skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Establishing seismic design criteria to achieve an acceptable seismic margin

Abstract

In order to develop a risk based seismic design criteria the following four issues must be addressed: (1) What target annual probability of seismic induced unacceptable performance is acceptable? (2). What minimum seismic margin is acceptable? (3) Given the decisions made under Issues 1 and 2, at what annual frequency of exceedance should the Safe Shutdown Earthquake ground motion be defined? (4) What seismic design criteria should be established to reasonably achieve the seismic margin defined under Issue 2? The first issue is purely a policy decision and is not addressed in this paper. Each of the other three issues are addressed. Issues 2 and 3 are integrally tied together so that a very large number of possible combinations of responses to these two issues can be used to achieve the target goal defined under Issue 1. Section 2 lays out a combined approach to these two issues and presents three potentially attractive combined resolutions of these two issues which reasonably achieves the target goal. The remainder of the paper discusses an approach which can be used to develop seismic design criteria aimed at achieving the desired seismic margin defined in resolution of Issue 2. Suggestions for revising existing seismicmore » design criteria to more consistently achieve the desired seismic margin are presented.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. RPK Structural Mechanics Consulting, Inc., Yorba Linda, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States). Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research; Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
468654
Report Number(s):
NUREG/CP-0157-Vol.1; CONF-9610202-Vol.1
ON: TI96014720; TRN: 97:008531
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: 24. water reactor safety information meeting, Bethesda, MD (United States), 21-23 Oct 1996; Other Information: PBD: Jan 1997; Related Information: Is Part Of Proceedings of the twenty-fourth water reactor safety information meeting. Volume 1: Plenary session; High burnup fuel; Containment and structural aging; Monteleone, S. [comp.] [Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (United States)]; PB: 372 p.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
22 NUCLEAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGY; 21 NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS; REACTORS; SEISMIC EFFECTS; SAFETY ANALYSIS; SITE SELECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; PROBABILISTIC ESTIMATION

Citation Formats

Kennedy, R.P. Establishing seismic design criteria to achieve an acceptable seismic margin. United States: N. p., 1997. Web.
Kennedy, R.P. Establishing seismic design criteria to achieve an acceptable seismic margin. United States.
Kennedy, R.P. 1997. "Establishing seismic design criteria to achieve an acceptable seismic margin". United States. doi:. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/468654.
@article{osti_468654,
title = {Establishing seismic design criteria to achieve an acceptable seismic margin},
author = {Kennedy, R.P.},
abstractNote = {In order to develop a risk based seismic design criteria the following four issues must be addressed: (1) What target annual probability of seismic induced unacceptable performance is acceptable? (2). What minimum seismic margin is acceptable? (3) Given the decisions made under Issues 1 and 2, at what annual frequency of exceedance should the Safe Shutdown Earthquake ground motion be defined? (4) What seismic design criteria should be established to reasonably achieve the seismic margin defined under Issue 2? The first issue is purely a policy decision and is not addressed in this paper. Each of the other three issues are addressed. Issues 2 and 3 are integrally tied together so that a very large number of possible combinations of responses to these two issues can be used to achieve the target goal defined under Issue 1. Section 2 lays out a combined approach to these two issues and presents three potentially attractive combined resolutions of these two issues which reasonably achieves the target goal. The remainder of the paper discusses an approach which can be used to develop seismic design criteria aimed at achieving the desired seismic margin defined in resolution of Issue 2. Suggestions for revising existing seismic design criteria to more consistently achieve the desired seismic margin are presented.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 1997,
month = 1
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • The Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) is providing assistance to the U.S. NRC in developing regulatory positions on the seismic analysis of piping. As part of this effort, ETEC previously performed reviews of the ASME Code, Section III piping seismic design criteria as revised by the 1994 Addenda. These revised criteria were based on evaluations by the ASME Special Task Group on Integrated Piping Criteria (STGIPC) and the Technical Core Group (TCG) of the Advanced Reactor Corporation (ARC) of the earlier joint Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/NRC Piping & Fitting Dynamic Reliability (PFDR) program. Previous ETEC evaluations reported at themore » 23rd WRSM of seismic margins associated with the revised criteria are reviewed. These evaluations had concluded, in part, that although margins for the timed PFDR tests appeared acceptable (>2), margins in detuned tests could be unacceptable (<1). This conclusion was based primarily on margin reduction factors (MRFs) developed by the ASME STGIPC and ARC/TCG from realistic analyses of PFDR test 36. This paper reports more recent results including: (1) an approach developed for establishing appropriate seismic margins based on PRA considerations, (2) independent assessments of frequency effects on margins, (3) the development of margins based on failure mode considerations, and (4) the implications of Code Section III rules for Section XI.« less
  • Surprises can be expected during commissioning of any new facility, including power plants. One surprise is threats of legal action from neighbors about noise emissions. While some noise emission solutions can be implemented after commissioning of the facility as needed, many facility designers are not aware that noise impact can be accurately predicted during development. Mitigation can then be implemented with an eraser instead of a jackhammer. Noise emissions can be a particularly sensitive issue with surrounding property owners when a facility is constructed close to residential and commercial land uses. This is particularly so because the facility will bemore » relatively quiet in the period between completion of construction and commissioning. The first night that the plant is in operation, the acoustical environment to which the community has become adapted may change drastically. This is a particularly troublesome because in most instances little attention has been given to planning plant noise emissions. Two situations are common: the jurisdiction has no criteria for acceptable noise; or there is a single State noise criterion that is applied to all conditions, rural and urban alike. Compliance with a regulation does not guarantee community acceptance. In this paper, we demonstrate how community acceptance of power plant noise emissions can be predicted based on a thorough knowledge of existing sound levels, both day and night, enumeration of plant sound sources, and the type of surrounding land use and building construction. We develop examples of noise emission criteria for two environments and compare the degree of noise control needed for the same plant constructed in a rural vs an urban setting. Finally, based on these comparisons, we recommend a strategy for establishing noise emission criteria and a method to incorporate noise control which optimizes capital and operating cost vs. degree of mitigation.« less
  • This paper describes the strategy for developing new design criteria for a critical facility to withstand loading induced by the wind/tornado hazard. The proposed design requirements for resisting wind/tornado loads are based on probabilistic performance goals. The proposed design criteria were prepared by a Working Group consisting of six experts in wind/tornado engineering and meteorology. Utilizing their best technical knowledge and judgment in the wind/tornado field, they met and discussed the methodologies and reviewed available data. A review of the available wind/tornado hazard model for the site, structural response evaluation methods, and conservative acceptance criteria lead to proposed design criteriamore » that has a high probability of achieving the required performance goals.« less
  • This paper describes the strategy for developing new design criteria for a critical facility to withstand loading induced by the wind/tornado hazard. The proposed design requirements for resisting wind/tornado loads are based on probabilistic performance goals. The proposed design criteria were prepared by a Working Group consisting of six experts in wind/tornado engineering and meteorology. Utilizing their best technical knowledge and judgment in the wind/tornado field, they met and discussed the methodologies and reviewed available data. A review of the available wind/tornado hazard model for the site, structural response evaluation methods, and conservative acceptance criteria lead to proposed design criteriamore » that has a high probability of achieving the required performance goals.« less
  • This paper uses the analogy of a puzzle to describe the steps toward developing design criteria. The author discusses answers to the following questions: What is the normal operation of the LACT to be. How is the LACT to operate. What signals will the LACT receive to start or stop its operation. What signals will be expected from the LACT. What power will be available for this LACT unit to operate. Who will normally operate the LACT unit. To what extent will the operator actually operate the LACT unit. What are the contractual obligations and restrictions for this LACT unit.