Title:
SP-339-10: Guidelines for the Performance-Based Seismic Design of Seismic Category 1 Concrete Structures in Nuclear Power Plants
Author(s):
John S. Ma
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
339
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
155-172
Keywords:
containment building, containment internal structures, earthquake, performance-based design, safety, seismic design, and shield building
DOI:
10.14359/51724701
Date:
3/1/2020
Abstract:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) defines seismic Category 1 structures as the structures (buildings) that should be designed and built to withstand the maximum potential earthquake stresses for the particular region where a nuclear plant is sited. Seismic Category 1 structures have been designed for ground-shaking intensity associated with a safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE) – the intensity of the ground motion that will trigger the process of automatic shutdown of the reactor in operation. The SSE generates floor response spectra at different floor elevations in a building, and these spectra and their associated forces are used for the design of piping and piping anchors and equipment and equipment anchors at their floor locations. The NRC policy requires that the seismic Category 1
structures whose collapse could cause early or/and large release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere to be
analyzed/designed for “no collapse” during the ground-shaking intensity of a review-level earthquake (RLE), which
is 1.67 times that of an SSE. Most seismic Category 1 concrete structures, such as containment and shield buildings
(curved cylindrical wall; see Figs. 1 and 2 in the next section) and containment internal structures (straight wall; see
Fig. 1), use walls to resist earthquakes.
This paper presents guidelines for the performance-based seismic design for these wall-typed structures that could
meet the NRC policy. The method consists of (1) proportioning wall thickness based on shear stress of 6√fc’ (0.5√fc’ megapascals (MPa)) generated by SSE ground motions, (2) limiting vertical compressive stress in walls to less than
0.35 fc’, (3) providing minimum percentage of reinforcement of 1.0 percent to prevent steel reinforcing bar fracture,
(4) subjecting the building design to nonlinear dynamic response analyses under RLE ground motions, (5) identifying
any members and their connections in the building that have failed or collapsed during the RLE ground motions,
(6) increasing reinforcement or wall thickness, or both, to provide additional strength or/and ductility for the failed or
collapsed members and their connections, and (7) resubjecting the revised building design to the nonlinear dynamic
response analyses as stated in step (4) until no collapse of the building and its members and their connections. This
performance-based seismic design method is a direct, transparent, and scientific answer to whether these important
seismic Category 1 structures meet the NRC’s policy that they will not collapse during the RLE ground motions.
Examples of using the nonlinear dynamic response analyses are cited and described. Guidelines for the performance-based
seismic design of seismic Category 1 concrete Structures are listed at the end of this paper.
Related References:
1. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14), Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14),” American Concrete Institute.
2. “Cyclic Testing of Moderate-Aspect-Ratio Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” by Thien A. Tran and John W. Wallace; ACI Structural Journal, November–December 2015.
3. “The 2010 E-Defense Shaking Table Test on Four-Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-Tensioned Concrete Buildings,” T. Nagae, T. Matsumori, H. Shiohara, T. Kabeyasawa, S. Kono, M. Nishiyama, J. Moehle, J. Wallace, R. Sause, and W. Ghannoum; Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, July 21–25, 2014.
4. “Damage and Implications for Seismic Design of RC Structural Wall Buildings,” by John W. Wallace, Leonardo M. Massone, Patricio Bonelli, Jeff Dragovich, Rene Lagos, Carl Luders, and Jack Moehle; Earthquake Spectra, Volume 28, No. S1, June 2012.
5. “Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete Special Structural Walls and Coupling Beams: A Guide for Practicing Engineers,” NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 6, Revision 1, 2012, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
6. “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region: A Consensus Document, 2014 Edition with 2015 Supplements,” Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, May 8, 2015.
7. “Performance-Based Design of 111 Main in Salt Lake City,” by Mark Sarkisian, Peter Lee, Alvin Tsui, and Lachezar Handzhiyski; Structure magazine, September 2016.
8. “The Resilience-Based Design of the 181 Fremont Tower,” by Ibrahim Almufti, Jason Krolicki, and Adrian Crowther; Structure magazine, June 2016.
9. “Salesforce Tower” by Ron Klemencic, P.E., S.E., Michael T. Valley, P.E., S.E, and John D. Hooper., P.E., June 2017, STRUCTURE magazine.
10. “Performance-Based Design of Wilshire Grand Tower,” by Leonard M. Joseph, C. Kerem Gulec, and Peter Maranian; Structural Engineering Association of California Convention 2015 (SEAOC 2015).
11. SECY-93-087, “Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR) Designs,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 21, 1993.
12. “ACI Standard 359-10,” or “ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2; Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments,” ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2010.
13. ACI 349-06, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute.
14. “Evaluation of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2; Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments,” by Phil M. Ferguson, assisted by John E. Breen; Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 29, 1977.
15. “RC Structural Walls: Seismic Design for Shear,” by Ahmet E. Aktan and Vitelmo V. Bertero; Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1985.
16. “Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Walls,” by Sharon L. Wood; ACI Structural Journal, America Concrete Institute, January–February 1990.
17. “Seismic Behavior of Low-Aspect-Ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” by Bismarck N. Luna, Jonathan P. Rivera, and Andrew S. Whittaker; ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, September–October 2015.
18. “Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Subjected to High Axial Loading,” by Yunfeng Zhang and Zhihao Wang; ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, September–October 2000.
19. Excerpt from “Concrete Structure Fundamentals”; course material for the NRC staff, taught by John S. Ma, September 23–24, 2015.
20. “Minimum Tensile Reinforcement Requirements in Walls,” by Sharon L. Wood; ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, September–October 1989.
21. “Earthquake-Resistant Squat Walls Reinforced with High-Strength Steel,” by Min-Yuan Cheng, Shih-Ching Hung, Remy D. Lequesne, and Andres Lepage; ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, September–October 2016.
22. “Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” by F.J. Vecchio and M.P. Collins; ACI Structural Journal, Volume 83, No. 2, March–April 1986, pp. 219–231.
23. “Shear Response under Reversed Cyclic Loading,” by David M. Ruggiero, Evan C. Bentz, Gian Michele Calvi, and Michael P. Collins; ACI Structural Journal, November–December 2016.
24. “Stiffness, Ductility, and Energy Dissipation of RC Elements under Cyclic Shear,” by Thomas T.C. Hsu and Mohamad Y. Mansour; Earthquake Spectra, Volume 21, No. 4, pp. 1093–1112, November 2005, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
25. “Unified Theory of Concrete Structures,” by Thomas T.C. Hsu and Y.L. Mo; John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
26. “Membrane Reinforcement in Concrete Shells: A Review,” by Ajaya K. Gupta; Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 82, pp. 63–75, 1984. Elsevier Science Publishers, 0029-5493/84.
27. “Computational Platform for Safety and Life-Cycle Assessment of RC/PC Shell,” by Koichi Maekawa and Kyu-Yong Choi; Transactions of the 17th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 17), Prague, Czech Republic, August 17–22, 2003.
28. “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Elements under Cyclic Shear II: Theoretical Model,” by Mohamad Mansour and Thomas T.C. Hsu; Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, January 2005.
29. “Nonlinear Analysis Based Verification of Structural Seismic Performance for Practice,” by Koichi Maekawa and Satoshi Tsuchiya. Proceeding of fib congress, 2002.
30. “Simulation of Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Reinforced Concrete Scaled Model Using Three-Dimensional Finite Element Method,” by Kazuhiro Naganuma, Kenji Yonezawa, Osamu Kurimoto, and Hiroaki Eto; 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 1–6, 2004, Paper No. 586.
31. Luu CH, Mo YL, Hsu TTC. Development of CSMM-based Shell Element for Reinforced Concrete Structures. Engineering Structures. 2017;132: 778-90.
32. Luu CH. Development of CSMM-Based Shell Element for Reinforced Concrete Structures: University of Houston; 2016.
33. “Are You Communicating Seismic Concepts Correctly?” by Brent Maxfield; Structure magazine, March 2016.