Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

ISSUES IN PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN THE US

  • Mcguire, Robin K. (Fugro William Lettis & Assoc.)
  • Published : 2009.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is routinely conducted in the US for nuclear plants, for the determination of appropriate seismic design levels. These analyses incorporate uncertainties in earthquake characteristics in stable continental regions (where direct observations of large earthquakes are rare), in estimates of rock motions, in site effects on strong shaking, and in the damage potential of seismic shaking for engineered facilities. Performance goals related to the inelastic deformation of individual components, and related to overall seismic core damage frequency, are used to determine design levels. PSHA has the ability to quantify and document the important uncertainties that affect seismic design levels, and future work can be guided toward reducing those uncertainties.

Keywords

References

  1. R. K. McGuire, “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Early history,” Earth. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 37, 329-338 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.765
  2. M. McCann, Jr., J. Marrone and R. Youngs, “CEUS ground motion project final report,” 1009684, Elec. Power Res. Inst. (2004)
  3. Risk Engineering, Inc., “Technical basis for revision of regulatory guidance on design ground motions: hazard- and risk-consistent ground motion spectra guidelines,” NUREG/CR-6728, U.S. Nuc. Reg. Comm. (2001)
  4. P. Bazzuro and C. A. Cornell, “Nonlinear Soil-Site Effects in Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analysis,” Bull. Seis. Soc. of Amer., 94, 6, 2110-2123 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030216
  5. C. H. Cramer, “Site-Specific Seismic-Hazard Analysis that is Completely Probabilistic,” Bull. Seis. Soc. of Amer., 93, 4, 1841-1846 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020206
  6. R. K. McGuire, Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Monograph MNO-10, Earthq. Eng. Res. Inst., Oakland, CA (2004)
  7. Unistar Nuclear, “Calvert Cliffs Power Plant Unit 3 COLA (Final Safety Analysis Report), Rev. 4 – Chapter 02-Site Characteristics-Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering- Section 2.5 – Part 04 – Pages 1396-1434,” ML090860086, US Nuc. Reg. Comm. (2009)
  8. USNRC, “A performance-base approach to define the sitespecific earthquake ground motion,” U.S. Nuc. Reg. Comm. Reg. Guide 1.208 (2007)
  9. Risk Engineering, Inc., “Technical basis for revision of regulatory guidance on design ground motions: development of hazard- and risk-consistent seismic spectra for two sites,” NUREG/CR-6769, U.S. Nuc. Reg. Comm. (2002)
  10. M. W. McCann and J. W. Reed, “Proceedings: Engineering characterization of Small-Magnitude Earthquakes,” NP- 3689, Elec. Power Res. Inst. (1989)
  11. N. Abrahamson and J. Watson-Lamprey, “Program on technology innovation: use of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) in determining effects of small magnitude earthquakes on seismic hazard analysis,” 1014099, Elec. Power Res.Inst. (2006). http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id =000000000001014099
  12. ASCE, “Seismic design criteria for structures, systems, and components in nuclear facilities,” ASCE/SEI 43-05, Amer. Soc. Civil Engrs. (2005)
  13. R. K. McGuire, “Program on technology innovation: sensitivity of performance-based approaches for determining the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) ground motion for new plant sites,” 1014379, Elec. Power Res. Inst. (2006). Available from http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001014379.
  14. R. K. McGuire, “Program on technology innovation: assessment of a performance-based approaches for determining seismic ground motions for new plant sites,” 2 Vols, 1012044, Elec. Power Res. Inst. (2005). Available from http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id =000000000001012044