4.5 Article

Probabilistic seismic safety assessment of a CANDU 6 nuclear power plant including ambient vibration tests: Case study

Journal

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
Volume 304, Issue -, Pages 125-138

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.05.004

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in Japan there is a worldwide interest in reducing uncertainties in seismic safety assessment of existing nuclear power plant (NPP). Within the scope of a Canadian refurbishment project of a CANDU 6 (NPP) put in service in 1983, structures and equipment must sustain a new seismic demand characterised by the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) obtained from a site specific study defined for a return period of 1/10,000 years. This UHS exhibits larger spectral ordinates in the high-frequency range than those used in design. To reduce modeling uncertainties as part of a seismic probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), Hydro-Quebec developed a procedure using ambient vibrations testing to calibrate a detailed 3D finite element model (FEM) of the containment and reactor building (RB). This calibrated FE model is then used for generating floor response spectra (FRS) based on ground motion time histories compatible with the UHS. Seismic fragility analyses of the reactor building (RB) and structural components are also performed in the context of a case study. Because the RB is founded on a large circular raft, it is possible to consider the effect of the seismic wave incoherency to filter out the high-frequency content, mainly above 10 Hz, using the incoherency transfer function (ITF) method. This allows reducing significantly the non-necessary conservatism in resulting FRS, an important issue for an existing NPP. The proposed case study, and related methodology using ambient vibration testing, is particularly useful to engineers involved in seismic re-evaluation of existing NPP. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available