Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Efficiency of various structural modeling schemes on evaluating seismic performance and fragility of APR1400 containment building

  • Nguyen, Duy-Duan (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Thusa, Bidhek (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Park, Hyosang (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Azad, Md Samdani (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University) ;
  • Lee, Tae-Hyung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2020.08.06
  • Accepted : 2021.02.07
  • Published : 2021.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficiency of various structural modeling schemes for evaluating seismic performances and fragility of the reactor containment building (RCB) structure in the advanced power reactor 1400 (APR1400) nuclear power plant (NPP). Four structural modeling schemes, i.e. lumped-mass stick model (LMSM), solid-based finite element model (Solid FEM), multi-layer shell model (MLSM), and beam-truss model (BTM), are developed to simulate the seismic behaviors of the containment structure. A full three-dimensional finite element model (full 3D FEM) is additionally constructed to verify the previous numerical models. A set of input ground motions with response spectra matching to the US NRC 1.60 design spectrum is generated to perform linear and nonlinear time-history analyses. Floor response spectra (FRS) and floor displacements are obtained at the different elevations of the structure since they are critical outputs for evaluating the seismic vulnerability of RCB and secondary components. The results show that the difference in seismic responses between linear and nonlinear analyses gets larger as an earthquake intensity increases. It is observed that the linear analysis underestimates floor displacements while it overestimates floor accelerations. Moreover, a systematic assessment of the capability and efficiency of each structural model is presented thoroughly. MLSM can be an alternative approach to a full 3D FEM, which is complicated in modeling and extremely time-consuming in dynamic analyses. Specifically, BTM is recommended as the optimal model for evaluating the nonlinear seismic performance of NPP structures. Thereafter, linear and nonlinear BTM are employed in a series of time-history analyses to develop fragility curves of RCB for different damage states. It is shown that the linear analysis underestimates the probability of damage of RCB at a given earthquake intensity when compared to the nonlinear analysis. The nonlinear analysis approach is highly suggested for assessing the vulnerability of NPP structures.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This paper was supported by Konkuk University Researcher Fund in 2020. The authors also acknowledge the fund of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No. 20201510100020).

References

  1. V. Varma, G.R. Reddy, K.K. Vaze, H.S. Kushwaha, Simplified approach for seismic analysis of structures, Int. J. Struct. Stabil. Dynam. 2 (2002) 207-225, 02. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021945540200052X
  2. 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
  3. A. Ali, N.A. Hayah, D. Kim, S.G. Cho, Probabilistic seismic assessment of baseisolated 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
  4. I. Zentner, Numerical computation of fragility curves for NPP equipment, Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (6) (2010) 1614-1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.02.030
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. S.G. Cho, D. Kim, S. Chaudhary, A simplified model for nonlinear seismic response analysis of equipment cabinets in nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (8) (2011) 2750-2757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.026
  9. J.B. Park, N.C. Park, S.J. Lee, Y.P. Park, Y. 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
  10. H. Lee, Y.C. Ou, H. Roh, J.S. Lee, Simplified model and seismic response of integrated nuclear containment system based on frequency adaptive lumpedmass stick modeling approach, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 19 (6) (2015) 1757-1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-1295-3
  11. Y.C. Ou, I. Hashlamon, W. Kim, H. Roh, Development of basic technique to improve seismic response accuracy of tributary area-based lumped-mass stick models, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 18 (1) (2019) 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-019-0493-x
  12. L. Tunon-Sanjur, R.S. Orr, S. Tinic, D.P. Ruiz, Finite element modeling of the AP1000 nuclear island for seismic analyses at generic soil and rock sites, Nucl. Eng. Des. 237 (12-13) (2007) 1474-1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.10.006
  13. A. Nour, A. Cherfaoui, V. Gocevski, P. Leger, Probabilistic seismic safety assessment of a CANDU 6 nuclear power plant including ambient vibration tests: case study, Nucl. Eng. Des. 304 (2016) 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.05.004
  14. A.G. Sextos, G.D. Manolis, A. Athanasiou, N. Ioannidis, Seismically induced uplift effects on nuclear power plants. Part 1: containment building rocking spectra, Nucl. Eng. Des. 318 (2017) 276-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.12.035
  15. C.H. Zhai, X. Bao, Z. Zheng, X.Y. Wang, Impact of aftershocks on a postmainshock damaged containment structure considering duration, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 115 (2018) 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.08.013
  16. X. Huang, O.S. Kwon, E. Bentz, J. Tcherner, Method for evaluation of concrete containment structure subjected to earthquake excitation and internal pressure increase, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 47 (6) (2018) 1544-1565. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3029
  17. X. Bao, M.H. Zhang, C.H. Zhai, Fragility analysis of a containment structure under far-fault and near-fault seismic sequences considering post-mainshock damage states, Eng. Struct. 198 (2019) 109511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109511
  18. D. Wang, C. Wu, Y. Zhang, Z. Ding, W. Chen, Elastic-plastic behavior of AP1000 nuclear island structure under mainshock-aftershock sequences, Ann. Nucl. Energy 123 (2019) 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.09.015
  19. 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
  20. V. Jussila, Y. Li, L. Fulop, Statistical analysis of the variation of floor vibrations in nuclear power plants subject to seismic loads, Nucl. Eng. Des. 309 (2016) 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.09.005
  21. J. Hur, E. Althoff, H. Sezen, R. Denning, T. Aldemir, Seismic assessment and performance of nonstructural components affected by structural modeling, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 49 (2) (2017) 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.01.004
  22. G. Dundulis, R. Kacianauskas, D. Markauskas, E. Stupak, S. Stupak, S. Sliaupa, Reanalysis of the floor response spectra of the ignalina nuclear power plant reactor building, Nucl. Eng. Des. 324 (2017) 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.09.009
  23. H.P. Lee, Shell finite element of reinforced concrete for internal pressure analysis of nuclear containment building, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (2) (2011) 515-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.11.008
  24. N. Nakamura, N. Yabushita, T. Suzuki, J. Yamada, N. Tsunashima, T. Nakano, Analyses of reactor building by 3D nonlinear FEM models considering basemat uplift for simultaneous horizontal and vertical ground motions, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (12) (2008) 3551-3560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.06.005
  25. N. Nakamura, S. Akita, T. Suzuki, M. Koba, S. Nakamura, T. Nakano, Study of ultimate seismic response and fragility evaluation of nuclear power building using nonlinear three-dimensional finite element model, Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (1) (2010) 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.10.018
  26. W. Chao, The applicability study on the multi-layer shell element method in steel concrete structure of shield building, in: 2017 25th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, 2017.
  27. Y. Lu, M. Panagiotou, I. Koutromanos, Three-dimensional beam-truss model for reinforced concrete walls and slabsepart 1: modeling approach, validation, and parametric study for individual reinforced concrete walls, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 45 (9) (2016) 1495-1513. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2719
  28. Y. Lu, M. Panagiotou, Three-dimensional beametruss model for reinforced concrete walls and slabsepart 2: modeling approach and validation for slabs and coupled walls, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 45 (11) (2016) 1707-1724. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2720
  29. H. Park, T. Eom, Truss model for nonlinear analysis of RC members subject to cyclic loading, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (10) (2007) 1351-1363. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2007)133:10(1351)
  30. M. Panagiotou, J.I. Restrepo, M. Schoettler, G. Kim, Nonlinear cyclic truss model for reinforced concrete walls, ACI Struct. J. 109 (2) (2012) 205.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. C. Li, C. Zhai, S. Kunnath, D. Ji, Methodology for selection of the most damaging ground motions for nuclear power plant structures, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 116 (2019) 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.039
  34. Z. Zheng, X. Pan, X. Bao, Seismic fragility of a typical containment under bidirectional earthquake excitations, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 22 (11) (2018) 4430-4444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-1000-z
  35. Sap2000, C. S. I, Computers and structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013.
  36. Ansys, Inc, ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference, 2019.
  37. Z.W. Miao, X.Z. Lu, J.J. Jiang, L.P. Ye, Nonlinear FE model for RC shear walls based on multi-layer shell element and microplane constitutive model, Computational Methods in Engineering and Science (2006) 21-23.
  38. 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
  39. S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, OpenSees Command Language Manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, PEER) Center, 2006, p. 264.
  40. D.C. Kent, R. Park, Flexural members with confined concrete, J. Struct. Div. 97 (7) (1971) 1969-1990. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0002957
  41. M. Menegotto, P.E. Pinto, Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending, in: IABSE Sym. Of Resist. and Ult. Deform. of Struct. Acted on by Well-Defined Repeat, Loads, Lisbon, Portugal, 1973.
  42. Nrc, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.60: Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.60, Revision 2, 2014. Rockville, Maryland, USA.
  43. SeismoSignal, A computer program for signal processing of strong-motion data. http://www.seismosoft.com, 2017.
  44. Peer center, PEER Ground Motion Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2020. http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu.
  45. A.K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall. Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1995.
  46. Y.J. Park, C.H. Hofmayer, Technical Guidelines for Aseismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants (No. NUREG/CR-6241), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA, 1994.
  47. 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
  48. Fema 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings in Rehabilitation Requirements, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  49. Asce/Sei 43-05, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2005.
  50. 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)
  51. M. Ozaki, A. Okazaki, K. Tomomoto, T. Iba, R. Satoh, H. Nanba, H. Seya, K. Moriyama, T. Ugata, Improved response factor methods for seismic fragility of reactor building, Nucl. Eng. Des. 185 (2-3) (1998) 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(98)00237-4

Cited by

  1. A Short Review on Numerical Modelling Approaches for Seismic Evaluation Performance of Nuclear Power Plant Structures vol.822, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/822/1/012047
  2. Optimal Earthquake Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Demand Models of Base-Isolated Nuclear Power Plant Structures vol.14, pp.16, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165163
  3. Evaluation of the Limit State of a Six-Inch Carbon Steel Pipe Elbow in Base-Isolated Nuclear Power Plants vol.14, pp.24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248400