Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제54권1호
  • /
  • Pages.386-400
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic performance assessment of NPP concrete containments considering recent ground motions in South Korea

  • Kim, Chanyoung (Dept. of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST)) ;
  • Cha, Eun Jeong (Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) ;
  • Shin, Myoungsu (Dept. of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST))
  • 투고 : 2021.04.08
  • 심사 : 2021.07.21
  • 발행 : 2022.01.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Seismic fragility analysis, a part of seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), is commonly used to establish the relationship between a representative property of earthquakes and the failure probability of a structure, component, or system. Current guidelines on the SPRA of nuclear power plants (NPPs) used worldwide mainly reflect the earthquake characteristics of the western United States. However, different earthquake characteristics may have a significant impact on the seismic fragility of a structure. Given the concern, this study aimed to investigate the effects of earthquake characteristics on the seismic fragility of concrete containments housing the OPR-1000 reactor. Earthquake time histories were created from 30 ground motions (including those of the 2016 Gyeongju earthquake) by spectral matching to the site-specific response spectrum of Hanbit nuclear power plants in South Korea. Fragility curves of the containment structure were determined under the linear response history analysis using a lumped-mass stick model and 30 ground motions, and were compared in terms of earthquake characteristics. The results showed that the median capacity and high confidence of low probability of failure (HCLPF) tended to highly depend on the sustained maximum acceleration (SMA), and increase when using the time histories which have lower SMA compared with the others.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government (MOTIE) (No. 20201510100020, Research on analysis of earthquake & fault characteristics and seismic performance improvement to respond against earthquake hazards).

참고문헌

  1. ASCE, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2005.
  2. ACI Committee 349, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-13) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 2013.
  3. ASCE, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2014.
  4. U.S. AEC, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants Revision 1, Regulatory Guide 1.60, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, 1973.
  5. R.P. Kennedy, C.A. Cornell, R.D. Campbell, S. Kaplan, H.F. Perla, Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant, Nucl. Eng. Des. 59 (2) (1980) 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(80)90203-4
  6. D.A. Wesley, P.S. Hashimoto, Seismic Structural Fragility Investigation for the Zion Nuclear Power Plant. Seismic Safety Margins Research Program (Phase 1), 1981. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
  7. U.S. NRC, A guide to the performance of probabilistic risk assessments for nuclear power plants, 1983. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC NUREG/CR-2300.
  8. J.W. Reed, R.P. Kennedy, Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities, 1994. Final Report TR-103959, EPRI.
  9. U.S. NEI, Methodology for Performing Aircraft Impact Assessments for New Plant Designs, 2011. NEI 07-13 Revision 8P.
  10. Working Group on Quantification of Uncertainties, Uncertainty and Conservatism in the Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, USA, 1986.
  11. EPRI, Seismic Fragility Application Guide. EPRI 1002988, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2002.
  12. EPRI, Seismic Fragility Application Update Guide, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2009. EPRI 1019200.
  13. EPRI, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2, vol. 1, 2012. Seismic (No. 1025287).
  14. EPRI, High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2015. EPRI 3002004396.
  15. C.S. Kumar, V. Hassija, K. Velusamy, V. Balasubramaniyan, Integrated risk assessment for multi-unit NPP sitesda comparison, Nucl. Eng. Des. 293 (2015) 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.06.025
  16. T. Zhou, M. Modarres, E.L. Droguett, An improved multi-unit nuclear plant seismic probabilistic risk assessment approach, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 171 (2018) 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.015
  17. S.H. Eem, I.K. Choi, B.J. Yang, S.Y. Kwang, Methodology of seismic-response-correlation-coefficient calculation for seismic probabilistic safety assessment of multi-unit nuclear power plants, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (3) (2021) 967-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.07.032
  18. Z. Cai, W.C. Xie, M.D. Pandey, S.H. Ni, Determining seismic fragility of structures and components in nuclear power plants using multiple ground motion Parameters-Part I: Methodology, Nucl. Eng. Des. 335 (2018) 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2018.05.013
  19. K. Kostinakis, I.K. Fontara, A.M. Athanatopoulou, Scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for assessing the seismic performance of structures: a review, J. Earthq. Eng. 22 (4) (2018) 630-665. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264323
  20. W. Du, S. Long, C.L. Ning, An algorithm for selecting spatially correlated ground motions at multiple sites under scenario earthquakes, J. Earthq. Eng. (2019) 1-26.
  21. B. Xu, X. Wang, R. Pang, Y. Zhou, Influence of strong motion duration on the seismic performance of high CFRDs based on elastoplastic analysis, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 114 (2018) 438-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.08.004
  22. E. Zengin, N.A. Abrahamson, S. Kunnath, Isolating the effect of ground-motion duration on structural damage and collapse of steel frame buildings, Earthq. Spectra 36 (2) (2020) 718-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019891720
  23. Y.S. Choun, J. Park, I.K. Choi, Choun, Effects of mechanical property variability in lead rubber bearings on the response of seismic isolation system for different ground motions, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 46 (5) (2014) 605-618. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.09.2014.718
  24. A. Ali, N.A. Hayah, D. Kim, S.G. Cho, Probabilistic seismic assessment of base-isolated NPPs subjected to strong ground motions of Tohoku earthquake, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 46 (5) (2014) 699-706. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.09.2014.030
  25. G. Wang, Y. Wang, W. Lu, P. Yan, W. Zhou, M. Chen, A general definition of integrated strong motion duration and its effect on seismic demands of concrete gravity dams, Eng. Struct. 125 (2016) 481-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.033
  26. M. Raghunandan, A.B. Liel, Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse, Struct. Saf. 410 (2013) 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.12.002
  27. A. Ali, N. Abu-Hayah, D.K. Kim, S.G. Cho, Design response spectra-compliant real and synthetic GMS for seismic analysis of seismically isolated nuclear reactor containment building, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 49 (4) (2017) 825-837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.02.006
  28. J. Fayaz, M. Medalla, F. Zareian, Sensitivity of the response of Box-Girder Seat-type bridges to the duration of ground motions arising from crustal and subduction earthquakes, Eng. Struct. 219 (2020) 110845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110845
  29. L. Lombardi, F. De Luca, J. Macdonald, Design of buildings through linear time-history analysis optimising ground motion selection: a case study for RCMRFs, Eng. Struct. 192 (2019) 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.066
  30. 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, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 52 (1) (2020) 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.06.013
  31. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center), Strong Motion Database, 2020. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/site.
  32. NECIS, (National Earthquake Comprehensive Information System), 2019. http://necis.kma.go.kr.
  33. J.H. Song, J.H. Baik, S.K. Zee, S.Y. Park, S. Choi, B.D. Chung, W.P. Baek, Development of a high power three-loop nuclear power plant, Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (10) (2010) 3621-3631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.05.043
  34. N.H. Lee, K.B. Song, Seismic capability evaluation of the prestressed/reinforced concrete containment, 1999, pp. 189-203. Yonggwang nuclear power plant Units 5 and 6, Nuclear engineering and design, 192, 2-3.
  35. I.K. Choi, S.M. Ahn, Y.S. Choun, Seismic fragility analysis of PSC containment building by nonlinear analysis, Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea 10 (1) (2006) 63-74.
  36. 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
  37. M.K. Kim, J. Park, Y.S. Choun, I.K. Choi, Seismic fragility analysis for steel fiber applicability assessment for containment structure of nuclear power plant, Journal of the Computational Structural Engineering Institute of Korea 25 (5) (2012) 381-388. https://doi.org/10.7734/COSEIK.2012.25.5.381
  38. Y.S. Choun, J. Park, Evaluation of seismic shear capacity of prestressed concrete containment vessels with fiber reinforcement, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 47 (6) (2015) 756-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.006
  39. 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
  40. J.B. Park, N.C. Park, S.J. Lee, Y.P. Park, Y.G. Choi, Seismic analysis of the APR1400 nuclear reactor system using a verified beam element model, Nucl. Eng. Des. 313 (2017) 108-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.12.002
  41. P.Y. Yawson, D. Lombardi, Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of nuclear reactor in a hypothetical UK site, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 113 (2018) 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.06.007
  42. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard review plan for the review of safety analysis reports for nuclear power plants: LWR edition (NUREG-0800), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987.
  43. M.D. Trifunac, A.G. Brady, A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65 (3) (1975) 581-626.
  44. O.W. Nuttli, The Relation of Sustained Maximum Ground Acceleration and Velocity to Earthquake Intensity and Magnitude, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1979.
  45. J.C. Foschaar, J.W. Baker, G.G. Deierlein, Preliminary assessment of ground motion duration effects on structural collapse. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2012.
  46. L. Al Atik, N. Abrahamson, An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching, Earthq. Spectra 26 (3) (2010) 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3459159
  47. R.P. Kennedy, M. Shinozuka, Recommended minimum power spectral density functions compatible with NRC regulatory guide 1.60 response spectrum 34 (1989). Recommendations for Resolution of Public Comments on USI A-40, Seismic Design Criteria.
  48. L.E. Cover, M.P. Bohn, R.D. Campbell, D.A. Wesley, Handbook of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Fragilities, NUREG/CR-3558, Washington, DC, 1985. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  49. T. Uchida, N. Ohmori, T. Takahashi, S. Watanabe, H. Abe, Y. Aoyagi, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Containment Models under the Combined Action of Internal Pressure and Lateral Force, 1979.
  50. Y. Aoyagi, K. Yamada, An Experimental Approach to the Design of Network Reinforcement against In-Plane Shear in Reinforced Concrete Containments, 1979.
  51. Y. Ogaki, M. Kobayashi, T. Takeda, T. Yamaguchi, S. Yoshizaki, S. Sugano, Shear strength tests of prestressed concrete containment vessels. Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, 1981. J (a).
  52. M. Kato, S. Tamura, Y. Watanabe, T. Takeda, T. Nakayama, Y. Omote, Dynamic and Static Loading Tests on 1/30 Scale Model of Prestressed Concrete Containment Vessel, 1981. Structural mechanics in reactor technology, Vol. K (b).
  53. Y. Aoyagi, S. Ohmori, K. Yamada, Strength and deformational characteristics of orthogonally reinforced concrete containment models subjected to lateral forces. Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, 1981. J (a).
  54. R.P. Kennedy, S.A. Short, K.L. Merz, F.J. Tokarz, I.M. Idriss, M.S. Power, K. Sadigh, Engineering characterization of ground motion, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Walnut Creek, CA (USA), 1984. Task I. Effects of characteristics of free-field motion on structural response, NUREG/CR-3805, Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc., Newport Beach, CA (USA).
  55. N.M. Newmark, W.J. Hall, Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-0098, 1978.
  56. S.L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pearson Education India, 1996.
  57. J.J. Bommer, P.J. Stafford, J.E. Alarcon, Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99 (6) (2009) 3217-3233. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080298
  58. A. Arias, Measure of Earthquake Intensity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1970.
  59. G.W. Housner, Measures of severity of earthquake ground shaking, Proc. U. S. Natl. Conf. Earthq. Eng. 6 (1975).
  60. 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)
  61. J.W. Reed, R.P. Kassawara, A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake, Nucl. Eng. Des. 123 (2-3) (1990) 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(90)90259-Z
  62. G.W. Housner, Spectrum Intensities of Strong-Motion Earthquakes, 1952.
  63. O.W. Nuttli, State-of-the-art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States. Report 16, the Relation of Sustained Maximum Ground Acceleration and Velocity to Earthquake Intensity and Magnitude, 1979.
  64. 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