This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Div-V: Paper ID# 228
SEISMIC STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STRUCTURES
C. Bolisetti1, A. S. Whittaker2 Graduate Student Researcher, CSEE Department, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA – 14260 2 Professor and Chair, CSEE Department, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA – 14260 Correspondence to: C. Bolisetti (email@example.com)
ABSTRACT Soil-structure interaction is integral to the seismic analysis and design of safety-related nuclear structures, but interaction between multiple structures supported on the same soil domain is generally ignored. It is unknown whether structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI) can lead to significant changes in the response of nuclear structures. The study described in this paper examines the influence of SSSI on the response of a pair of Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) structures by comparing their response with and without a neighboring structure. Both in-plane SSSI (structures aligned parallel to the direction of ground motion) and anti-plane SSSI (structures aligned perpendicular to the direction of ground motion) are considered. The analyses are performed using the industrystandard frequency-domain code, SASSI. Lumped mass models of the Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR) are used for the analyses. Frequency-domain transfer functions are calculated at various locations in the reactors for different separation distance and relative mass of the reactors. Seismic responses are compared to the benchmark case where only one reactor is analyzed. Three pairs of NPP structures are considered: 1) two standard reactors (ACR’s), 2) two heavy reactors with four times the mass of the standard reactor, and 3) a heavy ACR placed next to the standard reactor. Each pair is analyzed considering in-plane and anti-plane arrangements for three values of separation distance. Seismic analysis is performed for one of the cases and the acceleration responses of the reactors are presented for the El Centro ground motion input at the free field. On-going studies are extending the scope of the analysis to other ground motion records and site soil profiles to enable the authors to generalize results and develop recommendations for analysis and design of nuclear structures. INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of soil-structure interaction has been studied extensively, especially for nuclear power plants (NPP’s). Analytical and numerical studies have been performed on individual NPPs installed over soil columns. However interaction between adjacent structures through their common soil domain, termed structure-soilstructure interaction (SSSI) here, has received much less attention. Most safety-related nuclear structures are designed with considerations of soil-structure-interaction (SSI) and SSSI is not considered. It is unknown whether the practice of ignoring SSI is conservative or nonconservative in terms of seismic demands on structures, systems and components. A seminal study by Luco and Contesse  on SSSI examined anti-plane interaction between two infinitely long shear walls subjected to vertically incident SH waves of harmonic time-dependence. Wong and Trifunac  extended this study to an array of several structures with varying size and stiffness subjected to a shear wave incident at an arbitrary angle. Both of these analytical studies considered the significance of parameters such as separation distance, foundation size, and stiffness of the structures on SSSI. Luco and Contesse  identified the factors that determine the degree of interaction between structures as a) relative foundation sizes, b) the distance between the structures, c) the mass of the superstructure relative to the mass of the soil excavated for the foundation, d) mass of the foundation relative to the mass of excavated soil, and e) relative stiffness of the structures and the soil. Parametric analyses were performed and it was concluded that SSSI effects are especially important for smaller and lighter structures situated close to heavier structures. A similar conclusion was drawn by Wong and Trifunac . Both studies noted that the degree of interaction depends mainly on the type of wave interference (constructive or destructive) occurring between the scattered waves from the foundations, which is a function of the spacing and arrangement of the foundations. The primary objective of the study described in this paper is to examine the effects of 1) separation distance, 2) relative mass of reactors, and 3) the frequency of excitation, on the magnitude of SSSI between a pair of nuclear reactors. Numerical parametric analyses are performed to examine and understand the nature of this interaction. Two reactor masses are considered: standard and heavy. Three analysis cases are considered, each with a different pair of nuclear reactors: 1) two standard reactors, 2) two heavy reactors, and 3) a heavy reactor constructed
In this study a vertically propagating SV-wave field is specified. vertical cylinder and a 1. which is a type of substructuring. and has the same key dynamic properties as the complete three-dimensional building. two for the internal structure and one for the containment. Results for more parametric analyses and responses for other ground motions will be reported in Bolisetti .2m thick. In-plane SSSI arrangement b. is used for the analyses described here. India Div-V: Paper ID# 228 near a standard reactor. and the structure is modeled using finite elements. NUMERICAL MODELING The equivalent-linear frequency-domain program.5m and an outer diameter of 41. In this program. The model. New Delhi. The actual containment vessel is a steel-lined.and surface wave fields. 2011. P. Huang et al. and multiple values of separation distance are considered. 6-11 November. The ground motion is specified at one of the layer interfaces as a combination of S-.Transactions. SMiRT 21. for studies of seismic isolation of nuclear structures. which was initially developed by Huang et al. and masses are lumped at 12 nodes along the height.5m tall. Frequency-dependent transfer functions are sought at important locations in the reactors and are compared with corresponding transfer functions calculated for the same reactors constructed alone. which induces displacements in the X direction (Figure 1). The internal structure of the reactor building consists of reinforced concrete shear walls and floor slabs that support the equipment and systems of the power plant. Three-dimensional beam elements are used to model the containment stick using equivalent section properties for the beams. Its numerical model is approximately 2 . 59. and major equipment in the building. the soil medium is represented by a semi-infinite halfspace composed of horizontal layers. enables calculation of macro-level deformation and force demands on structure floor acceleration response spectra at important locations in the reactor building. The seismic response for the 1940 El Centro ground motion is calculated for one of these cases and compared to the case where there is only one reactor. This dynamic model accounts for the mass and stiffness characteristics of the structure. a. The substructure subtraction method . 1. The interaction forces on the foundation are calculated using the substructuring method  and the forces in the structure are then calculated using finite element analysis. Each of these cases is analyzed for both in-plane and anti-plane interaction (Figure 1). These sticks are joined at the concrete mat foundation. The superstructure consists of three sticks. SASSI  is used for the numerical SSI analyses. Anti-plane SSSI arrangement Figure 1: In-plane and anti-plane SSSI models of the reactor pairs separated at 45m on center (shaking in X direction) A lumped-mass stick model of the ACR-700 (Advanced Candu Reactor) reactor building  is adopted in this study (Figure 1). The horizontal cross-section of the containment wall is an annulus with an inner diameter of 39. .0m thick hemispherical dome.  provide details on the development of the simplified numerical model.9m.
The rocking mode is the fundamental mode of these reactors on the soil column.6 2 f fix (translational mode) 1 f SSI (rocking mode) NUMERICAL ANALYSIS Frequency dependent transfer functions with respect to the input ground motion at the free field are calculated at two locations in the reactor buildings: 1) the center of the foundation immediately below the reactor vessel.5 14. 2011. with control ground motion specified on the topmost layer in the free field.5 Hz and 6. where r is the radius of the foundation.2 2. A damping ratio of 0.4).5 Hz) and internal structure (= 6. SMiRT 21.2 Internal Structure 3. the foundation is shallowly embedded. As for case 1.7). Case 1: Interaction between two identical standard reactor buildings Figures 2 and 3 present the acceleration transfer functions at the two locations noted above for analysis case 1.3 1. 114m (a/r = 5. Separate analysis of the two reactor buildings embedded in the soil column described above was performed using SASSI. Three values of center-to-center distance (a) are considered: 57m (a/r = 2.2 7. from analysis case 1 (standard 3 . the solid lines represent the transfer functions of a single reactor and the dashed lines represent transfer functions for multiple reactors. where the transfer function is computed at each input frequency as the ratio of output response at a particular location to the ground motion input. Transfer functions for X-direction earthquake shaking only are examined in this study. Table 1: Translational and rocking frequencies (Hz) of the reactor buildings considered in this study Standard reactor building Containment Internal Structure 6.2). respectively.6 Hz) in both the in-plane and anti-plane configurations. The computed natural frequencies are summarized in Table 1. Preliminary linear elastic ground response analysis in SASSI indicated that the soil column has a natural frequency of 5 Hz.1 1. The reactor building is supported on a circular reinforced concrete foundation with a thickness of 2.2 Hz) and at higher frequencies at the foundation level.8 2. Case 2: Interaction between two identical modified reactor buildings Figures 4 and 5 present transfer functions at the same locations for analysis case 2. The solid line represents the transfer function for the single reactor and the dashed lines represent the transfer functions for multiple reactors on a common soil domain. and a radius (r) of 20. A 31m deep linear elastic soil domain with an S-wave velocity of 600 m/s and P-wave velocity of 1200 m/s is considered for the analysis. and consists of masses lumped at 16 nodes. and 171m (a/r = 8. SSI (1 reactor) to SSSI (2 reactors). For the SASSI analyses described here.95m. New Delhi. The greatest difference in the transfer functions at each control location is observed at the rocking frequency of the standard reactor building (= 2.7 Hz). For reference. The change in response.Transactions. The SSSI effects are again prominent at the rocking frequency of the modified reactor building (= 1.6 1 fix Modified reactor building Containment 2. which corresponds to the location of the maintenance crane and the main steam lines in the reactor building. The soil profile is modeled in SASSI using 14 horizontal layers overlying bedrock. 6-11 November.7 Hz. India Div-V: Paper ID# 228 symmetric about two vertical planes.2 f (translational mode) 4. and 2) the topmost node of the internal structure. The heavy model is herein referred to as the modified reactor building.4 7. Analysis case 1 uses the standard reactor building described above.7 14. The magnitude of the SSSI is assessed by the changes in the amplitudes of these transfer functions from those calculated for a single reactor building. and keeping the geometry of the structure unchanged. Smaller differences are observed at the first translational periods of the containment vessel (= 4. and its thickness is reduced to 2m to make the foundation lighter and magnify interaction effects. The heavy version of the same reactor building used in analysis cases 2 and 3 is created by increasing the mass of the foundation and superstructure of the standard reactor building by a factor of four.5m. The increase or decrease in the amplification at a particular frequency is not monotonic with an increase in the distance between the reactors. The case 1 values of separation distance are used again for analysis case 2.05 is used for the superstructure and soil in all subsequent analyses. the natural frequencies of the containment vessel and internal structure of the standard reactor installed on a fixed (rigid) base are 4.
Of interest is the significant difference between the transfer functions for the anti-plane arrangements in Figure 2(a) and Figure 4(a) at frequencies greater than 2 Hz.7 a/r = 5.2 0 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) a.8 0.2 0. 2011.4 Individual a/r = 2.4 a/r = 8.Transactions. In-plane arrangement Figure 2: Transfer functions for foundation horizontal acceleration in the standard reactors (Case 1) 0 0 2 8 6 6 Amplification 2 Individual a/r = 2.4 a/r = 8. SMiRT 21.2 Amplification 4 4 2 Individual a/r = 2.2 0 0 2 4 Frequency (Hz) 6 8 0 0 2 4 Frequency (Hz) 6 8 a. Anti-plane arrangement b.7 a/r = 5.2 Amplification Amplification Individual a/r = 2. New Delhi.4 0. Anti-plane arrangement b.7 a/r = 5.7 a/r = 5.4 a/r = 8. 6-11 November. India Div-V: Paper ID# 228 reactors) to analysis case 2 (reactors with four-fold increase in mass) is generally small at both control locations.4 a/r = 8.8 0.6 1.2 1.6 1. 1. In-plane arrangement Figure 3: Transfer functions for internal structure horizontal acceleration in the standard reactors (Case 1) 4 .
In-plane arrangement Figure 5: Transfer functions for internal structure horizontal acceleration in the modified reactors (Case 2) Case 3: Interaction between modified and standard reactor buildings Figures 6 and 7 present the transfer functions calculated at the center of the foundation of the two reactors. In-plane arrangement Figure 4: Transfer functions for foundation horizontal acceleration in the modified reactors (Case 2) 8 8 6 Amplification Amplification Individual a/r = 2.4 0.8 0. Anti-plane arrangement b.2 0 0 1 2 Frequency (Hz) 3 4 0 0 1 2 Frequency (Hz) 3 4 a.4 a/r = 8. 5 . which is the rocking frequency of the modified ACR-700 reactor.4 0 0 1 2 Frequency (Hz) 3 4 0 0 1 2 Frequency (Hz) 3 4 a.4 a/r = 8.2 1. New Delhi.7 a/r = 5.2 6 4 4 2 2 Individual a/r = 2. From these plots it is evident that the response of the lighter structure is more affected by SSSI than the heavier structure.Transactions.4 a/r = 8. SMiRT 21.6 1.6 Amplification Amplification Individual a/r = 2.2 Hz. the effects are notable around 1. Both anti-plane and in-plane arrangements are presented with results for single reactors. The difference is greater for frequencies between 4 and 6 Hz. 6-11 November.2 0.8 Individual a/r = 2.2 0. India Div-V: Paper ID# 228 2 2 1.7 a/r = 5. 2011. which is close to the natural frequency of the soil column (= 5 Hz).7 a/r = 5.2 1. In the lower frequencies. Anti-plane arrangement b.4 a/r = 8.7 a/r = 5.
the transfer function is presented in Figure 7(a). Modified reactor Figure 7: Transfer functions for foundation horizontal acceleration in the two reactor buildings with in-plane arrangement (Case 3) Response to earthquake ground motion Figure 8 compares the SSSI and stand-alone acceleration responses at the foundation of the standard reactor when the in-plane arrangement of case 3 is subjected to the NS component of the 1940 El Centro ground motion. Standard reactor b.5).6 Amplification 1.7 a/r = 11. This widely used ground motion has a peak ground acceleration of 0.7 a/r = 11. a strong motion duration of 30 seconds.5 a/r = 5.8 0.7 a/r = 11.2 0.5 a/r = 5.6 Amplification 1. and a peak 5-percent damped spectral demand of 0. India Div-V: Paper ID# 228 2 1. Two-second windows of the responses are shown in the figures for clarity. The peak 6 . 6-11 November.2 0.4 0 0 2 4 Frequency (Hz) a. The reactors in this analysis are centered 51.Transactions.8 0.94g at a period of 0. Modified reactor 6 Figure 6: Transfer functions for foundation horizontal acceleration in the two reactor buildings with antiplane arrangement (Case 3) 2 Individual a/r = 2.5 a/r = 5.32g.5 a/r = 5. New Delhi. 2011.6 Amplification 1.4 0.19 second.4 1.9m apart (a/r = 2.2 1. Standard reactor 6 0 0 2 4 Frequency (Hz) b.4 0.4 0 0 2 4 Frequency (Hz) 6 0 0 2 4 Frequency (Hz) 6 a.8 0.4 1.2 1.8 0.4 2 Individual a/r = 2.4 2 Individual a/r = 2.6 Amplification Individual a/r = 2.7 a/r = 11. SMiRT 21. Figure 9 presents data for the top of the internal structure.
The magnitude of the SSSI is governed by the type of interference between the scattered waves reflected from the two foundations. 2 SSSI (a/r = 2.2 3.6 4 Figure 9: Acceleration response calculated at the top of the internal structure of the standard reactor to the El Centro ground motion. India Div-V: Paper ID# 228 acceleration responses calculated at the foundation differ by a maximum of approximately 20%. 2. 7 . The changes in the transfer functions due to SSSI are not linear with increasing distance between the reactors.6 4 Figure 8: Acceleration response calculated at the foundation of the standard reactor to the El Centro ground motion. 2011. when located at a clear distance of 10m from the modified reactor (Case 3) 2 SSSI (a/r = 2. and those calculated at the top of the internal structure differ by a maximum of approximately 10%. which confirms the observations made by Luco and Contesse  and Wong and Trifunac  using analytical simulations.5) Individual 1 Acceleration (g) 0 -1 -2 2 2.2 3.8 Time (sec) 3.4 2.Transactions.5) Individual 1 Acceleration (g) 0 -1 -2 2 2. when located at a clear distance of 10m from the modified reactor (Case 3) CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are offered based on the study described above: 1.4 2. New Delhi.8 Time (sec) 3. 6-11 November. Significant changes are observed if the mass of only one of the two reactors is substantially different from the other. SSSI effects are more pronounced at the rocking frequencies of the reactors. The four-fold increase in mass of the standard reactor did not result in a significant change in the magnitude of the interaction between the structures for the same distance of separation. 3. SMiRT 21.
Livermore.” in 10810-01040-ANL-001. F. Secondary nonlinearities. Ontario.D. California. 2001. such as failure of the soil around the foundations. The authors consider this important because for very closely spaced structures the interaction may be dominated by direct force transfer through the soil. Bolisetti. Buffalo. REFERENCES 1. Chin. 2008. 1289-1303. Ostadan. CMMI-0830331.” 2009. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. AECL. 2011. The opinions. State University of New York. New York. 8 .” 1999.E. J. 1863-1885.” 2006. Dissertation in Preparation. might be important and are better captured by nonlinear analysis codes. "SASSI2000: A System for Analysis of Soil Structure Interaction . findings.Transactions. J. 5. "Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction. University at Buffalo. and C. where nonlinear response of the superstructure is expected and highly nonlinear response of the soil is likely. 1975.. 3. and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. ACR-700. 2012. LSTC.D. We thank Dr. University at Buffalo.Theoretical Manual. and L. "LS DYNA Keyword User's Manual .. 7.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 6-11 November.L. "Analysis Report: Reactor Building Dynamic Model.” Ph. "Two-Dimensional. the nonlinear codes are better suited for the assessment of seismic performance for beyond design basis shaking.Release 971 R4. 1973. SMiRT 21. 2. "SASSI2000: A System for Analysis of Soil Structure Interaction. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: Mississauga. 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work described above is supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Contesse. Luco. 63(4): p.. Further. "Dynamic Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction. University of California: Berkeley. Canada L5K 1B2. F. State University of New York. Lysmer. Buffalo..D. Farhang Ostadan of Bechtel Corporation for his counsel on the use of SASSI and SSI analysis. The scope of the analysis effort is being expanded to include nonlinear time-domain codes such as LS-DYNA . California. India Div-V: Paper ID# 228 FUTURE WORK Parametric analyses are being performed using other values of separation distance to better understand SSSI. Ostadan. Trifunac. New York. Wong. New Delhi. Antiplane.” Ph. 6. "Performance Assessment of Conventional and Base-Isolated Nuclear Power Plants for Earthquake and Blast Loadings. The authors gratefully acknowledge this financial support. C. Huang. H. 4. 65(6): p. Building-Soil-Building Interaction for Two or More Buildings and for Incident Plane SH Waves. Dissertation. California. University of California: Berkeley. Y. and M.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.