pierre sollogoub - brgm · 17 team sr 3d fem 11278 nodes, 15626 elements 38500 sap2000 version 14...
TRANSCRIPT
Pierre Sollogoub [email protected]
French-Japanese Symposium on Earthquakes and Triggered Hazards
BRGM, Orléans 15_17/09/2015
Content
• NCOE features • Main objectives of the benchmark • Features of the benchmark
Organisation Participants Tasks
• Structure - Results • Equipment - Results
The 16 July 2007 Earthquake, the “Niigataken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake (NCO)”, Japan, and the Kashiwazaki-
Kariwa NPP (K - K NPP).
K-K NPP Location
THE EARTHQUAKE
“NIIGATAKEN-CHUETSU OKI” – MAIN SHOCK:
Magnitude: 6.8 MJMA (6.6 Moment Magnitude)
Epicentre: N37.5 , E138.6
Time: 16 July 2007, 10:13(JST), i.e. 10:13 in the morning
National Holiday in Japan, 120 staff in plant (1000).
Depth: 17 km
Distance to KK NPP:
Epicentre: 16 km
Hypocentre: 23 km
Total output
8,212 MW
Biggest NPP in the world
NCO EARTHQUAKE - EFFECTS ON THE REGION
6
29.10.2007
K-K Site – Instrumentation
29.10.2007
塊状無層理泥岩
Soil Profile
Near #1 Near #5
PR Hall
-300 S-wave velocity P-wave velocity
0 1000 2000（m/s） 0 1000 2000（m/s） 0 1000 2000（m/s）
-200
-100
GL 0m
-300
-200
-100
0
-200
-100
0 Depth(m)
Sand
Soft mud rock
Mud rock
Mud rock
Clay
Mud rock
Mud rock Sand rock
Sand
Sand
Clay
Mud rock
Vs sous les bâtiments de l’ordre de 500m/s
Observation Records on R/B Base Mat
9
Unit 1 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 4 Unit 3 Unit 2
: Seismometers
Gal:cm/s/s
NS EW UD NS EW
Unit1 R/B 1-R2 B5F(Base Mat) 311 680 408 274 273
Unit2 R/B 2-R2 B5F(Base Mat) 304 606 282 167 167
Unit3 R/B 3-R2 B5F(Base Mat) 308 384 311 192 193
Unit4 R/B 4-R2 B5F(Base Mat) 310 492 337 193 194
Unit5 R/B 5-R2 B5F(Base Mat) 277 442 205 249 254
Unit6 R/B 6-R2 B5F(Base Mat) 271 322 488 263 263
Unit7 R/B 7-R2 B5F(Base Mat) 267 356 355 263 263
Observation pointObserved Maximun Acc. Design value
Seismic Wave and Response Spectrum (Acceleration)
10
On the Foundation of R/B
Observation Design (S2)
29.10.2007
Response Spectra (acc.) Base mat (B5F) R/B #1 1-R2
NS EW
0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 50
500
1000
1500
2000
周 期(秒)
加
速
度
(cm/s )2
1R2 nsmat_k1_rb ns_El Centromat_k1_rb ns_Taftmat_k1_rb ns_Golden gate
(h=0.05)
0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 50
500
1000
1500
2000
周 期(秒)
加
速
度
(cm/s )2
1R2ewmat_k1_rb ew_ECmat_k1_rb ew_TAmat_k1_rb ew_GG
(h=0.05)
Observed
Design
Earthquake Effects at the Plant: Fire at in-house (non-safety) electrical transformer
The fire was extinguished after 2 hours.
Root cause: soil subsidence of the base of
the secondary connection bus bar with
respect to the transformer foundation.
Earthquake Effects at the Plant: Rupture of Fire Protection Water Pipe
13
Annex
Cavity Water flow
BF5
Duct
BF4
BF3
BF2
BF1
Ground Level
S/P
RPV
Sump
R/B
The flooding affected radioactive waste processing equipment on BF5 of the Annex.
Ruptured FP water pipe. Root cause: soil failure
Amount of leaked water： approx. 2000m3
Earthquake Effects at the Plant: Non-safety related Class B & C and Other SSCs
14
Near Unit 5
Near Switch Yard
Service Roads Ground Subsidence
Light Oil Tank Yard
KARISMA Benchmark
KAshiwazaki-Kariwa Research Initiative for Seismic Margin Assessment
In-structure measurement are available
Boreholes: data for the main shock were not available!
Decision to launch Benchmark, taken in January 2008
Assembling of input data
Guidance document was issued with data allowing construction of a FEM model
16
Layout of main buildings and seismometer positions
Cross-sectional view showing the location map of seismometers in Unit 7 and recorded maximum acceleration in N-S, E-W and U-D
directions respectively (in gal)
367, 435, 464
267, 356, 355
418, 506, 342673, 1007, 362
964,1223, 539
685, 737, 308
415, 388, 166
318, 322, 336
+9.3m
-24m
-100m
-180m
-300m
396, 586, 226
419, 407, 146
407, 450, 187
5G1
G51
G52
G53
G54
G55
Main objectives of the KARISMA benchmark
K-K Unit 7 Reactor Building: Results requested points
Points at elevation T.M.S.L.+23m Points at elevation T.M.S.L.-8.2m
18
Main objectives of the KARISMA benchmark
To understand behaviour of the soil and structures during the July 2007 Niigataken Chuetsu-Oki earthquake (NCOE).
To capture the main characteristics of the response of structure and equipment.
To calibrate different simulation methodologies and to identify main parameters influencing the analytical response, by collecting and analysing the results from different teams.
To understand margins: quantifying what will happen both in soil and in structure, when the input is increased.
How a major event such as Niigataken Chuetsu-Oki one helps reducing epistemic uncertainties?
Different teams are calculating the behaviour of structures under the same strong event; each team use their own approach. Interaction between teams Use of “national practices”
The possibility of constructing their own model of R/B, soil and equipment are given to teams.
Models should capture the linear and non linear behaviour of soil and structure
Data for analyses were provided by TEPCO.
KARISMA benchmark features
20
KARISMA benchmark features
Two parts:
Structures and soil
Recorded signals in the soil (boreholes) and in some in-structure points
Possibility of comparison between observations and analyses results
Equipment
No recordings on equipment
“Qualitative” appreciation of damage: buckling of tanks, sloshing of pools
Margins estimation
Participants to KARISMA benchmark
4
2
6 5
Result Templates for 1. Structure
Organization the KARISMA benchmark
Rev 01 - 11/12/2009
1. STRUCTURE
TASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models
Ayhan ALTINYOLLAR
IAEA/NSNI/ESS Engineering Safety Section
Phone : + 43 0 2600 26399
E-mail : [email protected]
Contact
Phone
Fax
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact
KAshiwazaki-Kariwa Research Initiative for Seismic Margin Assessment
KARISMA BENCHMARK RESULT TEMPLATES
IAEA-EBP-SS-WA2- KARISMA-SP-003
Address
Country
IAEA Extrabudgetary project on Seismic safety of Existing Nuclear Power Plants
Working Area 2: Re-evaluation of the seismic safety of existing NPPs
Company / Organisation
23
No Participant Organization Type of
model
Model characteristics
(Number of nodes, elements)
Concrete young
modulus (MPa)
Calcuation code
1 TEAM SA Stick model 10 nodes, 9 beam elements 31300 Super-sap/ansys11.0
2 TEAM SB 3D FEM 9037 nodes, 5829 elements 31300 ANSYS 11.0
3 TEAM SC 3D FEM 2603 nodes, 4406 elements 31300 ANSYS 11.0
4 TEAM SD 3D FEM 5400 nodes, 6200 elements 30000 Abaqus/Standard-6.9
5 TEAM SE 3D FEM 4546 nodes, 6265 elements 31300 Finite Element code CAST3M (Version 2010)
6 TEAM SF 3D FEM 12600 nodes, 14500 elements 31300 Code_Aster (STA9.6)
7 TEAM SG 3D FEM 19000 nodes 31300 Sofistik 25
8 TEAM SH 3D FEM 12560 nodes, 15288 elements 31300 Femap with NX Nastran 10.1
9 TEAM SI Stick model 123 nodes, 120 elements 31300 SOFiSTiK, Version 23
10 TEAM SJ 3D FEM 16297 nodes, 16686 elements 30000 ANSYS
11 TEAM SK 3D FEM 41901 nodes, 47834 elements 31300 COSMOS/M version 2.0
12 TEAM SL 3D FEM 74780 nodes, 57316 elements 31300 COSMOS/M 2.5
13 TEAM SM 3D FEM 7571 nodes, 9440 elements 31300 SAP 2000 Ver 11.0
14 TEAM SN Stick model 31300 SAP2000 Version 7.42
15 TEAM SO 3D FEM
16 TEAM SP 3D FEM 10596 nodes, 10745 elements SAP2000 v.14.1.0 Advanced (Computer & Structures, Inc.)
17 TEAM SR 3D FEM 11278 nodes, 15626 elements 38500 SAP2000 Version 14
TASK 1- STRUCTURE: SUBTASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base model - Model Presentation
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base model: Model Presentation
24
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses: Model Presentation
No Participant Organization
1 TEAM SA
2 TEAM SB
3 TEAM SC
4 TEAM SD
5 TEAM SE
6 TEAM SF
7 TEAM SG
8 TEAM SH
9 TEAM SI
10 TEAM SJ
11 TEAM SK
12 TEAM SL
13 TEAM SM
14 TEAM SN
15 TEAM SO
16 TEAM SP
17 TEAM SR SHAKE
Calculation code
TASK 1- STRUCTURE: SUBTASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models -
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil Column Analyses - Soil Column Model Presentation
EERA(2000) (A Computer Program for Equivalent-linear Earthquake Site Response Analyses of Layered Soil
SHAKE91 program, Individual programs(mshake)
ACS SASSI 2.2
SHAKE (1991)
SHAKE91 (Code for conducting Equivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits)
Indigenously developed Software "DEC".
Code EERA, August 2000 (equivalent to SHAKE91)
CYBERQUAKE 2.0 (BRGM)
Program SHAKE, AREVA program version
SHAKE91, EERA
SHAKE91( version 1.0P)
ACS SASSI 2.3.0
25
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base model: Model Presentation
Structure - Results
Modal analysis – fixed base and SSI
in X in Y in Z in X in Y in Z
1 CNEA, Argentina 4.89 5.32 9.72
2 CNPDC, China 4.43 4.45 14.21
3 NNSA, China 4.58 5.08 8.00
4 SNERDI-SNPTC, China 4.24 4.63 8.86
5 FNS, Finland 4.88 4.85 8.35
6 CEA&IRSN, France 4.04 4.43 8.31
7 EdF, France 4.08 4.54 8.49
8 AREVA, Germany 4.40 5.10 7.20 2.55 2.60 3.77
9 VGB, Germany 3.93 4.33 6.84 2.11 2.08 3.46
10 SPI, Germany 4.84 5.24 13.85 2.27 2.33 3.03
11 AERB, India Model 1 4.29 4.59 7.76 1.97 2.46 3.55
AERB, India Model 2 7.03 7.59 8.25
12 BARC, India 5.21 5.62 7.70
13 ITER, Italy 4.48 4.77 8.55 1.91 1.96 2.80
14 KINS, Korea 4.42 4.87 8.03 1.74 1.79 2.93
15 KOPEC, Korea 5.31 5.63 3.11
16 CSN & IDOM, Spain 3.50 4.07 5.10
17 ENSI, Switzerland 4.74 5.42 7.31 2.35 2.96 3.64
18 NRC, USA 4.85 5.64 7.48
4.56 4.97 8.22 2.12 2.29 3.32
0.40 0.45 1.75 0.19 0.26 0.32
0.09 0.09 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.10
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Complete Model
Natural Frequency
(Hz) No Participant Organization
Fixed base Model
Natural Frequency
(Hz)
Mean
26
Soil Profile
27
28
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses: Aftershock I (16th July, 15:37)
MODULUS REDUCTION, G/G0 - AFTERSHOCK I in Y DIR.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
G/G0
DE
PT
H (
m)
Team SA
Team SC
TYeam SE
Team SF
Team SG
Team SI
Team SL
Team SP
Team SR
DAMPING RATIO - AFTERSHOCK I in Y DIR.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Damping (%)
DE
PT
H (
m)
Team SA
Team SC
TYeam SE
Team SF
Team SG
Team SI
Team SL
Team SP
Team SR
MAX. SHEAR STRAIN - AFTERSHOCK I in Y DIR.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Max. Shear Strain (%)
DE
PT
H (
m)
Team SA
Team SC
TYeam SE
Team SF
Team SG
Team SI
Team SL
Team SP
Soil column analysis
29
Participants’ results for acceleration response spectra (damping 5%) at different observation levels in the soil (top –left and bottom – right in the X direction for Aftershock I.
Subtask 1.2.1 Reference Analysis of the Soil-Structure Model
Subtask 1.2.1 Reference Analysis of the Soil-Structure Model
Subtask 1.3.1. Pushover Analysis - A. Fixed base structure model - B. Soil-structure interaction model
Subtask 1.3.2. Dynamic response analysis - A. Fixed base structure model with given input motions - B. Soil-Structure interaction model with given input
motions - C. Soil-Structure interaction model (best estimate) - D. Margin determination by direct analysis - E. Determination of HCLPF
Margin Assessment
Subtask 1.3.1. Pushover Analysis A. Fixed base structure model
Subtask 1.3.1. Pushover Analysis B. Soil-Structure Interaction Model
Accelerations 3rd floor
35
Equipment part
RHR piping system
Spent fuel pool: sloshing and spilled water
Pure water tank
36
37
Subtask 2.2.2 Complete Analysis of Spilled Water: Views of Spent Fuel Pool
38
Some points about the organisation
The benchmark was organized by the IAEA- ISSC (International Seismic Safety Centre)
Organ izing Committee
Kick-off meeting: October 2008
Final meeting: December 2011
3 review meetings (RM) and some Expert meetings
Final TECDOC published in 2013
General comments
• Although some variability exits among the team’s results, the results show general tendency.
• There are some outlier results. • SSI plays important role in the response of the structure. • Recorded data show a limited amplification from basemat to
top of RCCV. • Computed response spectra at the basemat and at the top of
RCCV are generally higher than the recorded ones. • Few teams have good agreement with recorded response
spectra at both levels. • Global horizontal resultant forces have small COV. This is not
the case for moments. • Equivalent static acceleration in horizontal directions is about
0.3g.
OUTLOOK AND SUGGESTIONS
Structural part:
Lack of reference point to define input
SSI plays an important role in the response
No reference for ground motion
Push Over worked correctly. Difficulties to assess the performance point due to zig-zag shape of input spectrum
P.O. predicted larger non-linear response than non linear dynamic T/H
Large capacity of structures (robust, regular, redundant)
General tendency to over predict the recorded response due to many reasons: wave propagation pattern, non uniform soil, embedment ...
Acceptance criteria for non linear analyses: story drift?
General
All along the benchmark, stimulating discussions and exchanges between teams
Teams stimulated by the analysis of a « real case »
41
Final document(s)
IAEA-TECDOC-1722
Related document
IAEA-TECDOC-1655
It is a very important database which can be used for training, assessment of analytical approaches...
www.iaea.org
