Transactions of the 17th International Conference on Paper # K06-5

Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 17)

Prague, Czech Republic, August 17 –22, 2003

Seismic Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Containment Structures

HoHyun Cho1), Hyun-Moo Koh1), Chang-Hun Hyun2), Hyun Mock Shin3), Moon-Soo Kim2)
1)
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
2)
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Daejeon, Korea
3)
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a procedure for assessing seismic damage of concrete containment structures using the
nonlinear time-history numerical analysis. For this purpose, two kinds of damage index are introduced at finite
element and structural levels. Nonlinear finite element analysis for the containment structure applies PSC shell
elements using a layered approach leading to damage indices at finite element and structural levels, which are then
used to assess the seismic damage of the containment structure. As an example of such seismic damage assessment,
seismic damages of the containment structure of Wolsong I nuclear power plant in Korea are evaluated against 30
artificial earthquakes generated with a wide range of PGA according to US NRC regulatory guide 1.60. Structural
responses and corresponding damage index according to the level of PGA and nonlinearity are investigated. It is also
shown that the containment structure behaves elastically for earthquakes corresponding to or lower than DBE.

KEY WORDS: earthquake, damage assessment, prestressed concrete, shell, finite element, layered approach,
nonlinear, damage index, containment structure, artificial earthquake, stress, prestressed tendon.

INTRODUCTION
Appropriate and safe performance under seismic occurrence is required for containment structures in nuclear
power plants to avoid completely radioactive leakage from nuclear reactor and power supply equipment. Pertaining to
such requirement, the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) is operating the Earthquake Monitoring Center, which
records seismic ground motions at nuclear power plant sites, evaluates Korean earthquake characteristics and assesses
seismic damage in nuclear structures. The center has conducted a multi-year research project along with Seoul
National University to establish a seismic damage assessment system which estimates probable seismic damages of
concrete containment structures by performing inelastic time-history analysis [1]. In the assessment procedure, two
kinds of damage index are introduced at finite element and structural levels. Nonlinear finite element analysis for the
containment structure applies PSC shell elements using a layered approach leading to damage indices at finite element
and structural levels, which are then used to assess the seismic damage of the containment structure. As an example of
such seismic damage assessment, seismic damages of the containment structure of Wolsong I nuclear power plant in
Korea are evaluated against 30 artificial earthquakes generated with a wide range of PGA according to US NRC
regulatory guide 1.60. Wolsong I is a nuclear power plant in the southern part of Korea, which has been designed with
respect to the Canadian seismic design codes with 0.2g Design Basis Earthquake(DBE) and 0.1g Site Design
Earthquake(SDE).

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF A CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE

Since seismic damages in structures are caused by inelastic deformations, the proposed seismic damage
assessment makes use of nonlinear time history analysis so as to account for material nonlinearities and earthquake
characteristics. An improved Newmark method that is, the HHT-α method, is selected as direct integration method
because of its stability and accuracy.
Most of the containment structures in Korea being made of PSC, the seismic damage assessment system performs
on PSC containment structures, adopting a special nonlinear PSC shell finite element using layered approach and
appropriate inelastic material models. The accuracy of the system to describe correctly the behaviour of PSC
containment structures is validated by means of comparative study between analytical and experimental results at
element and structural levels. Introducing appropriate inelastic material models and including also a nonlinear
prestressed tendon model, the special PSC shell element improves the reinforced concrete shell element using a four-
node quadrilateral thin flat shell finite element with 6 DOFs per node proposed by Kim et al. (2001) [2].

Finite Element Formulation for PSC Shell Element

The developed shell element is a four-node quadrilateral thin flat shell finite element with 6-DOFs per node. The
sixth DOF is obtained by combining a membrane element with a normal rotation(θz), the so-called drilling degree of
freedom, and a discrete Kirchhoff plate element [3, 4, 5]. In order to analyse PSC shells with nonlinear behaviour, the
layer method is used, assuming that several thin-plane stress-elements are layered in the direction of thickness. In the

1
layered element formulation, the shell is divided into several paneled layers and two-dimensional constitutive models
were applied to take into account material nonlinearities. The constitutive matrix can be rotated from the local axes to
the global axes and added to the constitutive matrix for the concrete, or it can be used to define the properties as an
overlaying element, adding stiffness to the connected nodes. This technique allows for the addition of any number of
additional layers of steel with different orientations to be added to the finite element model. More detailed development
is presented in [6].

Nonlinear Material Modeling of Prestressed Concrete and Tendon

Models for concrete are divided into models for uncracked concrete and cracked concrete. For uncracked concrete,
the elasto-plastic fracture model for the biaxial stress state proposed by Maekawa and Okamura (1983) is used [7]. As
concrete shows high nonlinearity after cracking, the three following models are applied: the tension stiffness model for
the tension stress of concrete in the direction normal to the crack, the compressive stiffness model for the degradation of
compressive stiffness in the direction parallel to the crack and the shear transfer model in the shear direction at crack
plane.
The basic model adopted to represent the crack is a non-orthogonal fixed-crack model for the smeared crack, which
is widely known to be robust for crack representation. The initiation of a crack is assumed to start when the tensile
stress reaches the fracture envelope. After the initiation of a crack in concrete, anisotropy becomes significant, and the
stress-strain relationship is expressed in orthogonal anisotropy in the directions normal and parallel to the crack.
The behaviour of the reinforcing bar in the concrete after yielding must consider simultaneously the characteristics
of the steel and the bond effect between steel and concrete. To account for such characteristics of reinforced concrete, a
tri-linear model is therefore adopted here.
Prestressed tendon does not show distinct yielding point and plateau because it is made of high-strength steel. In
addition, prestressed tendon does not present significant difference in its stress-strain relationship between the bare
tendon and embedded tendon. Therefore, a tri-linear model for the stress-strain relationship of prestressed tendon
considering the bond effect has also been adopted. More detailed description is presented in [6].

DAMAGE INDEX

Damage index is introduced for the seismic damage assessment of the containment structure in order to quantify
numerically the degree of damage. The concept of damage index can provide the means to quantify damage and relate
it to costs and other consequences such as potential risk after earthquake. Hence, damage index can play an important
role in retrofit decision-making and disaster planning in earthquake region. Two kinds of damage index are introduced
at finite element and structural levels. A simple lumped mass model is used to represent global damage level of the
containment structure as presented in [6]. The damage index at finite element level is explained in the following.

Compressive Damage Index for Concrete at Finite Element Level

Compressive damage index is defined to be 0.75 at “failure time” corresponding to a situation where the principle
compression strain of concrete reaches the ultimate strain of concrete [8], and to be 0.40 when the principle
compressive strain of concrete reaches the strain at peak stress, corresponding to irreparable damage state (Table 1).
2
 2ε − ε cs 
D.I .compressive = 1 − ftg c  cu 
 (1)
 2ε cu 
1
where, ftg c = 1.0 − 0.3 ADc and ADc = ∑
N 2 fc
is the parameter of cumulative damage caused by cyclic loading.

N 2 fc represents the number of loading cycles until concrete reaches the fatigue failure, ε cu is the ultimate strain of
concrete and ε cs is the principle compression strain of concrete at each analysis step.

Tensile Damage Index for Steel at Finite Element Level

Tensile damage index is defined to be 0.75 at “failure time” corresponding to a situation where the tension strain of
steel reaches the ultimate strain of steel, and to be 0.40 once the strain of steel reaches the yielding plateau,
corresponding to irreparable damage state. And, the damage index is defined to be 0.10 when the strain reaches 75% of
yielding strain of steel corresponding to the starting time of light flexural cracks (Table 1).
0.67
 ε ts 
D.I .tensile = 1.20 
 (2)
 2 ftg r ε tu 
1
where, ftg r = 1.0 − 0.3 ADr and ADr = ∑N 2 fr
is the parameter of cumulative damage caused by cyclic loading

based on the fatigue model of steel proposed Miner[9]. N 2 fr represents the number of loading cycles until steel reaches
the fatigue failure, ε tu is the ultimate strain of steel and ε ts is the principle tension strain of steel at each analysis step.

2
 Table 1. Damage Index at Finite Element Level

Ultimate strain Damage Index

Item ( ε cu or ε tu ) (D.I.element)
1.4 ρ s f yhε sm  2ε − ε cs 
2
Concrete Compression ∙ Shear 0.004 + 1 − ftg c  cu 

f 'cc  2ε cu 
0.67
 ε ts 
Steel Tension 0.10 1.20 

 2 ftg r ε tu 
ρ s = transverse confining steel ratio, f yh = yield stress of the confining steel
ε sm = steel strain at maximum tensile stress, f 'cc = confined concrete compression strength

EXAMPLE OF SEISMIC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT: WOLSONG I NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The structure selected for seismic damage assessment is the PSC containment structure of Wolsong I nuclear
power plant(Fig. 1a). Wolsong I NPP has been designed with respect to the Canadian seismic design codes with 0.2g
Design Basis Earthquake(DBE) and 0.1g Site Design Earthquake(SDE). The structure, built in 1983, is the object of
contention concerning seismic risks due to its proximity with the Yangsan geologic fault. As shown in Fig. 1b, the top
of the structure is constituted by an upper dome and a lower dome on which dousing water has been poured. The
thickness of the perimeter wall is 1.08m and the one of the ring beam is 1.36m. The equipment opening (3.95×4.27m)
is located on the western face at 9m height from the ground.

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 (a) Wolsong I containment structure, (b) Typical vertical section of the structure

Input Ground Motion

30 artificial ground accelerations have been generated with respect to the US NRC regulatory guide 1.60[10].
Each of the 30 artificial earthquakes were generated for the three directions (horizontal NS and EW, vertical)
corresponding to US NRC regulatory guide 1.60 response spectra with PGA of 0.2g, and each of them were then
scaled to adjust PGAs of 0.1g, 0.2g, 0.4g, 0.6g, 0.8g, 1.0g, 1.2g, 1.4g and 1.6g.

Finite Element Modelling

All the structural components of the walls, domes and ring beam have been modelled using the PSC shell
elements described above with various material models selected according to the density of reinforcement bars and
tendons. As the dynamic characteristics of the structure change significantly with the presence of dousing water, the
dousing water has been taken into account by converting it into mass added to the mass of the ring beam and lower
dome.
Openings in structures being subject to largest stress concentration, the weakest point of the structure subjected to
seismic event can be foreseen to be the equipment opening. Following, the location and dimension of the equipment
opening must be exactly introduced in the finite element model.

3
 Response Spectrum of Artificial Acceleration Time Response Spectrum of Artificial Acceleration Time Response Spectrum of Artificial Acceleration Time
History (Horizontal, NS) History (Horizontal, EW) History (Vertical)

1.0 1.0 1.0

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Artificial Acceleration Time History (Horizontal, NS) Artificial Acceleration Time History (Vertical)
Artificial Acceleration Time History (Horizontal, EW)

0.30 0.30
0.30
0.20 0.20 0.20
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00

- 0.10 - 0.10 - 0.10

- 0.20 - 0.20 - 0.20

- 0.30 - 0.30 - 0.30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 2 Response spectra and acceleration time histories for PGA=0.2g

Determination of the Parameters for the Structural Damage Index

The determination of the parameters (δy, δu) for the computation of damage index at structural level [5] uses the
push-over analysis. Since the weakest point is the equipment opening located on the western face of the structure, the
push-over analysis is performed by applying a vertically distributed loading in the EW direction (Fig. 3a).
In the analysis, the yield displacement (δy) is defined to be the displacement which deviates from the elastic
range. The elastic range is assumed to be the range of displacements lying in the domain located around 5% of the
initial tangent stiffness. The ultimate displacement (δu) is assumed to correspond to the situation where any of the
elements reaches the ultimate strain defined in Table 1. Analysis is interrupted once the ultimate displacement occurs.
Push-over analysis results lead the following values: δy = 1.31cm and δu = 7.60cm.

Push-over Analysis

30000

25000

20000
Reaction(KN)

15000

10000

5000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Top Disp.(cm)

Fig. 3 Push-over analysis

Seismic Damage Evaluation using Damage Index

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum of the maximum damage index
at finite element and structural levels for the 30 nonlinear seismic analyses for each PGA ranging from 0.1g to 1.6g.
In view of Fig.4, representing graphically Tables 2 and 3, the structural damage index and maximum damage index at
finite element level increase with the PGA. In the same way, the corresponding standard deviations increase as
nonlinearity dominance of the seismic behaviour grows also with the PGA.
Table 2 and Fig. 4a show that the containment structure behaves elastically for earthquakes corresponding to or
lower than DBE, that is earthquakes with PGA of 0.1g and 0.2g. Negative values of the structural damage index mean
that the behaviour of the structure remains in the elastic range.
Table 2 Summary of damage index at structural level for 30 seismic analyses results

D.I.s 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g 1.2g 1.4g 1.6g
Mean -0.130 -0.052 0.105 0.257 0.407 0.569 0.766 1.008 1.219
St. Dev. 0.006 0.011 0.023 0.041 0.058 0.087 0.111 0.137 0.181
Max. -0.119 -0.030 0.152 0.344 0.541 0.793 1.024 1.292 1.578
Min. -0.143 -0.079 0.051 0.173 0.305 0.448 0.538 0.750 0.915

4
 Table 3 Summary of maximum damage index at finite element level for 30 seismic analyses results

D.I.e 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g 1.2g 1.4g 1.6g
Mean 0.112 0.115 0.133 0.162 0.227 0.311 0.406 0.506 0.564
St. Dev. 0.000 0.00147 0.00379 0.0117 0.03689 0.06216 0.05720 0.07823 0.09987
Max. 0.112 0.118 0.139 0.200 0.304 0.464 0.542 0.679 0.746
Min. 0.112 0.112 0.125 0.145 0.172 0.209 0.309 0.340 0.356

Damage Index at Structural Level Maximum Damage Index at Element Level

1.6 0.8

Max. Max.
1.4 0.7
Mean Mean
1.2 Min. Min.
0.6

1.0
0.5

Max(D.I.e)
0.8
0.4
D.I.s

0.6
0.3
0.4

0.2
0.2

0.0 0.1

-0.2 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
PGA(g) PGA(g)

(a) (b)
Fig. 4 (a) Damage index at structural level and (b) maximum damage index at finite element level according to PGA

Fig. 5 depicts the location distribution of maximum damage index at finite element level around the equipment
opening. The values in brackets stand for the number of occurrences of maximum damage of the concerned element
among the 30 seismic analyses. Among all the elements in the neighbourhood of the equipment opening, the lower
part tends to be the weakest under seismic occurrence. In addition, damage occurrence tends to move toward the
foundation as the PGA increases. Such trend may be explained by the low ratio of height to diameter of the
containment structure.

(3)

(30) (4) (12) (11)

(30)

(a) 0.1g (b) 0.2g (c) 0.4g

(2) (2) (1) (1)
(1)
(1) (5) (4) (2) (2)
(3) (1) (2) (1) (3)
(1) (1) (6) (1) (5) (5) (1) (9)
(2) (11) (4) (1) (1) (1)

(3) (2) (5)

(d) 0.6g (e) 0.8g (f) 1.0g

(1)
(1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (1)
(1) (1) (2) (2) (5) (1) (1) (4)
(1) (1)
(5) (7) (1) (5) (3) (1)
(1)

(11) (12) (17)

(g) 1.2g (h) 1.4g (i) 1.6g

Fig. 5 Distribution of maximum damage index at finite element level

5
CONCLUSION

A seismic damage assessment procedure that makes it possible to assess the actual seismic resistance capacity and
the damage level of containment structures has been presented. Damage indices at finite element and structural levels
have been computed to provide quantitative assessment of damages that structures may suffer under seismic event. The
damage index at element level was used to detect the heaviest local damage and damage index at structural level was
used to provide global damage state of the structure.
Resulting from such assessment, it appeared that the structural damage index and the maximum damage index at
finite element level increased with the PGA. In the same way, the corresponding standard deviations increased as
nonlinearity dominance of the seismic behaviour grows also with the PGA. Lower elements located in the
neighbourhood of the equipment opening have been verified to be the weakest under seismic occurrence. Damage
occurrence tends to move toward the foundation as the PGA increases.
Recalling that appropriate and safe performance under seismic occurrence is required for containment structures in
nuclear power plants to avoid completely radioactive leakage from nuclear reactor and power supply equipment, results
obtained from such seismic damage assessment procedure are believed to supply valuable and reliable data not only for
seismic risk assessment but also for the prediction of seismic damage in nuclear containment structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety(KINS) for providing funding for this research. The
authors are also grateful to the Korea Earthquake Engineering Research Center(KEERC) at Seoul National University
granted by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation(KOSEF).

REFERENCES

1 Seoul National University, Development of a Seismic Damage Assessment Program for Nuclear Power Plant
Structures, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (2002)
2 Kim, T. H., Lee, K. M., and Shin, H. M., Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shells Using Layered
Elements with Drilling Degree of Freedom. In: ACI Structural Journal. V. 99, No. 4 (2002), pp.418-426.
3 Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.L., The Finite Element Method, Vol. 2-Solid and Fluid Mechanics, Dynamics and
Non-linearity. McGraw Hill Book Co., 4th ed. (2001)
4 Lanheng Jin, Analysis and Evaluation of a Shell Finite Element with Drilling Degree of Freedom. Masters thesis,
University of Maryland at College Park (1994)
5 Hilton, E. and Owen, D.R.J., Finite Element Software for Plates and Shells. Pineridge Press Ltd., Swansea, UK.
(1984)
6 Hyun, C. H., Koh, H. M., Cho, H. H., Lee, S. K., and Choi, K. R., Development of Seismic Damage Assessment
System for Nuclear Power Plant Structures in Korea, to be printed in Proc. 17th Structural Mechamics in Reactor
Technology, No. K564, Prague, Chech Republic.
7 Maekawa, K., Irawan, P., and Okamura, H., Three-Dimensional Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete. In:
International Conference on Applied Concrete Mechanics APCOM, Seoul/1996
8 Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G.M., Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(1996)
9 Miner, M.A., Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. In: Journal of Applied Mechanics. V.67, No.3 (1945) pp.A159-A164.
10 United State Nuclear Regulatory Commition, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power
Plants, US NRC Reg. Guide, 1.60 (1973)