0
SPECIAL SECTION PAPERS

Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic Fragility of a Nuclear Reactor Building

[+] Author and Article Information
Samer El-Bahey

Mem. ASME
JENSEN HUGHES,
1626 N. Litchfield Road, Ste#350,
Goodyear, AZ 85395
e-mail: selbahey@jensenhughes.com

Yasser Alzeni

Mem. ASME
Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University,
El-Gaish Road,
Alexandria 11432, Egypt
e-mail: yealzeni@buffalo.edu

Konstantinos Oikonomou

Mem. ASME
JENSEN HUGHES,
1626 N. Litchfield Road, Ste#350,
Goodyear, AZ 85395
e-mail: koikonomou@jensenhughes.com

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 30, 2016; final manuscript received January 16, 2018; published online March 5, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Leon Cizelj.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 4(2), 020912 (Mar 05, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1131; doi: 10.1115/1.4039076 History: Received September 30, 2016; Revised January 16, 2018

Recently, the nuclear industry has made a tremendous effort to assess the safety of nuclear power plants (NPP), as advances in seismology have led to the perception that the potential earthquake hazard in the U.S. may be higher than originally assumed. Due to the conservatism in the NPP design, structures and safety-related items are capable of withstanding earthquakes larger than the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). One major aspect of conservatism in the design is ignoring the effect of soil-structure interaction (SSI), which results in conservative estimates of seismic demands for plant equipment. In this paper, a typical reactor building (RB) is chosen for a case study to investigate the potential benefit of accounting for SSI effects. A lumped mass stick model is first developed and analyzed with a fixed base configuration, using the free-field ground motion as input at the foundation level, as well as with a SSI configuration. Fragility analyses are then performed for the RB and one of its components to quantify the effects of the SSI on the overall seismic risk. In each case, a family of seismic fragility curves is developed. It is found that consideration of SSI effects in the analysis can improve the component fragilities, and potentially enhance the core damage frequency (CDF) of the plant.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Topics: Soil , Safety , Earthquakes , Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

U.S.NRC, 1991, “ Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities-10CFR 50.54 (f) (Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
U.S.NRC, 2000, “Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, No. SECY 00-0062. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2000/secy2000-0062/2000-0062scy.pdf
U.S.NRC, 1983, “PRA Procedures Guide: A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Power Plants,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG/CR-2300. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr2300/
Reed, J. W. , and Kennedy, R. P. , 1994, “Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Final Report No. TR-103959. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Andreev/post/How_plot_fragility_curves_from_incremental_dynamic_analysis_IDA/attachment/59d62ad679197b80779893a0/AS:340719156908037@1458245186457/download/EPRI_Fragilities.pdf
Kennedy, R. P. , Cornell, C. A. , Campbell, R. D. , Kaplan, S. , and Perla, H. F. , 1980, “ Probabilistic Seismic Safety Study of an Existing Nuclear Power Plant,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 59(2), pp. 315–338. [CrossRef]
Kennedy, R. P. , and Ravindra, M. K. , 1984, “ Seismic Fragilities for Nuclear Power Plant Risk Studies,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 79(1), pp. 47–68. [CrossRef]
Reed, J. W. , Kennedy, R. P. , Buttemer, D. R. , Idriss, I. M. , Moore, D. P. , Barr, T. , Wooten, K. D. , and Smith, J. E. , 1991, “A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Report No. EPRI-NP-6041-M-Rev.1. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:23014921
Kennedy, R. P. , 1999, “ Overview of Methods for Seismic PRA and Margin Analysis Including Recent Innovations,” OECD-NEA Workshop on Seismic Risk, Tokyo, Japan, Aug. 10–12, pp. 33–64. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0429/ML042960158.pdf
Ellingwood, B. , 1994, “Validation of Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessments of Nuclear Power Plants,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG/GR-0008. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:25044679
Prassinos, P. G. , Ravindra, M. K. , and Savy, J. B. , 1986, “Recommendations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Trial Guidelines for Seismic Margin Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Report No. NUREG/CR-4482. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1206/ML12069A017.pdf
EPRI, 2012, “Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Report No. 1025287. https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/000000000001025287/
Campbell, R. , Hardy, G. , and Merz, K. , 2002, “Seismic Fragility Application Guide,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Final Report No. TR-1002988. https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/1002988/
EPRI, 2013, “EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Report No. 3002000717. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1317/ML13170A385.pdf
Stevenson & Associates, 2011, “SpectraSA v4.2.0, Tools for Management, Enveloping, and Conversions of Response Spectra Databases,” Stevenson & Associates, Woburn, MA.
U.S.NRC, 1987, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG-0800. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/
Georgia Institute of Technology, 2012, “GTSTRUDL v32, Structural Analysis and Design Modeling Software,” Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA.
ASCE, 2017, “Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, Standard No. ASCE 4-16.
Kausel, E. , 1992, “SUPELM v3.1, Foundation Embedded in Layered Media: Dynamic Stiffnesses and Response to Seismic Waves,” Wellesley, MA.
Kausel, E. , 1992, “EKSSI v3.1, A Program for the Dynamic Analysis of Structures Including Soil-Structure Interaction Effects,” Wellesley, MA.
EPRI, 1995, “Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document,” Volume III, Chapter 1, Appendix A: PRA Key Assumptions and Ground Rules, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
ACI, 2006, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Standard No. ACI 349-06. https://www.concrete.org/store/productdetail.aspx?ItemID=34906&Format=DOWNLOAD&Language=English

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison between the UHRS and the response spectrum generated from the artificial time history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Reactor building lumped mass stick model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison between the foundation base SSI and FB 5% damped ISRS, and the horizontal UHRS input

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fourier amplitude of the ground motion

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Horizontal direction comparison between SSI and FB 5% damped ISRS at top of the CS at elevation 672.5 m (2206.5 ft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Horizontal direction comparison between SSI and FB 5% damped ISRS at top of the IS at elevation 635.1 m (2083.5 ft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Containment shell nodal ZPA comparison (lower node numbers denote higher elevations)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Internal structure nodal ZPA comparison (lower node numbers denote higher elevations)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fragility curves for the RB with SSI effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fragility curves for the RB with FB analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison between median and mean fragilities for the RB with and without SSI effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Fragility curves for the SIT with SSI effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Fragility curves for the SIT with FB analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison between median and mean fragilities for the SIT, with and without SSI effects

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In