Seismic Response Analysis of Buried Nuclear Power Plant Structures in Non-Bedrock Sites
Source abstract
Abstract
In this paper, a refined 3D direct finite element model including nuclear power plant structures and soil is developed. The wave input method, including free-field loads and a viscous spring artificial boundary, is used. The effects of structural burial depths on the seismic response of power plant structures are studied. Research shows that the seismic response of this new nuclear power structure is influenced by structural burial depths. The seismic response of the acceleration response and relative floor displacement decreases significantly with increasing structural burial depths. The floor spectrum in the low-frequency region is less influenced by different burial depths. The region of the frequency band corresponding to the peak floor spectrum is significantly influenced by different burial depths. The frequencies corresponding to the peak of the floor spectrum shift towards the lower-frequency bands. The higher-frequency bands of the floor spectrum are less influenced by different burial depths.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Geophysical Methods and Applications · Fluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
The Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering, Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
Funding
Key Program of the Natural Science Foundation of China
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. (2024). World Nuclear Performance Report 2024, World Nuclear Association.
2. Time history nonlinear earthquake response analysis considering materials and geometrical nonlinearity10.1016/S0029-5493(01)00470-8 ↗
3. Zadoyan, P., and Simos, N. (2002, January 14–18). Seismic Reevaluation of the Armenian NPP Unit 2: Issues and Engineering Approach. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Arlington, VA, USA.10.1115/ICONE10-22532 ↗
4. Analyses of Reactor Building by 3D Nonlinear FEM Models Considering Basemat Uplift for Simultaneous Horizontal and Vertical Ground Motions10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.06.005 ↗
5. Johnson, J.J., Schneider, O., Schuetz, W., Monette, P., and Asfura, A.P. (2010, January 18–22). Effects of SSI on EPRTM In-Structure Response for a Rock Site: Coherent High Frequency Ground Motion. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division/K-PVP Conference, Bellevue, WA, USA.10.1115/PVP2010-26072 ↗
6. Nakaki, D.K., Hashimoto, P.S., Johnson, J.J., Bayraktarli, Y., and Zuchuat, O. (2010, January 18–22). Probabilistic Seismic Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of the Mühleberg Nuclear Power Plant Reactor and SUSAN Buildings. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division/K-PVP Conference, Bellevue, WA, USA.10.1115/PVP2010-25343 ↗
7. Chen, Y. (2005). Floor Response Spectrum Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Structures Based on Three-Dimensional Solid Model. [Ph.D. Thesis, Tianjin University].
8. Wu, Z.H. (2014). Study on Practical Analysis Method of the Inner Containment in Nuclear Power Plant Reactor Building. [Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration].
9. Li, N. (2020). Seismic Dynamic Response of Nuclear Island Structure Considering the Influence of Equipment. [Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration].
10. (2019). China Earthquake Administration (CEA). Standard for Seismic Design of Nuclear Island Structure (Standard No. GB 50267-2019).
11. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017). Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary, ASCE/SEI Standard.
12. Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC (2011). Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document, Revision 19, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
13. Effect of ground motion velocity pulse on seismic performance of foundation isolation structures with different aspect ratio
14. Analysis of influence of types of strong seismic observation stations on ground motion
15. Influence of various parameters in the seismic soil-structure interaction response of a nuclear power plant10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110820 ↗
16. Li, L., Chen, Q., and Pan, R. (2023). Analysis of the Influence of Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic Response for Nuclear Power Plant ASTS. Energies, 16.10.3390/en16010194 ↗
17. Nonlinear dynamic soil-foundation-superstructure interaction analysis for a reactor building supported on a combined piled-raft system10.1061/IJGNAI.GMENG-8096 ↗
18. Effect of CPRF on nonlinear seismic response of an NPP structure considering raft-pile-soil-structure-interaction10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107295 ↗
19. A new nonlinear spring-dashpot model of CPRF of NPP structure based on coupled BEM-FEM approach10.1002/eqe.3794 ↗
20. Settlement of combined piled raft foundation of a nuclear power plant in non-liquefiable and liquefiable soils10.1016/j.nucengdes.2023.112518 ↗
21. Dynamic impedances of CPRF using coupled BEM-FEM approach: A parametric study and application10.1016/j.enganabound.2023.07.036 ↗
22. Seismic response of nuclear power station with disconnected pile-raft foundation using dynamic centrifuge tests10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134572 ↗
23. Numerical modeling of the transverse dynamic behavior of circular tunnels in clayey soils10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.12.004 ↗
24. Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.11.004 ↗
25. Shaking table test of immersed tunnel considering the geological condition10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.05.014 ↗
26. Response characteristics of rectangular tunnels in soft soil subjected to transversal ground shaking10.1016/j.tust.2016.11.003 ↗
27. Behavior of shallow tunnel in soft soil under seismic conditions10.1016/j.tust.2018.04.040 ↗
28. 3D seismic response characteristics of apile-mat-founded AP1000 nuclear-island building considering nonlinear hysteretic behavior of soil10.1007/s10518-022-01483-z ↗
29. Three-dimensional nonlinear seismic response analysis of subway station crossing longitudinally inhomogeneous geology under obliquely incident P waves10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106341 ↗
30. Seismic vulnerability analysis for shallow-buried underground frame structure considering 18 existing subway stations10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107479 ↗
31. Site effect on seismic response of buried nuclear power plant structure10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108759 ↗
32. Machine learning-based seismic fragility and seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete structures10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107761 ↗
33. Seismic responses of a large underground structure in liquefied soils by FEM numerical modelling10.1007/s10518-015-9790-6 ↗
34. Effects of Burial Depth on the Seismic Response of Subway Station Structure Embedded in Saturated Soft Soil10.1155/2018/8978467 ↗
35. Seismic response of shield tunnel structure embedded in soil deposit with liquefiable interlayer10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105015 ↗
36. Numerical analysis on the seismic behavior of a large metro subway tunnel in liquefifiable ground10.1016/j.tust.2017.04.005 ↗
37. Safety assessment for a shield tunnel in a liquefifiable deposit using a practical dynamic effffective stress analysis10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.04.045 ↗
38. Large-scale seismic soil-structure interaction analysis via efficient finite element modeling and multi-GPU parallel explicit algorithm10.1111/mice.13163 ↗
39. Scaled boundary perfectly matched layer for wave propagation in a three-dimensional poroelastic medium10.1016/j.apm.2023.09.028 ↗
40. Developed nonlinear dynamic constitutive relations of soils based on davidenkov skeleton curve
41. A new nonlinear effective stress method for one-dimensional seismic site response analysis and its validation