Influence of Differences Between Seismic Safety Evaluation Methods for Equipment and Piping of a Nuclear Facility

Abstract

The objective of this research was to investigate the influence of differences between methods for evaluating the seismic safety of the equipment and piping of a nuclear facility. For the input ground motion, one wave was chosen from among 200 waves of input ground motions of maximum acceleration of 700–1100 cm/s2 created for the Oarai District of the Ibaraki Prefecture. Seismic safety evaluations were performed using the conventional method, which relies on floor response spectrum data, and using the multi-input method. The differences between the two methods were summarized. The target equipment and piping system were cooling systems in a model plant. It was found that the response predicted by the multi-input method was approximately half of the response predicted by the conventional method. The third trial evaluation method using the floor response of a three-dimensional building model as input was also reported.

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

“…damping coefficient) are based on the SR model 8 and distributed at the nodes by dividing them with the dominant area.…”

“…These soil springs are modeled as the Winkler‐type soil springs (Figure 4). The spring value (soil spring constant and soil spring damping coefficient) are based on the SR model 8 and distributed at the nodes by dividing them with the dominant area.…”