Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Shaking table test and numerical analysis of nuclear piping under low- and high-frequency earthquake motions

  • Kwag, Shinyoung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanbat National University) ;
  • Eem, Seunghyun (School of Convergence & Fusion System Engineering, Major in Plant System Engineering, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kwak, Jinsung (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, Hwanho (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Oh, Jinho (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Koo, Gyeong-Hoi (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Chang, Sungjin (Korea Construction and Transport Engineering Development Collaboratory Management Institute) ;
  • Jeon, Bubgyu (Korea Construction and Transport Engineering Development Collaboratory Management Institute)
  • Received : 2021.12.30
  • Accepted : 2022.03.27
  • Published : 2022.09.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A nuclear power plant (NPP) piping is designed against low-frequency earthquakes. However, earthquakes that can occur at NPP sites in the eastern part of the United States, northern Europe, and Korea are high-frequency earthquakes. Therefore, this study conducts bi-directional shaking table tests on actual-scale NPP piping and studies the response characteristics of low- and high-frequency earthquake motions. Such response characteristics are analyzed by comparing several responses that occur in the piping. Also, based on the test results, a piping numerical analysis model is developed and validated. The piping seismic performance under high-frequency earthquakes is derived. Consequently, the high-frequency excitation caused a large amplification in the measured peak acceleration responses compared to the low-frequency excitation. Conversely, concerning relative displacements, strains, and normal stresses, low-frequency excitation responses were larger than high-frequency excitation responses. Main peak relative displacements and peak normal stresses were 60%-69% and 24%-49% smaller in the high-frequency earthquake response than the low-frequency earthquake response. This phenomenon was noticeable when the earthquake motion intensity was large. The piping numerical model simulated the main natural frequencies and relative displacement responses well. Finally, for the stress limit state, the seismic performance for high-frequency earthquakes was about 2.7 times greater than for low-frequency earthquakes.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy through KETEP (Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation Planning) (No. 20181510102380). Also, this study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. RS-2022-00144328).

References

  1. R. Morita, K. Saito, A. Yuyama, Development and analysis of seismic experience database of structures, systems and components in nuclear power plants based on investigation reports and maintenance records, Nucl. Eng. Des. 375 (2021) 111078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2021.111078
  2. M. Baba, Fukushima accident: what happened? Radiat. Meas. 55 (2013) 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2013.01.013
  3. S. Kwag, Y. Ryu, B.S. Ju, Efficient seismic fragility analysis for large-scale piping system utilizing Bayesian approach, Appl. Sci. 10 (4) (2020) 1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041515
  4. K. Yoshida, N. Uchida, S. Hiarahara, T. Nakayama, T. Matsuzawa, T. Okada, 2019 M6. 7 Yamagata-Oki earthquake in the stress shadow of 2011 TohokuOki earthquake: was it caused by the reduction in fault strength? Tectonophysics 793 (2020) 228609.
  5. S. Kwag, A. Gupta, Probabilistic risk assessment framework for structural systems under multiple hazards using Bayesian statistics, Nucl. Eng. Des. 315 (2017) 20-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.02.009
  6. S. Kwag, A. Gupta, N. Dinh, Probabilistic risk assessment based model validation method using Bayesian network, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 169 (2018) 380-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.09.013
  7. S. Kwag, S. Eem, J. Kwak, H. Lee, J. Oh, G.H. Koo, Mitigation of seismic responses of actual nuclear piping by a newly developed tuned mass damper device, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (8) (2021) 2728-2745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.02.009
  8. USNRC, Seismic System Analysis. Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Rev. 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., USA, 2007.
  9. USNRC, Development of floor design response spectra for seismic design of floor-supported equipment or components, in: Regulatory Guide 1.122, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., USA, 1978.
  10. USNRC, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.60, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., USA, 2014.
  11. EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Technology: High-Frequency Seismic Loading Evaluation for Standard Nuclear Power Plants, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA, 2017. Technical Report 3002009429.
  12. C. Rydell, Seismic High-Frequency Content Loads on Structures and Components within Nuclear Facilities. Doctoral Dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2014.
  13. I.K. Choi, M. Nakajima, Y.S. Choun, Y. Ohtori, Development of the site-specific uniform hazard spectra for Korean nuclear power plant sites, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (4) (2009) 790-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.12.026
  14. H.M. Rhee, M.K. Kim, D.H. Sheen, I.K. Choi, Analysis of uniform hazard spectra for metropolises in the Korean Peninsula, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 17 (2) (2013) 71-77. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2013.17.2.071
  15. S.H. Eem, I.K. Choi, A shape of the response spectrum for evaluation of the ultimate seismic capacity of structures and equipment including highfrequency earthquake characteristics, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 24 (1) (2020) 1-8.
  16. I.K. Choi, Y.S. Choun, J.M. Seo, K.H. Yun, Reevaluation of seismic fragility parameters of nuclear power plant components considering uniform hazard spectrum, J. Kor. Nuclr. Soc. 34 (6) (2002) 586-595.
  17. KAERI, Evaluation of High Frequency Ground Motion Effects on the Seismic Capacity of Nuclear Power Plant Equipment, Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2003. Technical Report KAERI 2484/2003.
  18. Y.S. Choun, I.K. Choi, J.M. Seo, Improvement of the seismic safety of existing nuclear power plants by an increase of the component seismic capacity: a case study, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (6) (2008) 1410-1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.10.008
  19. H.S. Park, D.-D. Nguyen, T.-.H. Lee, Effect of high-frequency ground motions on the response of NPP components: a state-of-the-art review, J. Kor. Soc. Haz. Mitig. 17 (6) (2017) 285-294. https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2017.17.6.285
  20. EPRI, Considerations for NPP Equipment and Structures Subjected to Response Levels Caused by High Frequency Ground Motions, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA, 2007. Draft Report.
  21. EPRI, High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA, 2015. Technical Report 3002004396.
  22. EPRI, High Frequency Program: High Frequency Testing Summary, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2014. Technical Report 3002002997.
  23. C. Rydell, R. Malm, A. Ansell, Piping system subjected to seismic hard rock high frequencies, Nucl. Eng. Des. 278 (2014) 302-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.07.009
  24. S. Singh, A. Gupta, Seismic response of electrical equipment subjected to highefrequency ground motions, Nucl. Eng. Des. 374 (2021) 111046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2020.111046
  25. M.K. Kim, I.K. Choi, J.M. Seo, A shaking table test for an evaluation of seismic behavior of 480 V MCC, Nucl. Eng. Des. 243 (2012) 341-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.11.033
  26. H. Son, S. Park, B.G. Jeon, W.Y. Jung, J. Choi, B.S. Ju, Seismic qualification of electrical cabinet using high-fidelity simulation under high frequency earthquakes, Sustainability 12 (19) (2020) 8048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198048
  27. B.G. Jeon, H.Y. Son, S.H. Eem, I.K. Choi, B.S. Ju, Dynamic characteristics of single door electrical cabinet under rocking: source reconciliation of experimental and numerical findings, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (7) (2021) 2387-2395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.01.003
  28. J.P. Vayda, Influence of gap size on the dynamic behaviour of piping systems, Nucl. Eng. Des. 67 (2) (1982) 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(82)90137-6
  29. J. Lockau, E. Haas, F. Steinwender, The influence of high-frequency excitation on piping and support design, J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 106 (2) (1984) 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3264326
  30. F. Steinwender, J. Lockau, J. Rudolph, Experimental investigation of the load transfer behaviour of piping supports under high-frequency excitation, Nucl. Eng. Des. 83 (1) (1984) 27-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(84)90026-8
  31. A.G. Youtsos, Impact of structural steel flexibility and restraints gaps on the dynamic behaviour of piping, Nucl. Eng. Des. 114 (1) (1989) 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(89)90132-5
  32. A.G. Youtsos, High frequency response evaluation of piping systems, Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 36 (4) (1989) 269-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-0161(89)90052-5
  33. A. Gupta, M.K. Bose, Significance of non-classical damping in seismic qualification of equipment and piping, Nucl. Eng. Des. 317 (2017) 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.03.020
  34. S. Kwag, A. Gupta, Computationally efficient fragility assessment using equivalent elastic limit state and Bayesian updating, Comput. Struct. 197 (2018) 1-11.
  35. S. Kwag, J. Park, I.K. Choi, Development of efficient complete-sampling-based seismic PSA method for nuclear power plant, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 197 (2020) 106824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106824
  36. USNRC, A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-specific Earthquake Ground Motion. Regulatory Guide 1.208, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., USA, 2007.
  37. EPRI, Seismic Fragility and Seismic Margin Guidance for Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessments, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2018. Technical Report 3002012994.
  38. ASME, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components. ASME CODE Section III, Division I, Subsection NB, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Two Park Avenue, NY, USA, 2007.
  39. EPRI, Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Implementation Guide, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2013. Technical Report 3002000709.