
  43. M. Menegotto, P.E. Pinto, Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending, in: IABSE Sym. Of Resist. and Ult. Deform. of Struct. Acted on by Well-Defined Repeat, Loads, Lisbon, Portugal, 1973.
  44. ANSYS, ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference, 2019.
  45. KEPCO & KHNP, APR1400 Standard Design Certification Application Design Control Document, 2018. Revision 3, Tier 2 (Chapter 19).