Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Methodology of seismic-response-correlation-coefficient calculation for seismic probabilistic safety assessment of multi-unit nuclear power plants

  • Eem, Seunghyun (Department of Conversion and Fusion System Engineering, Major in Plant System Engineering, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Choi, In-Kil (Structural Safety & Prognosis Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Yang, Beomjoo (School of Civil Engineering, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Kwag, Shinyoung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanbat National University)
  • Received : 2020.04.23
  • Accepted : 2020.07.23
  • Published : 2021.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In 2011, an earthquake and subsequent tsunami hit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, causing simultaneous accidents in several reactors. This accident shows us that if there are several reactors on site, the seismic risk to multiple units is important to consider, in addition to that to single units in isolation. When a seismic event occurs, a seismic-failure correlation exists between the nuclear power plant's structures, systems, and components (SSCs) due to their seismic-response and seismic-capacity correlations. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the multi-unit seismic risk by considering the SSCs' seismic-failure-correlation effect. In this study, a methodology is proposed to obtain the seismic-response-correlation coefficient between SSCs to calculate the risk to multi-unit facilities. This coefficient is calculated from a probabilistic multi-unit seismic-response analysis. The seismic-response and seismic-failure-correlation coefficients of the emergency diesel generators installed within the units are successfully derived via the proposed method. In addition, the distribution of the seismic-response-correlation coefficient was observed as a function of the distance between SSCs of various dynamic characteristics. It is demonstrated that the proposed methodology can reasonably derive the seismic-response-correlation coefficient between SSCs, which is the input data for multi-unit seismic probabilistic safety assessment.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1G1A1007570) and it was partially supported by Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. (No. L17S008002)

References

  1. M. Modarres, T. Zhou, M. Massoud, Advances in multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 157 (2017) 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.005
  2. K. Ebisawa, et al., Concept and methodology for evaluating core damage frequency considering failure correlation at multi units and sites and its application, Nucl. Eng. Des. 288 (2015) 82-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.01.002
  3. D.-S. Kim, et al., Multi-unit Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment: approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nuclear Eng. Technol. 50 (8) (2018) 1217-1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.01.006
  4. D.-S. Kim, J.H. Park, H.-G. Lim, A pragmatic approach to modeling common cause failures in multi-unit PSA for nuclear power plant sites with a large number of units, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 195 (2020), 106739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106739
  5. C.S. Kumar, et al., Integrated risk assessment for multi-unit NPP sites-a comparison, Nucl. Eng. Des. 293 (2015) 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.06.025
  6. S. Schroer, M. Modarres, An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 117 (2013) 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.005
  7. J.-E. Yang, Multi-unit risk assessment of nuclear power plants: current status and issues, Nuclear Eng. Technol. 50 (8) (2018) 1199-1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.09.010
  8. M. Ravindra, Sensitivity Studies of Seismic Risk Models, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1984.
  9. U.S.N.R. Commission, Reactor Safety Study: an Assessment of Accident Risks in US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1975.
  10. R.J. Budnitz, Correlation of Seismic Performance in Similar SSCs (Structures, Systems, and Components), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2017.
  11. S.-H. Eem, I.-K. Choi, Influence analysis of seismic risk due to the failure correlation in seismic probabilistic safety assessment, Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea 23 (2) (2019) 101-108. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2019.23.2.101
  12. P.D. Smith, et al., Seismic Safety Margins Research program.Phase I Final Report-Overview, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, CA, 1981.
  13. M.P. Bohn, J.A. Lambright, Procedures For the External Event Core Damage Frequency Analyses for NUREG-1150, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1990.
  14. M.P. Born, L.C. Shieh, J.E. Wells, Application of the SSMRP Methodology to the Seismic Risk at the Zion Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG/CR-3428), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1983.
  15. N.A. Abrahamson, Program on Technology Innovation: Spatial Coherency Models for Soil-Structure Interaction, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 2006.
  16. N.A. Abrahamson, J.F. Schneider, J.C. Stepp, Empirical spatial coherency functions for application to soil-structure interaction analyses, Earthq. Spectra 7 (1) (1991) 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585610
  17. R.S. Harichandran, E.H. Vanmarcke, Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time, J. Eng. Mech. 112 (2) (1986) 154-174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1986)112:2(154)
  18. E. Kausel, A. Pais, Stochastic deconvolution of earthquake motions, J. Eng. Mech. 113 (2) (1987) 266-277. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1987)113:2(266)
  19. C.-H. Loh, S.-G. Lin, Directionality and simulation in spatial variation of seismic waves, Eng. Struct. 12 (2) (1990) 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(90)90019-O
  20. C.H. Loh, Analysis of the spatial variation of seismic waves and ground movements from smart-1 array data, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 13 (5) (1985) 561-581. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290130502
  21. P.G. Somerville, et al., Site-specific estimation of spatial incoherence of strong ground motion, Geotechnical Special Publication (n) (1988) 188-202.
  22. D. Zendagui, M.K. Berrah, E. Kausel, Stochastic deamplification of spatially varying seismic motions, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 18 (6) (1999) 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(99)00015-9
  23. S.A. Short, et al., Program on Technology Innovation: Effect of Seismic Wave Incoherence on Foundation and Building Response, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 2006.
  24. S.-H. Eem, I.-K. Choi, Seismic response analysis of nuclear power plant structures and equipment due to the pohang earthquake, Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea 22 (3) (2018) 113-119. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2018.22.3.113
  25. A.S.o.C. Engineers, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016.

Cited by

  1. Sensitivity Study on the Correlation Level of Seismic Failures in Seismic Probabilistic Safety Assessments vol.14, pp.10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102955
  2. Seismic fragility analysis of nuclear power plants based on the substructure method vol.382, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2021.111389