Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제54권3호
  • /
  • Pages.926-939
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Variation of reliability-based seismic analysis of an electrical cabinet in different NPP location for Korean Peninsula

  • Nahar, Tahmina Tasnim (Department of Civil Engineering, Pabna University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Rahman, Md Motiur (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University) ;
  • Kim, Dookie (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2021.05.03
  • 심사 : 2021.09.24
  • 발행 : 2022.03.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The area of this study will cover the location-wise seismic response variation of an electrical cabinet in nuclear power point (NPP) based on classical reliability analysis. The location-based seismic ground motion (GM) selection is carried out with the help of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using PSHRisktool, where the variation of reliability analysis can be understood from the relation between the reliability index and intensity measure. Two different approaches such as the first-order second moment method (FOSM) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) are helped to evaluate and compare the reliability assessment of the cabinet. The cabinet is modeled with material uncertainty utilizing Steel01 as the material model and the fiber section modeling approach is considered to characterize the section's nonlinear reaction behavior. To verify the modal frequency, this study compares the FEM result with recorded data using Least-Squares Complex Exponential (LSCE) method from the impact hammer test. In spite of a few investigations, the main novelty of this study is to introduce the reader to check and compare the seismic reliability assessment variation in different seismic locations and for different earthquake levels. Alongside, the betterment can be found by comparing the result between two considered reliability estimation methods.

키워드

과제정보

This work was 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. 20171510101960).

참고문헌

  1. H. Gulvanessian, EN1990 Eurocode-basis of structural design, P. I. Eng. Civ. En. 144 (2001) 8-13, https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.2001.144.6.8.
  2. P. Varpasuo, The seismic reliability of VVER-1000 NPP prestressed containment building, Nucl. Eng. Des. 160 (1996) 387-398, https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(95)01116-1.
  3. K. Salman, T.-T. Tran, D. Kim, Seismic capacity evaluation of NPP electrical cabinet facility considering grouping effects, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 57 (2020) 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2020.1724206.
  4. 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 (2019) 894-903, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.12.025.
  5. J. Hur, Z. Wang, A. Shafieezadeh, and M. Kim, Seismic reliability analysis of NPP's nonstructural components using surrogate models, in: 13th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, May 26-30, 2019.
  6. J.W. Hickman, PRA Procedures Guide: A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Power Plants, US Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 1983. NUREG/CR-2300.
  7. A.T. Cao, T.T. Tran, T.-H.-X. Nguyen, D. Kim, Simplified approach for seismic risk assessment of cabinet facility in nuclear power plants based on cumulative absolute velocity, Nucl. Technol. 206 (2019) 743-757, https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2019.1696643.
  8. S. Poghosyan, T. Malakyan, G. Kanetsyan, and A. Amirjanyan, Complex investigation of fire PSA dominant scenario related to direct flame contact with safety related pipes, in: PSAM 12 - the Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, June 22-27, 2014.
  9. T. Sakurahara, Z. Mohaghegh, S. Reihani, E. Kee, Methodological and practical comparison of integrated probabilistic risk assessment (I-PRA) with the existing fire PRA of nuclear power plants, Nucl. Technol. 204 (2018) 354-377, https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2018.1486159.
  10. M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, Safety and reliability assessment of heterogeneous concrete components in nuclear structures, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 203 (2020) 107104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107104.
  11. S. Jin, J. Gong, Damage performance based seismic capacity and fragility analysis of existing concrete containment structure subjected to near fault ground motions, Nucl. Eng. Des. 360 (2020) 110478, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110478.
  12. W. Jiang, B. Li, W.-C. Xie, M.D. Pandey, Generate floor response spectra: Part 1. Direct spectra-to-spectra method, Nucl. Eng. Des. 293 (2015) 525-546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.05.034.
  13. L.E. Suarez, M.P. Singh, Floor response spectra with structure-equipment interaction effects by a mode synthesis approach, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 15 (1987) 141-158, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290150202.
  14. A.R.T. Kanee, I.M.Z. Kani, A. Noorzad, Elastic floor response spectra of nonlinear frame structures subjected to forward-directivity pulses of near-fault records, Earthq. Struct. 5 (2013) 49-65, https://doi.org/10.12989/EAS.2013.5.1.049.
  15. T.T. Nahar, M.M. Rahman, D. Kim, PSHRisk-Tool: a python-based computational tool for developing site seismic hazard analysis and failure risk assessment of infrastructure, Appl. Sci. 10 (2020) 1-26, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217487.
  16. Y.C. Sung, C.K. Su, C.W. Wu, I.C. Tsai, Performance-based damage assessment of low-rise reinforced concrete buildings, J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 29 (2006) 51-62, https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2006.9671098.
  17. M. Liu, S.A. Burns, Y. Wen, Multiobjective optimization for performance-based seismic design of steel moment frame structures, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 34 (2005) 289-306, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.426.
  18. V.E. Saouma, M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, Seismic capacity and fragility analysis of an ASR-affected nuclear containment vessel structure, Nucl. Eng. Des. 346 (2019) 140-156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.02.011.
  19. K.K. Bandyopadhyay, C.H. Hofmayer, M.K. Kassir, S.E. Pepper, Seismic Fragility of Nuclear Power Plant Components (Phase II), US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987. NUREG/CR-4659, BNL-NUREG-52007.
  20. J.D. Sorensen, Notes in Structural Reliability Theory and Risk Analysis, Institute of Building Technology and Structural Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark, 2004.
  21. R.E. Melchers, A.T. Beck, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, third ed., John wiley & sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018.
  22. R. Mohammadi, A. Massumi, A. Meshkat-Dini, Structural reliability index versus behavior factor in RC frames with equal lateral resistance, Eartheq. Struct. 8 (2015) 996-1016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.5.995.
  23. T.K. Datta, Seismic Analysis of Structures, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, Singapore, 2010.
  24. T.T. Nahar, M.M. Rahman, D. Kim, Effective safety assessment of aged concrete gravity dam based on the reliability index in a seismically induced site, Appl. Sci. 11 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/app11051987, 1987.
  25. A.H.-S. Ang, Structural risk analysis and reliability-based design, J. Struct. Div. 99 (1973) 1891-1910, https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0003604.
  26. O. Ditlevsen, H.O. Madsen, Structural Reliability Methods, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996.
  27. P. Thoft-Cristensen, M.J. Baker, Structural Reliability Theory and its Applications, first ed., Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY, USA, 1982.
  28. M. Tichy, Applied Methods of Structural Reliability, Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1993.
  29. M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, F. Pourkamali-Anaraki, Simplified reliability analysis of multi hazard risk in gravity dams via machine learning techniques, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 18 (2018) 592-610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.09.003.
  30. A. Haldar, S. Mahadevan, First-order and second-order reliability methods, in: C. Sundararajan (Ed.), Probabilistic Structural Mechanics Handbook: Theory and Industrial Applications, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1995, pp. 27-52.
  31. A. Harbitz, An efficient sampling method for probability of failure calculation, Struct. Saf. 3 (1986) 109-115, https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(86)90012-3.
  32. M.D. McKay, R.J. Beckman, W.J. Conover, A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code, Technometrics 42 (2000) 55-61, https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2000.10485979.
  33. S.-K. Au, J.L. Beck, Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation, Probabilist. Eng. Mech. 16 (2001) 263-277, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-8920(01)00019-4.
  34. C.A. Cornell, A probability-based structural code, J. Am. Concr. Inst. 66 (1969) 974-985, https://doi.org/10.14359/7446.
  35. E. Rosenblueth, L. Esteva, Reliability basis for some Mexican codes, ACI Spec. Publ. 31 (1972) 1-41, https://doi.org/10.14359/17921.
  36. R.L. Iman, W.-J. Conover, A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables, Commun. Stat. Simulat. Comput. 11 (1982) 311-334, https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918208812265.
  37. A.M. Olsson, G.E. Sandberg, Latin hypercube sampling for stochastic finite element analysis, J. Eng. Mech. 128 (2002) 121-125, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:1(121).
  38. M. Stein, Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hypercube sampling, Technometrics 29 (1987) 143-151, https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1987.10488205.
  39. D. Huntington, C. Lyrintzis, Improvements to and limitations of Latin hypercube sampling, Probabilist. Eng. Mech. 13 (1998) 245-253, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-8920(97)00013-1.
  40. B.M. Ayyub, K.-L. Lai, Structural reliability assessment using Latin hypercube sampling, in: 5th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, 1989. San Francisco, CA, USA.
  41. F. McKenna, OpenSees: open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Comput. Sci. Eng. 13 (2006) 58-66, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.66.
  42. M.M. Rahman, T.T. Nahar, D. Kim, FeView: finite element model (FEM) visualization and post-processing tool for OpenSees, Software 15 (2021) 100751, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2021.100751.
  43. A. Neuenhofer, F.C. Filippou, Geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based frame finite element, J. Struct. Eng. 124 (1998) 704-711, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:6(704).
  44. S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSEES): OpenSees Command Language Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER), California, USA, 2006.
  45. M. Hazay, L.G. Vigh, Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames: application of advanced reliability analysis, ce/papers 1 (2017) 2993-3002, https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.351.
  46. N.K. Psyrras, A.G. Sextos, Build-X: expert system for seismic analysis and assessment of 3D buildings using OpenSees, Adv. Eng. Software 116 (2018) 23-35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.11.007.
  47. X. Lu, L. Xie, H. Guan, Y. Huang, X. Lu, A shear wall element for nonlinear seismic analysis of super-tall buildings using OpenSees, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 98 (2015) 14-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2015.01.006.
  48. B.H. Kim, N. Stubbs, T. Park, A new method to extract modal parameters using output-only responses, J. Sound Vib. 282 (2005) 215-230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2004.02.026.
  49. R. Brincker, L. Zhang, P. Andersen, Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition, Smart Mater. Struct. 10 (2001) 441-445, https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/10/3/303.
  50. J. Cara, Modal identification of structures from input/output data using the expectationemaximization algorithm and uncertainty quantification by mean of the bootstrap, Struct. Contr. Health Monit. 26 (2019) 2272, https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2272.
  51. B.-H. Park, K.-J. Kim, Vector ARMAX modeling approach in multi-input modal analysis, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 3 (1989) 373-387, https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-3270(89)90044-7.
  52. D.L. Brown, R.J. Allemang, R. Zimmerman, M. Mergeay, Parameter estimation techniques for modal analysis, SAE Technical Papers 88 (1979) 828-846, https://doi.org/10.4271/790221.
  53. R.V.D. Boomgaard, J. Lagerberg, T. Walstra, Digital Signal Processing, 2016. Available: https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/r.vandenboomgaard/SP20162017/index.html (accessed on Aug 14).
  54. A. Mohammed, Investigation of the Table in the Student Lab, Master's Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2005.
  55. C. Shah, Mesh discretization error and criteria for accuracy of finite element solutions. 4th ASEAN ANSYS User Conference, Central Region, Singapore, 2002. Nov 5-6.
  56. S. Pakzad, Dynamics of Civil Structures: Proceedings of the 36th IMAC, a Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Springer, Bethel, USA, 2018.
  57. M. Mashayekhi, H.E. Estekanchi, H. Vafai, S.A. Mirfarhadi, Development of hysteretic energy compatible endurance time excitations and its application, Eng. Struct. 177 (2018) 753-769, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.089.
  58. J.K. Lapajne, P. Fajfar, Seismic hazard reassessment of an existing NPP in Slovenia, Nucl. Eng. Des. 175 (1997) 215-226, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(97)00039-3.
  59. N. Jayaram, T. Lin, J.W. Baker, A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance, Earthq. Spectra 27 (2011) 797-815, 10.1193%2F1.3608002. https://doi.org/10.1193%2F1.3608002
  60. L. Kyung-min, Push for Reactors Halt Causes Stir, 2017. Available: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/02/371_232114.html (accessed on April 21).
  61. Y.S. Choun, I.K. Choi, Y. Ohtori, Y. Shiba, M. Nakajima, Korea-Japan Joint Research on Development of Seismic Capacity Evaluation and Enhancement Technology Considering Near-Fault Effects, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2003. KAERI/RR-2688/2006.
  62. C.A. Cornell, H. Banon, A.F. Shakal, Seismic motion and response prediction alternatives, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 7 (1979) 295-315, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290070402.
  63. U. S. NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.60: Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2014, pp. 301-415.
  64. ASCE, ASCE/SEI 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA, 2017.
  65. FEMA, FEMA P-58-1, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, second ed., Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
  66. M. Mahsuli, T. Haukaas, Computer program for multimodel reliability and optimization analysis, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 27 (2013) 87-98, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000204.
  67. M. Westberg, Reliability-Based Assessment of Concrete Dam Stability, Doctoral Thesis, Division of Structural Engineering, Division of Structural Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2010.
  68. J. Schneider, Introduction to Safety and Reliability of Structures, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 1997.