Fragility Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Containment under Near-site Vibration
-
摘要: 安全壳结构作为核电厂最重要的结构之一，其地震易损性是核电厂结构概率地震安全评价工作中关注的重点。结合非线性有限元分析技术和增量动力分析方法，对核电厂安全壳在近场地震动作用下的易损性展开分析。此外，为克服传统基于顶点位移的安全壳结构整体损伤指标的局限性，本文提出了基于能量的整体损伤指标，并验证其有效性。最后提出了考虑地震易损性参数统计不确定性的易损性曲线构造方法。研究结果表明：本文提出的安全壳结构整体损伤指标能很好地反映安全壳结构整体变形特性，并且其变异性小于基于顶点位移整体损伤指标的变异性。统计不确定性对安全壳结构不同损伤性能水准下对应的易损性曲线的整体影响可以忽略，但对易损性曲线下尾部分有一定影响。Abstract: Containment structure is one of the most important structures in nuclear power plant, and its seismic fragility is the focus of probabilistic seismic safety assessment of nuclear power plant structure. Combined with nonlinear finite element analysis technology and incremental dynamic analysis method, the fragility of nuclear power plant containment under near-site vibration is analyzed. In addition, in order to overcome the limitations of the traditional global damage index of containment structure based on top displacement, an energy based global damage index is proposed and its effectiveness is verified. Finally, a fragility curve construction method considering the statistical uncertainty of seismic fragility parameters is proposed. The research results show that the global damage index of the containment structure proposed in this paper can reflect the overall deformation characteristics of the containment structure well, and its variability is smaller than that of the global damage index based on top displacement. The overall impact of statistical uncertainty on the corresponding fragility curve of containment structure under different damage performance levels can be ignored, but it has a certain impact on the lower tail of the fragility curve.
-
图 3 基于顶点位移的整体损伤指标和基于能量的整体损伤指标的变异系数随地震动强度的变化
Figure 3. Variation Coefficient of Global Damage Index Based on Top Displacement and Global Damage Index Based on Energy with Ground Motion Intensity
图 4 安全壳结构不同损伤性能水准易损性曲线
pf—地震动强度x下的无条件失效概率
Figure 4. Fragility Curves of Containment Structure Corresponding to Different Damage States
图 5 考虑统计不确定性与不考虑统计不确定性安全壳结构地震易损性曲线比较
Figure 5. Comparison of Containment Structure Seismic Fragility Curves with and without Considering Statistical Uncertainty
表 1 地震动记录信息
Table 1. Records of Ground Motions
序号 地震名称 台站 震级 断层距/km V30/(m·s−1) Tp/s 1 San Fernando Pacoima Dam (upper left abut) 6.61 1.81 2016.13 1.638 2 Tabas_Iran Tabas 7.35 2.05 766.77 6.188 3 Coyote Lake Gilroy Array #6 5.74 3.11 663.31 1.232 4 Irpinia_Italy−01 Bagnoli Irpinio 6.9 8.18 649.67 1.713 5 Morgan Hill Coyote Lake Dam − Southwest Abutment 6.19 0.53 561.43 1.071 6 Morgan Hill Gilroy Array #6 6.19 9.87 663.31 1.232 7 Landers Lucerne 7.28 2.19 1369 5.124 8 Northridge−01 LA Dam 6.69 5.92 628.99 1.617 9 Northridge−01 Pacoima Dam (downstr) 6.69 7.01 2016.13 0.588 10 Northridge−01 Pacoima Dam (upper left) 6.69 7.01 2016.13 0.84 11 Kocaeli_Turkey Gebze 7.51 10.92 792 5.992 12 Kocaeli_Turkey Izmit 7.51 7.21 811 5.369 13 Chi-Chi_Taiwan TCU052 7.62 16.59 645.72 8.456 14 Chi-Chi_Taiwan TCU064 7.62 0.66 579.1 11.956 15 Chi-Chi_Taiwan TCU075 7.62 0.89 573.02 4.998 16 Chi−Chi_Taiwan TCU076 7.62 2.74 614.98 4.732 17 Chi-Chi_Taiwan TCU102 7.62 1.49 714.27 9.632 18 Chi−Chi_Taiwan TCU128 7.62 13.13 599.64 9.023 19 Loma Prieta Los Gatos − Lexington Dam 6.93 5.02 1070.34 1.568 20 Cape Mendocino Bunker Hill FAA 7.01 12.24 566.42 5.362 Tp—速度脉冲周期 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 安全壳结构整体损伤性能阈值
Table 2. Global Damage Performance Threshold of Containment Structure
整体损伤指标 损伤性能水准 0.1~0.2 轻微损伤 0.2~0.5 中度损伤 0.5~0.8 严重损伤
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 金松,李忠诚,蓝天云,等. 严重事故下预应力混凝土安全壳非线性分析及性能评估[J]. 核动力工程,2020, 41(4): 96-100. [2] 姜卓尔,赵军,王海涛,等. 高温气冷堆蓄电池组地震易损性研究[J]. 核动力工程,2020, 41(4): 105-110. [3] HOSEYNI S M, HOSEYNI S M, YOUSEFPOUR F. Probabilistic analysis of containment structural performance in severe accidents[J]. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2017, 8(3): 625-634. [4] PIAN C, QIAN J, MUHO E V, et al. A hybrid force/displacement seismic design method for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 129: 105360. [5] KAVEH A, AZAR B F, HADIDI A, et al. Performance-based seismic design of steel frames using ant colony optimization[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2010, 66(4): 566-574. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.11.006 [6] KORKMAZ M, OZDEMIR M A, KAVALI E, et al. Performance-based assessment of multi-story unreinforced masonry buildings: the case of historical khatib school in Erzurum, Turkey[J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2018, 94: 195-213. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.08.002 [7] TONDINI N, ZANON G, PUCINOTTI R, et al. Seismic performance and fragility functions of a 3D steel-concrete composite structure made of high-strength steel[J]. Engineering Structures, 2018, 174: 373-383. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.026 [8] HUANG Y N, WHITTAKER A S, LUCO N. Seismic performance assessment of base-isolated safety-related nuclear structures[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2010, 39(13): 1421-1442. [9] HUANG Y N, WHITTAKER A S, LUCO N. A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants: (I) methodology[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2011, 241(9): 3996-4003. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.051 [10] JIN S, GONG J X. Damage performance based seismic capacity and fragility analysis of existing concrete containment structure subjected to near fault ground motions[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2020, 360: 110478. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110478 [11] SAENZ L P. Discussion of equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete by Desayi and Krishman[J]. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 1964, 61(9): 1229-1235. [12] HU H T, SCHNOBRICH W C. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete plates and shells under monotonic loading[J]. Computers & Structures, 1991, 38(5-6): 637-651. [13] JIN S, LI Z C, DONG Z F, et al. A simplified fragility analysis methodology for containment structure subjected to overpressure condition[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2020, 184: 104104. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2020.104104 [14] HIBBELER R C. Statics and mechanics of materials[M]. 5th ed. Hoboken: Pearson, 2017: 5-30. [15] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER Strong Ground Motion Databases[EB/OL]. （2013）[2020-12-06]. https://peer.berkeley.edu. [16] 国家技术监督局, 中华人民共和国建设部. 核电厂抗震设计规范: GB 50267-1997[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1997: 1-20 [17] MANDAL T K, GHOSH S, PUJARI N N. Seismic fragility analysis of a typical Indian PHWR containment: comparison of fragility models[J]. Structural Safety, 2016, 58: 11-19. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.08.003 [18] KALKAN E, KUNNATH S K. Effective cyclic energy as a measure of seismic demand[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2007, 11(5): 725-751. doi: 10.1080/13632460601033827 [19] KALKAN E, KUNNATH S K. Relevance of absolute and relative energy content in seismic evaluation of structures[J]. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2008, 11(1): 17-34. doi: 10.1260/136943308784069469 [20] CHOPRA A K. Dynamics of structures: theory and application to earthquake engineering[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2005: 40-60 [21] LU Y, WEI J W. Damage-based inelastic response spectra for seismic design incorporating performance considerations[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2008, 28(7): 536-549. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.08.002 [22] IOANNOU I, CHANDLER R E, ROSSETTO T. Empirical fragility curves: the effect of uncertainty in ground motion intensity[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 129: 105908. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105908 [23] 金松. 考虑统计不确定性的安全壳易损性分析及概率安全评估[D]. 大连: 大连理工大学, 2021 -
图(5) / 表(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 374
- HTML全文浏览量: 140
- PDF下载量: 47
- 被引次数: 0
