ww
w.in
l.gov
Application of Nonlinear SSI Analysis in Seismic PRA
Chandu BolisettiResearch Scientist
Seismic Research Group, INL
DOE NPH Conference18th and 19th October, 2016
Outline
• Introduction
• Demonstrative application of NLSSI in SPRA
– Numerical modeling
– Sample results
– Risk analysis
• Sensitivity of risk to the slope of hazard curve
• Concluding remarks
• Nonlinear response is closer to reality especially beyond design basis
• Nonlinear effects– Nonlinear SSI and structural
response– Seismic isolation
• Design calculations should be conservative and risk calculations should be best estimate
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Peak
spe
ctra
l acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Multiplication factor of DBE
Projected Location 1 Response at Site A LinearProjected Location 1 Response at Site B NLSSI
Spears and Coleman (2014)
Introduction – Why nonlinear?
4
Introduction
Nonlinear site response
Nonlinear behavior of soil around the foundationGeometric nonlinearities:
gapping and sliding
Structural nonlinearitiesEquivalent-linear
State-of-the-art
Nonlinear SSI
Equivalent-linear
Equivalent-linear
Not considered
Mode Freq.(Hz) Description
1, 2 5.27 1st horizontal mode for containment
3, 4 8.46 1st horizontal mode for internals
5, 6 12.37 2nd horizontal mode for internals
7 15.64 1st vertical mode for containment
8, 9 16.24 2nd horizontal mode for containment
10 27.83 1st vertical mode for internals
13, 14 32.89 3rd horizontal mode for internals
• Pump M-11• Dist. Panel E-23• Block Wall 2B-G2-1*
• Battery E-58• Medium V. Switchgear E-1
System Components
* Interaction concern for E-23. Study sensitivity to including and excluding from PRA model.
Application of NLSSI in SPRA
6
Steps for SPRA
• Perform seismic response analyses for idealized NPP structure
• Linear analyses using CLASSI (SGH)• 30 realizations calculated using Latin Hypercube sampling
subjected to 30 scaled GMs• Nonlinear analyses using LS-DYNA (INL)
• 30 realizations calculated using Latin Hypercube sampling subjected to 30 scaled GMs at 4 intensities
• Perform fragility calculations (SGH)• Calculate component capacity distributions• Calculate component conditional probabilities of failure
• Risk assessment for plant system (INL)
7
NLSSI model
665 ft 665 ft
214 ft
• Linear soil• Rigid basemat• Rayleigh damping for soil and
structure• Element size ≈ 8 ft
(corresponds to max freq of 40Hz)
• Verified against CLASSI and SASSI
8
Foundation-soil interface modeling
Demand distributions: Free-field - X
Demand distributions: 61’ elevation - Y
Component fragility calculations
Component Dir Freq(Hz)
SAm(g) βc
Pump X 20 7.46 0.16
Battery Y 8.3 3.10 0.10
Distribution Panel X 7.5 6.24 0.42
Block Wall Y 0.89 0.73 0.17
Switchgear Y 5 - 10 4.80 0.42
Component capacity distributions
• Calculate demand and capacity distributions for each component
• Calculate P(demand>capacity) for each component at each intensity level
• Fit lognormal curves through these probabilities for each component to calculate fragilities
12
Conditional probabilities of failurePump Battery
Switch gearDistribution
panel
Blockwall
13
Correction of fitted fragilities
Tentative correction: failure probabilities for linear and nonlinear analyses are assumed to be equal for bins where linear response is expected (all bins below 0.4g)
14
Risk calculations – hazard curves
Hazard_1: Original curve
Hazard_2: Slope halved in log scale and curve anchored at (0.4g, 1E-04)
15
Risk calculations – hazard_1, corrected fragilities (with blockwall)
Linear NonlinearLSE
NonlinearMLE
Risk 3.48E-05 3.32E-05 3.2E-05
Reduction (%) 5 8
16
Risk calculations – hazard_1, corrected fragilities (without blockwall)
Linear NonlinearLSE
NonlinearMLE
Risk 4.62E-06 4.03E-06 3.81E-06
Reduction (%) 13 17
17
Risk calculations – hazard_2, corrected fragilities (without blockwall)
Linear NonlinearLSE
NonlinearMLE
Risk 9.98E-06 6.93E-06 6.85E-06
Reduction (%) 31 31
Concluding remarks
• Time-domain and frequency-domain responses match well when the time-domain response is linear
• Gapping and sliding can decrease the median demands• Gapping and sliding generally decreased the median
demands at low frequencies
• Gapping and sliding can also increase the median demands at higher frequencies
• Further investigation into the effects of gapping and sliding is required
• NLSSI can considerably reduce the system risk, based on the slope of the hazard curve
Acknowledgments
• Department of Energy
• Mohamed Talaat and Phil Hashimoto, SGH
• Bob Kennedy, Advisory Panel, Seismic Research Group,
INL
• Bob Spears and Justin Coleman, Seismic Research
Group, INL
Seismic Research Groupearthquake.inl.gov