Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Identifying significant earthquake intensity measures for evaluating seismic damage and fragility of nuclear power plant structures

  • Nguyen, Duy-Duan (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Thusa, Bidhek (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Han, Tong-Seok (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Tae-Hyung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2019.03.15
  • Accepted : 2019.06.12
  • Published : 2020.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Seismic design practices and seismic response analyses of civil structures and nuclear power plants (NPPs) have conventionally used the peak ground acceleration (PGA) or spectral acceleration (Sa) as an intensity measure (IM) of an earthquake. However, there are many other earthquake IMs that were proposed by various researchers. The aim of this study is to investigate the correlation between seismic responses of NPP components and 23 earthquake IMs and identify the best IMs for correlating with damage of NPP structures. Particularly, low- and high-frequency ground motion records are separately accounted in correlation analyses. An advanced power reactor NPP in Korea, APR1400, is selected for numerical analyses where containment and auxiliary buildings are modeled using SAP2000. Floor displacements and accelerations are monitored for the non- and base-isolated NPP structures while shear deformations of the base isolator are additionally monitored for the base-isolated NPP. A series of Pearson's correlation coefficients are calculated to recognize the correlation between each of the 23 earthquake IMs and responses of NPP structures. The numerical results demonstrate that there is a significant difference in the correlation between earthquake IMs and seismic responses of non-isolated NPP structures considering low- and high-frequency ground motion groups. Meanwhile, a trivial discrepancy of the correlation is observed in the case of the base-isolated NPP subjected to the two groups of ground motions. Moreover, a selection of PGA or Sa for seismic response analyses of NPP structures in the high-frequency seismic regions may not be the best option. Additionally, a set of fragility curves are thereafter developed for the base-isolated NPP based on the shear deformation of lead rubber bearing (LRB) with respect to the strongly correlated IMs. The results reveal that the probability of damage to the structure is higher for low-frequency earthquakes compared with that of high-frequency ground motions.

Keywords

References

  1. Z. Chen, J. Wei, Correlation between ground motion parameters and lining damage indices for mountain tunnels, Nat. Hazards 65 (3) (2013) 1683-1702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0437-5
  2. M. Corigliano, C.G. Lai, G. Barla, January). Seismic vulnerability of rock tunnels using fragility curves, in: 11th ISRM Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2007.
  3. S. Yaghmaei-Sabegh, Application of wavelet transforms on characterization of inelastic displacement ratio spectra for pulse-like ground motions, J. Earthq. Eng. 16 (4) (2012) 561-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.640739
  4. M. Ghayoomi, S. Dashti, Effect of ground motion characteristics on seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction, Earthq. Spectra 31 (3) (2015) 1789-1812. https://doi.org/10.1193/040413EQS089M
  5. Y.Y. Zhang, Y. Ding, Y.T. Pang, Selection of optimal intensity measures in seismic damage analysis of cable-stayed bridges subjected to far-fault ground motions, J. Earthq. Tsunami 9 (01) (2015), 1550003. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793431115500037
  6. A. Elenas, Correlation between seismic acceleration parameters and overall structural damage indices of buildings, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 20 (1-4) (2000) 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00041-5
  7. A. Elenas, K. Meskouris, Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures, Eng. Struct. 23 (6) (2001) 698-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00074-2
  8. V. Cao, H.R. Ronagh, Correlation between seismic parameters of far-fault motions and damage indices of low-rise reinforced concrete frames, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 66 (2014) 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.020
  9. V. Cao, H.R. Ronagh, Correlation between parameters of pulse-type motions and damage of low-rise RC frames, Earthq. Struct. 7 (3) (2014) 365-384. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.3.365
  10. A. Massumi, F. Gholami, The influence of seismic intensity parameters on structural damage of RC buildings using principal components analysis, Appl. Math. Model. 40 (3) (2016) 2161-2176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.09.043
  11. N. Nanos, A. Elenas, P. Ponterosso, Correlation of different strong motion duration parameters and damage indicators of reinforced concrete structures, in: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2008. Beijing, China, 2008.
  12. K. Kostinakis, A. Athanatopoulou, K. Morfidis, Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings, Eng. Struct. 82 (2015) 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.035
  13. J. Pejovic, S. Jankovic, Selection of ground motion intensity measure for reinforced concrete structure, Procedia Eng. 117 (2015) 588-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.219
  14. J. Pejovic, N. Serdar, R. Pejovic, Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand models of RC high-rise buildings, Earthq. Struct. 13 (3) (2017) 221-230. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.3.221
  15. X. Lu, L. Ye, X. Lu, M. Li, X. Ma, An improved ground motion intensity measure for super high-rise buildings, Sci. China Technol. Sci. 56 (6) (2013) 1525-1533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-013-5234-1
  16. J.E. Padgett, B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches, Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (5) (2008) 711-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782
  17. V. Jahangiri, M. Yazdani, M.S. Marefat, Intensity measures for the seismic response assessment of plain concrete arch bridges, Bull. Earthq. Eng. (2018) 1-24.
  18. C. Zelaschi, R. Monteiro, R. Pinho, Critical assessment of intensity measures for seismic response of Italian RC bridge portfolios, J. Earthq. Eng. (2017) 1-21.
  19. O. Avsar, G. Ozdemir, Response of seismic-isolated bridges in relation to intensity measures of ordinary and pulselike ground motions, J. Bridge Eng. 18 (3) (2011) 250-260. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000340
  20. D. Nguyen, H. Park, B. Thusa, T.-H. Lee, Identification of Earthquake Intensity Measures as the Seismic Damage Indicator of Bridges Considering Low- and High-Frequency Contents of Ground Motions, Submitted to Earthquakes And Structures, 2019.
  21. D.D. Nguyen, D. Park, S. Shamsher, V.Q. Nguyen, T.H. Lee, Seismic vulnerability assessment of rectangular cut-and-cover subway tunnels, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 86 (2019) 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.01.021
  22. H.N. Phan, F. Paolacci, Efficient intensity measures for probabilistic seismic response analysis of anchored above-ground liquid steel storage tanks, in: ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (pp. V005T09A010-V005T09A010), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016.
  23. R.P. Kennedy, M.K. Ravindra, Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies, Nucl. Eng. Des. 79 (1) (1984) 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(84)90188-2
  24. EPRI, Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities, Report TR-103959, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1994.
  25. EPRI, A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin, Report EPRI-NP-6041-M-REV.1, 1991 (Palo Alto, CA, USA).
  26. U.S. NUREG, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Seismic Fragility of Nuclear Power Plant Components (Phase II), NUREG/CR-4659, vols. 2-4, Department of Nuclear Energy, Brookhaven Laboratory, Long Island, NY, USA, 1987. BNL-NUREG-52007.
  27. 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, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 46 (5) (2014) 699-706. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.09.2014.030
  28. P.C. Basu, M.K. Ravindra, Y. Mihara, Component fragility for use in PSA of nuclear power plant, Nucl. Eng. Des. 323 (2017) 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.10.018
  29. S.G. Cho, Y.H. Joe, Seismic fragility analyses of nuclear power plant structures based on the recorded earthquake data in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Des. 235 (17-19) (2005) 1867-1874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2005.05.021
  30. T.K. Mandal, N.N. Pujari, S. Ghosh, A comparative study of seismic fragility estimates using different numerical methods, in: 4th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013.
  31. T.K. Mandal, S. Ghosh, N.N. Pujari, Seismic fragility analysis of a typical Indian PHWRcontainment: comparison of fragilitymodels, Struct. Saf. 58 (2016) 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.08.003
  32. F. Perotti, M. Domaneschi, S. De Grandis, The numerical computation of seismic fragility of base-isolated Nuclear Power Plants buildings, Nucl. Eng. Des. 262 (2013) 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.04.029
  33. 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 (3) (2019) 894-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.12.025
  34. Y.N. Huang, A.S. Whittaker, N. Luco, A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants:(I) Methodology, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (9) (2011) 3996-4003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.051
  35. Y.N. Huang, A.S. Whittaker, N. Luco, A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants:(II) Application, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (9) (2011) 3985-3995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.050
  36. I.K. Choi, Y.S. Choun, S.M. Ahn, J.M. Seo, Seismic fragility analysis of a CANDU type NPP containment building for near-fault ground motions, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 10 (2) (2006) 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02823928
  37. 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
  38. S. De Grandis, M. Domaneschi, F. Perotti, A numerical procedure for computing the fragility of NPP components under random seismic excitation, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (11) (2009) 2491-2499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.06.027
  39. D.D. Nguyen, B. Thusa, T.H. Lee, Seismic fragility of base-isolated nuclear power plant considering effects of near-fault ground motions, J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 18 (7) (2018) 315-321. https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2018.18.7.315
  40. D.D. Nguyen, B. Thusa, T.H. Lee, Effects of significant duration of ground motions on seismic responses of base-isolated nuclear power plant, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 23 (3) (2019) 149-157. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2019.23.3.149
  41. S.L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 1996.
  42. SeismoSignal - a computer program for signal processing of strong-motion data, available from: http://www.seismosoft.com, 2017.
  43. R. Dobry, I.M. Idriss, E. Ng, Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 68 (5) (1978) 1487-1520.
  44. A. Arias, A Measure of Earthquake Intensity, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, 1970 (Univ. of Chile, Santiago de Chile).
  45. 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)
  46. J.R. Benjamin, A Criterion for Determining Exceedances of the Operating Basis Earthquake, Report No. EPRI NP-5930, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto., California, USA, 1988.
  47. G.W. Housner, Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes, in: Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures, 1952, pp. 20-36 (Los Angeles, California, USA).
  48. J.L. Von Thun, Earthquake Ground Motions for Design and Analysis of Dams. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II-Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation, 1988.
  49. O.W. Nuttli, The Relation of Sustained Maximum Ground Acceleration and Velocity to Earthquake Intensity and Magnitude, Report 16, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA, 1979. Misc. Paper S-73-1.
  50. N. Shome, C.A. Cornell, P. Bazzurro, J.E. Carballo, Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses, Earthq. Spectra 14 (3) (1998) 469-500. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586011
  51. S.K. Sarma, K.S. Yang, An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameter A95, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 15 (1) (1987) 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290150109
  52. E.M. Rathje, N.A. Abrahamson, J.D. Bray, Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (2) (1998) 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:2(150)
  53. PEER Ground Motion Database, 2018. http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database.
  54. KMA, Korean Meteorological Administration, 2016, https://web.kma.go.kr/eng/index.jsp
  55. EPRI, Program on Technology Innovation: the Effects of High Frequency Ground Motion on Structures, Components, and Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants, Report 1015108, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA, 2007.
  56. EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Technology: High-Frequency Seismic Loading Evaluation for Standard Nuclear Power Plants, Report 3002009429, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA, 2017.
  57. SAP2000 Ver 15, Computers and structures Inc, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013.
  58. J.M. Kim, E.H. Lee, Development and Verification of Simplified Beam-Stick Model of Seismically Isolated ARP1400 Nuclear Power Plant Structure," Research Report, Central Research Institute of KHNP, KETEP Project No. 2014151010170B, Korea, 2015.
  59. E.H. Lee, J.M. Kim, K.H. Joo, H. Kim, Evaluation of the soil-structure interaction effect on seismically isolated nuclear power plant structures, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 20 (6) (2016) 379-389. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2016.20.6.379
  60. G.J. Kim, K.K. Yang, B.S. Kim, H.J. Kim, S.J. Yun, J.K. Song, Seismic response evaluation of seismically isolated nuclear power plant structure subjected to Gyeong-Ju earthquake, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 20 (7) (2016) 453-460. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2016.20.7.453
  61. J.W. Jung, H.W. Jang, J.H. Kim, J.W. Hong, Effect of second hardening on floor response spectrum of a base-isolated nuclear power plant, Nucl. Eng. Des. 322 (2017) 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.06.004
  62. S.G. Cho, S.M. Yun, D. Kim, K.J. Hoo, Analyses of vertical seismic responses of seismically isolated nuclear power plant structures supported by lead rubber bearings, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 19 (3) (2015) 133-143. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2015.19.3.133
  63. A.H.S. Ang, W.H. Tang, Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications in Civil & Environmental Engineering, vol. 1, Wiley and Sons, 2007.
  64. J.H. Kim, M.K. Kim, I.K. Choi, Experimental study on the ultimate limit state of a lead-rubber bearing, in: ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (pp. V008T08A039-V008T08A039), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2016, 2016.
  65. H.P. Lee, M.S. Cho, J.Y. Park, K.S. Jang, Assessment of LRB seismic isolation device for nuclear power plant, in: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meating, 2013. Gyeongju, Korea, 2013.
  66. I. Choi, J. Kim, M. Kim, Performance based design of lrb systems for nuclear power plants, in: Transaction of the 24th Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT-24) Conference, Busan, Korea, 2017, 2017.
  67. S. Eem, D. Hahm, Large strain nonlinear model of lead rubber bearings for beyond design basis earthquakes, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (2) (2019) 600-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.11.001
  68. S. Yabana, K. Kanazawa, S. Nagata, S. Kitamura, T. Sano, Shaking table tests with large test specimens of seismically isolated FBR plants: Part 3 - ultimate behavior of upper structure and rubber bearings, in: ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2009, pp. 179-187.
  69. T. Hiraki, S. Nagata, K. Kanazawa, T. Imaoka, T. Nakayama, Y.,. Umeki, H. Shimizu, Development of an evaluation method for seismic isolation systems of nuclear power facilities: Part 9 - ultimate properties of full-scale lead rubber bearings based on breaking test, in: ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (pp. V008T08A012-V008T08A012), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2014.
  70. J. Zhang, Y. Huo, Optimum isolation design for highway bridges using fragility function method, in: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, WCEE), Beijing, China, 2008.
  71. J.H. Lee, J.K. Song, Seismic fragility analysis of seismically isolated nuclear power plant structures using equivalent linear-and bilinear-lead rubber bearing model, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 19 (5) (2015) 207-217. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2015.19.5.207
  72. S.H. Eem, H.J. Jung, M.K. Kim, I.K. Choi, Seismic fragility evaluation of isolated NPP containment structure considering soil-structure interaction effect, J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 17 (2) (2013) 53-59. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2013.17.2.053
  73. M. Shinozuka, M.Q. Feng, J. Lee, T. Naganuma, Statistical analysis of fragility curves, J. Eng. Mech. 126 (12) (2000) 1224-1231. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)
  74. D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (3) (2002) 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

Cited by

  1. Seismic Vulnerability of Cabinet Facility with Tuned Mass Dampers Subjected to High- and Low-Frequency Earthquakes vol.10, pp.14, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10144850
  2. Efficient Earthquake Intensity Measure for Seismic Vulnerability of Integral Abutment Bridges vol.20, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.9798/kosham.2020.20.6.251
  3. Influence of frequency content of ground motions on seismic fragility of equipment in nuclear power plant vol.224, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111220
  4. Seismic fragility analysis of high concrete faced rockfill dams based on plastic failure with support vector machine vol.144, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106587
  5. Development of the structural health record of containment building in nuclear power plant vol.53, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.12.018
  6. A Short Review on Numerical Modelling Approaches for Seismic Evaluation Performance of Nuclear Power Plant Structures vol.822, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/822/1/012047
  7. Optimal Earthquake Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Demand Models of Base-Isolated Nuclear Power Plant Structures vol.14, pp.16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165163
  8. Efficiency of various structural modeling schemes on evaluating seismic performance and fragility of APR1400 containment building vol.53, pp.8, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.02.006
  9. Theoretical analysis and experimental study on the dynamic behavior of a valve pipeline system during an earthquake vol.20, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-021-2055-2
  10. Influence of Optimal Intensity Measures Selection in Engineering Demand Parameter of Fixed Jacket Offshore Platform vol.11, pp.22, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210745
  11. Synthesis of a vector-valued intensity measure for improved prediction of seismic demands in Inter-Story-Isolated (ISI) buildings subjected to near fault ground motions vol.248, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113241
  12. Evaluation of the Limit State of a Six-Inch Carbon Steel Pipe Elbow in Base-Isolated Nuclear Power Plants vol.14, pp.24, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248400
  13. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Model and Seismic Fragility Analysis of NPP Equipment Subjected to High- and Low-Frequency Earthquakes vol.195, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2021.1920796
  14. Analyzing the performance of different seismic demand models in RC moment-resisting frames vol.153, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107095
  15. Comparison of tree-based machine learning algorithms for predicting liquefaction potential using canonical correlation forest, rotation forest, and random forest based on CPT data vol.154, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107130