한국지진공학회논문집 (Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea)

  • 제25권3호
  • /
  • Pages.93-102
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1226-525X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-1099(eISSN)
한국지진공학회 (Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

지진에 의한 원전 보조건물 전단벽의동적 응답 특성 추정

Seismic Response Characterization of Shear Wall in Auxiliary Building of Nuclear Power Plant

  • Rahman, Md Motiur (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University) ;
  • Nahar, Tahmina Tasnim (Department of Civil Engineering, Pabna University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Baek, Geonhwi (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University) ;
  • Kim, Dookie (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2021.01.28
  • 심사 : 2021.03.29
  • 발행 : 2021.05.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The dynamic characterization of a three-story auxiliary building in a nuclear power plant (NPP) constructed with a monolithic reinforced concrete shear wall is investigated in this study. The shear wall is subjected to a joint-research, round-robin analysis organized by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, South Korea, to predict seismic responses of that auxiliary building in NPP through a shake table test. Five different intensity measures of the base excitation are applied to the shaking table test to get the acceleration responses from the different building locations for one horizontal direction (front-back). Simultaneously to understand the global damage scenario of the structure, a frequency search test is conducted after each excitation. The primary motivation of this study is to develop a nonlinear numerical model considering the multi-layered shell element and compare it with the test result to validate through the modal parameter identification and floor responses. In addition, the acceleration amplification factor is evaluated to judge the dynamic behavior of the shear wall with the existing standard, thus providing theoretical support for engineering practice.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. NRC US. Final safety evaluation report: Related to the combined licenses for vogtle electric generating plant, units 3 and 4. NUREG-2124; Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. c2012.
  2. Li S, Wu C, Kong F. Shaking table model test and seismic performance analysis of a high-rise RC shear wall structure. Shock and Vibration. 2019 May;2019(6189873):1-17.
  3. Martinelli P, Filippou FC. Simulation of the shaking table test of a seven-story shear wall building. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 2009 Feb;38(5):587-607. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.897
  4. He J, Chen J, Ren X, Li J. A shake table test study of reinforced concrete shear wall model structures exhibiting strong non-linear behaviors. Engineering Structures. 2020 Jun;212(2020):110481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110481
  5. Ghorbanirenani I, Tremblay R, Leger P, Leclerc M. Shake table testing of slender RC shear walls subjected to eastern north america seismic ground motions. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2012 May;138(12):1515-1529. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000581
  6. Li J, Wang Y, Lu Z, Xia B. Shaking table test and numerical simulation of a superimposed reinforced concrete shear wall structure. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 2018 Aug;27(2):e1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1412
  7. Sun F-F, Yang J, Liu G. Shaking table test on a perforated buckling-restrained steel plate shear wall structure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2020 Mar;24:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387197
  8. Ye J, Jiang L. Simplified analytical model and shaking table test validation for seismic analysis of mid-rise cold-formed steel composite shear wall building. Sustainability. 2018;10(9):3188. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093188
  9. Qin CG, Bai GL, Xu YZ, Su NF, Wu T, Li ZL, Sun YZ. Shaking table test on seismic responses of a monolithic precast concrete shear wall structure. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 2018 Jul;22(10):3903-3918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-0888-7
  10. Richard B, Martinelli P, Voldoire F, Corus M, Chaudat T, Abouri S, Bonfils N. SMART 2008: Shaking table tests on an asymmetrical reinforced concrete structure and seismic margins assessment. Engineering Structures. 2015 Dec;105:48-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.09.036
  11. Kim K-H, Kang T-S, Rhie J, Kim Y, Park Y, Kang SY, Han M, Kim J, Park J, Kim M, et al. The 12 September 2016 Gyeongju earthquakes: 2. Temporary seismic network for monitoring aftershocks. Geosciences Journal. 2016 Dec;20(6):753-757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-016-0034-9
  12. McKenna F. OpenSees: Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Computing in Science & Engineering. 2006;13(4):58-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.66
  13. Shayanfar MA, Javidan MM. Progressive collapse-resisting mechanisms and robustness of RC frame-shear wall structures. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 2017 Mar;31(5):04017045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001012
  14. Rahman MM, Nahar TT, Kim D. FeView: Finite element visualization for opensees. Structural System Lab.: Korea. c2020.
  15. Lu X, Xie L, Guan H, Huang Y, Lu X. A shear wall element for nonlinear seismic analysis of super-tall buildings using OpenSees. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. 2015 Jun;98:14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2015.01.006
  16. Kim BH, Stubbs N, Park T. A new method to extract modal parameters using output-only responses. Journal of Sound and Vibration. 2005 Apr;282(1):215-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2004.02.026
  17. Brincker R, Zhang L, Andersen P. Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition. Smart Materials and Structures. 2001 Jun;10(3):441-445. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/10/3/303
  18. Cara J. Modal identification of structures from input/output data using the expectation-maximization algorithm and uncertainty quantification by mean of the bootstrap. Structural Control and Health Monitoring. 2019;26(1):e2272. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2272
  19. Park B-H, Kim K-J. Vector ARMAX modeling approach in multi-input modal analysis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 1989 Aug;3(4):373-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-3270(89)90044-7
  20. Brown RW, Cheng Y-CN, Haacke EM, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. The continuous and discrete Fourier transforms. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Wiley-Blackwell; c2014. 1008 p.
  21. Omar O, Tounsi N, Ng E-G, Elbestawi MA. An optimized rational fraction polynomial approach for modal parameters estimation from FRF measurements. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology. 2010 Mar;24(3):831-842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-010-0123-z
  22. Brandt A. Noise and vibration analysis: signal analysis and experimental procedures. 1st ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons; c2011. 445 p.
  23. Brown DL, Allemang RJ, Zimmerman R, Mergeay M. Parameter estimation techniques for modal analysis. SAE Transactions. 1979 Fen;88(1):828-846.
  24. Boswald M, Goege D, Fuellekrug U, Govers Y. A review of experimental modal analysis methods with respect to their applicability to test data of large aircraft structures. Proceedings of the International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering; 2006 Sep 18-20; Leuven, Belgium. c2006.
  25. Parks TW, Burrus CS. Digital Filter Design. Toronto, Canada John Wiley & Son; c1987.
  26. Shah C. Mesh Discretization Error and Criteria for Accuracy of Finite Element Solutions. Proceedings of the 4th ASEAN ANSYS User Conference; 2002 Nov 5-6; Central Region, Singapore. c2002.
  27. Nahar TT, Rahman MM, Kim D. Effective Safety Assessment of Aged Concrete Gravity Dam based on the Reliability Index in a Seismically Induced Site. Applied Sciences. 2021;11(5):1987. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11051987
  28. ATC. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. FEMA-P58; Washington, DC: Applied Technology Council. c2018.
  29. ASCE. ASCE/SEI 7-16: Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. Virginia, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers; c2017. 889 p.