Evaluation of the Effects of Differences in Building Models on the Seismic Response of a Nuclear Power Plant Structure

Choi, Byung-Hyun; Nishida, Atsushi; Muramatsu, Ken; Takada, Tsuyoshi

doi:10.5610/jaee.20.2_1

Cited by 1 publication

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Installation positions of seismographs 10 . (A) Vertical section view, (B) plan view (B1F), and (C) plan view (B3F).…”

Section: Analytical Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The F I G U R E 7 Acceleration response spectra of the input wave (h = 5%). 10 acceleration response input wave spectra (Figure 7) were provided as input below the base mat (Tokyo Peil [TP]: 10 m). Figures 8 and 9 present the installation positions of the seismographs and the observed and analytical acceleration response spectra.…”

Section: Verification Of the Analytical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the response results were mostly within the elastic range. Therefore, we used a linear material for the embedded SR model 10 . Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 3 provide the material properties (ignoring the rebar bond strength).…”

Section: Analytical Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attachment locations of soil springs (three‐dimensional finite element) 10 . (A) Side springs, and (B) bottom springs.…”

Section: Analytical Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Focusing on the natural mode in the 3D FE model, unfortunately, we could not F I G U R E 5 Rayleigh damping. 10 express the upper out-of-plane deformation in the building using the SR model. This tendency was similar to the results obtained for the north-south (NS) direction.…”

Section: Verification Of the Analytical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Uncertainty quantification of seismic response of nuclear reactor building using a three‐dimensional finite element model

Choi

Nishida

et al. 2022

Earthquake Engineering and Resilience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the 2011 Fukushima accident, seismic regulations for nuclear power plants (NPPs) in Japan have been strengthened to include countermeasures beyond design‐basis events. Therefore, the importance of seismic probabilistic risk assessments is a topic that deserves attention. Generally, uncertainty quantification has been a crucial undertaking to assess the fragility of NPP buildings. This study aims to quantify realistic uncertainties using a three‐dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) model to reflect the obtained results to the conventional simple sway‐rocking (SR) model, and to develop a seismic fragility assessment method that considers 3D effects. As a first step, a 3D FE model was developed, and a seismic response analysis was performed to evaluate the seismic response of the buildings. For comparison, a seismic response analysis using the conventional SR model was performed. For input ground motions, 200 types of simulated seismic ground motions, generated using fault‐rupture models were adopted. As a second step, two types of uncertainties are evaluated for uncertainty quantification: uncertainty for input seismic ground motion and that due to different locations of equipment installed on a floor. As a third step, to reflect the 3D effect on the uncertainty of the conventional SR model, were investigated the median and logarithm standard deviation of the response ratio (3D FE/SR) of the maximum acceleration of the two models. The results of epistemic uncertainty tended to increase with the increasing elevation level and the epistemic uncertainty result in the basement floor, where important equipment was installed, was relatively small. By reflecting this epistemic uncertainty into the conventional SR model, a more realistic fragility assessment that considers the 3D effect is expected by applying this result as epistemic uncertainty of the SR model of the fragility assessment.

show abstract

“…Installation positions of seismographs 10 . (A) Vertical section view, (B) plan view (B1F), and (C) plan view (B3F).…”

Section: Analytical Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Verification Of the Analytical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analytical Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attachment locations of soil springs (three‐dimensional finite element) 10 . (A) Side springs, and (B) bottom springs.…”

Section: Analytical Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Verification Of the Analytical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Uncertainty quantification of seismic response of nuclear reactor building using a three‐dimensional finite element model

Choi

Nishida

et al. 2022

Earthquake Engineering and Resilience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of the Effects of Differences in Building Models on the Seismic Response of a Nuclear Power Plant Structure

Cited by 1 publication

References 3 publications

Uncertainty quantification of seismic response of nuclear reactor building using a three‐dimensional finite element model

Uncertainty quantification of seismic response of nuclear reactor building using a three‐dimensional finite element model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About