See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346937525

Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building

Chapter · December 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.94956

CITATIONS READS

3 1,304

3 authors, including:

A. Hayir Resat Oyguc

Istanbul Technical University Istanbul Technical University
31 PUBLICATIONS 400 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 191 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Resat Oyguc on 11 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter

Structural Modeling and Dynamic

Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor
Building
Evrim Oyguc, Abdul Hayır and Resat Oyguc

Abstract

Increasing energy demand urge the developing countries to consider different

types of energy sources. Owing the fact that the energy production capacity of
renewable energy sources is lower than a nuclear power plant, developed countries
like US, France, Japan, Russia and China lead to construct nuclear power plants.
These countries compensate 80% of their energy need from nuclear power plants.
Further, they periodically conduct tests in order to assess the safety of the existing
nuclear power plants by applying impact type loads to the structures. In this study,
a sample third-generation nuclear reactor building has been selected to assess its
seismic behavior and to observe the crack propagations of the prestressed outer
containment. First, a 3D model has been set up using ABAQUS finite element
program. Afterwards, modal analysis is conducted to determine the mode shapes.
Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses are then followed using an artificial strong
ground motion which is compatible with the mean design spectrum of the previ-
ously selected ground motions that are scaled to Eurocode 8 Soil type B design
spectrum. Results of the conducted nonlinear dynamic analyses are considered in
terms of stress distributions and crack propagations.

Keywords: nuclear reactor building, prestressed containment, nonlinear dynamic

time history analysis, ABAQUS 3D finite element model

1. Introduction

Large growth of energy consumption is an essential issue that shall be consid-

ered, especially for developing countries. Nuclear power industry seems to take a
key role over the continuously increasing energy demand. First known nuclear
power station for the generations of electricity was built for commercial use in
Russia in 1954, with an output of 5 MW(e). Afterwards, USA constructed a pres-
surized light water reactor (PWR) with 60 MW(e) which first produced electricity.
Many countries over the world followed this first attempt and a rapid growth of
nuclear energy production started. Though renewable energy seems to take role in
the approaching era, it is estimated that the percentage of the generated electricity
from these sources will not be deemed to nuclear power plants. It can be forecasted
that up to 2050, nuclear energy and nuclear power plants (NPP) will play a major
role in producing electricity worldwide.
Nowadays, supporters of nuclear power admit that this is indeed a technology
which is more expensive than its counterparts. Throughout its development,

1
Structural Integrity and Failure

starting from the 1980s, the sector improved the design of reactors. Furthermore,
the scientists working in this era aimed to overcome human error or equipment
malfunctions. These resulted more robust, fuel efficient and advanced reactor
designs where the cost of the construction is also reduced.
Next generation nuclear reactors may be classified into two broad categories:
evolutionary and revolutionary [1]. While the Generation III and III+ types belong
to the former, Generation IV reactors fell into the latter category. Crimello [2]
reported that the design of Generation III type nuclear reactors based on minimiz-
ing the risk and thus increase safety. Advanced Boiling and Pressurized Water
reactors and Enhanced CANDU 6 are all examples to this type. Passive safety
features are incorporated into Generation III type reactors to reach the revolution-
ary reactors Generation III+. Some examples to these reactors may be: AP1000,
VVER 1200 and APR 1400.
Generally, an NPP is composed of five principal buildings: the nuclear island, the
annex building, the turbine building, the diesel generator building and radwaste
buildings. The nuclear island consists of the containment building, the shield build-
ing and the auxiliary building. The containment is one of the most important
components of an NPP because it serves as the final barrier under postulated
accident conditions.
In the last decade, there is a keen interest on modeling the reactor buildings by
using simplified 2D lumped-mass stick model [3–7]. The results of the analysis may
not be considered as accurate as 3D finite element modeling, although the latter one
is more time consuming. In the 3D approach, a containment building is generally
modeled using either by shell or 3D brick elements [8–10]. In a recent approach to
save time, 3D lumped mass stick models were developed and used in the literature
to represent the seismic behavior of containment building [11]. This approach is
mostly preferred when the coupling effects between the containment building and
auxiliary buildings are considered. Improvements in computational efficiency
increased the use of 3D finite element models which are capable of defining high
levels of structural detail.
While a possible damage in an infra-structure can be repaired or retrofitted
within mean time, a possible damage in an NPP may cause catastrophic damage.
The massive damage in an NPP may be observed when an internal accident happens
such as loss of coolant accident (LOCA) or when an external event (airplane crash,
earthquake, explosions etc.) happens. To overcome these deficiencies the majority
of the latest NPP’s are constructed with double containment. Further, in advance,
the containment structure constitutes an ultimate barrier against the dissemination
of fissile products towards the general public [12].
Kwak and Kim [13] highlighted that most of the recent containments are com-
posed of a dome, a wall and a foundation which are laterally prestressed. The
International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib) [14] reported that the
response of these shell-type concrete structures due to external events should be
experimentally and analytically studied to evaluate their safety. There are numerous
experiments in the literature which can be regarded as representative experimental
studies. Sandia National Laboratories [15] brought foreword the cost and time-
consuming features of the conducted experiments and emphasized that these costly
experiments often do not precisely simulate the loading and support conditions of
the actual structure.
In this study, seismic behavior of the prestressed outer containment of a third-
generation nuclear reactor building is evaluated. Since Turkish Building Earthquake
Code (TBEC) [16] does not cover the earthquake resistant design of nuclear struc-
tures, international standards such as ASCE 4-16 [17] and ASCE 43-05 [18] have
been adopted for the analysis. First, a 3D model of the outer containment vessel has

2
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

been set up using ABAQUS finite element program. Afterwards, modal analysis is
conducted to determine the mode shapes and followed by nonlinear dynamic time
history analysis using previously selected ground motions to determine the stress
distribution and crack propagation.

2. Details of the 3D analytical model of case-studied nuclear reactor

building

Both the Sandia National Laboratories and United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (USNRC) conducted test programs concerning about the seismic per-
formance of prestressed containments under severe accident conditions. The experi-
ment model was 1:4 prestressed containment and it was conducted in two phases.
Determination of the ultimate load capacity and seismic response were carried in the
first phase, whereas beyond design basis response was the aim of second phase. More
details about this experiment may be found in Hessheimer et al. [19, 20].
A sectional view of the considered test building is illustrated in Figure 1. The
structure has an overall height of 16.4 m, the inner radius of the dome is 5.37 m and
the cylinder wall has a thickness of 0.325 m. The bottom part of the structure is
fixed, gallery and buttresses are incorporated into the system. Prestressing force is
applied by using horizontal and vertical tendons which are anchored at the but-
tresses and gallery, respectively. Around the gallery and buttresses steel rebars are
used to enhance the capacity of the double-shell containment building.

Figure 1.
Sectional view of the considered test building.

3
Structural Integrity and Failure

Figure 2.
Illustration of the three-dimensional model of the reactor building.

The three-dimensional model of the test structure has been modeled using shell
elements. Smeared steel layers have been used to simulate both the steel reinforce-
ments and prestressing tendons. The created three-dimensional model has been
illustrated in Figure 2. To satisfy the experiment conditions the containment is
assumed as fix, thus boundary conditions are assigned to the structure at the
bottom. In literature two alternatives are valid to define the prestressing force:
assigning an initial stress value and altering with the temperature of the structure.
Here the former methodology is applied to properly simulate the prestressing force.
The abrupt changes around the openings are neglected. Incremental load steps are
used to define the internal pressure values.
Yielding of reinforcing steel and prestressed tendons has been selected as the
criteria of failure in any location in the containment. The total mass of the structure
has been calculated as 2,956,294 kg and the results of the eigenvalue analysis are
summarized in Table 1.

Mode No Eigenvalue Frequency

(rad/time) (cycles/time)

1 0.36315 0.60262 9.5910E-02

2 0.52506 0.72461 0.11533

3 4.6031 2.1455 0.34146

4 6.6812 2.5848 0.41138

5 12.831 3.5820 0.57009

6 18.840 4.3405 0.69081

7 31.426 5.6059 0.89220

8 40.622 6.3735 1.0144

9 43.410 6.5887 1.0486

10 45.345 6.7339 1.0717

Table 1.
Eigenvalue output.

4
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

3. Constitutive material models

3.1 Constitutive model for concrete

The constitutive relation of concrete material is simulated by concrete damaged

plasticity model (CDP) of ABAQUS, which is proposed by Lubliner et al. [21] and
by Lee and Fenves [22]. This model is preferred by the scientists owing the fact that
the model is capable of defining the concrete behavior under cyclic or dynamic
loading properly. Further, the material model aims to properly simulate the effects
of residual damage. Both the tensile and compressive damages are taken into
account in the CDP model. Main contents of the CDP model have been discussed
and summarized in the followings.

a. Decomposition of the strain rate.

This is done by assuming an additional strain rate decomposition for the rate
independent model which is defined by Eq. (1).

έ ¼ έel þ έpl (1)

where έ is the total strain rate, έel is the elastic part of the strain rate, and έpl is
the plastic part of the strain rate.

b. Stress–strain relations.
This is dominated by scalar damaged elasticity value which can easily be calcu-
lated using Eq. (2).



σ ¼ ð1  dÞDel0 : έ  έpl ¼ Del : έ  έpl (2)

where Del0 ; Del ¼ ð1  dÞDel0 ; and d, show the initial stiffness, the degraded elastic
stiffness and the scalar stiffness degradation variable, respectively. The scalar stiff-
ness degradation may be associated with the failure mechanism of the concrete
which has a range 0 ≤ d ≤ 1. Thus, the effective stress is calculated using Eq. (3), and
the Cauchy stress by Eq. (4).
 
σ def ¼ Del0 : ε_  ε_ pl (3)
σ ¼ ð1  dÞσ́ (4)

ð1  dÞ in Eq. (4) is the factor that represents the effective load carrying area.
When d ¼ 0, reduction in the elastic stiffness is not expected and it is the condition
where σ́ ¼ σ. When d 6¼ 0, damage is possible and use of the effective stress value
will give more robust results. Hence, in problems dealing with plasticity σ́ value is
preferred.

c. Hardening variables.
It is also possible to relate d value by a set of hardening variables, ~εpl, and σ; such,
  pl
d ¼ d σ, ~εpl .~εt and ~εpl
c are referred to define damage states in tension and com-
pression, respectively. The governing equation of the hardening variables is given
in Eq. (5).

5
Structural Integrity and Failure

"#
pl
~εt  
~ε ¼ pl ; ~ε_ ¼ h σ, ~εpl :_εpl
pl pl
(5)
~εc

These variables control the yield surface, the degradation of the elastic stiffness
and the dissipated fracture energy.

d. Yield function.
 
The yield function, F σ, ~εpl , represents a surface in effective stress space, which
determines the states of failure or damage. For the inviscid plastic-damage model,
 
F σ, ~εpl ≤ 0.F can also be defined in terms of σ, as in Eq. (6).

  1        
F σ, ~εpl ¼ q  3αp þ β ~εpl σ^max  γ σ^max Þ  σ c ~εpl
c ≤0 (6)
1α

α and γ in Eq. (6) are dimensionless constants. p and q are the effective
hydrostatic pressure and the Von Mises equivalent effective stress values, respec-
tively. Further these parameters can be calculated by Eqs. (7) and (8). The
deviatoric stress may then be expressed using Eq. (9). Here σ^max refers to the
maximum eigenvalue of the effective stress value.

1
p¼ σ:I (7)
3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3
q¼ S:S (8)
2
S ¼ pI þ σ (9)

When σ^max ¼ 0 is the case, Eq. (6) reduces to the Drucker-Prager yield state-
ment. Then the α coefficient defined in (6) may be determined using the initial
equibiaxial (σ b0 Þ and uniaxial compressive yield stress (σ c0 ) as presented in
Eq. (10). Experimental results revealed the fact that 0:08 ≤ α ≤ 0:12 [21].
σ b0  σ c0
α¼ (10)
2σ b0  σ c0
 
The β ~εpl is then defined using these α parameters as given in Eq. (11). Here σ t
and σ c are the effective tensile and compressive cohesion stresses, respectively.
 
  σ c ~εpl
β ~εpl ¼
pl c
 ð1  αÞ  ð1 þ αÞ (11)
σ t ~εt

e. Flow rule.
Defining a flow potential value G, plastic flow rule may be expressed using
Eq. (12). Here λ_ is a plastic multiplier which always has a positive value. Following
the Kuhn-Tucker relations, which are λF _ ¼ 0; λ_ ≥ 0; F ≤ 0, the G parameter is
defined in the σ space.

∂Gðσ Þ
ε_ pl ¼ λ_ (12)
∂σ

6
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

Using the Drucker-Prager hyperbolic function, the G parameter may be defined

using Eq. (13). Hereψ is the dilation angle at high confining pressure; σ t0 is the
uniaxial tensile stress at failure; and ϵ refers to an eccentricity parameter.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
G ¼ ðϵσ t0 tanψ Þ2 þ q2  ptanψ (13)

f. Damage and stiffness degradation.

This section will be considered for both uniaxial and cyclic loading protocols.

• Uniaxial loading

The assumption relies on the fact that the uniaxial stress–strain curves can be
represented in terms of stress and plastic strain values using Eq. (14).



σ t ¼ σ t ~εt , ~ε_ t , θ, f i , σ c ¼ σ c ~εpl _ pl , θ, f
pl pl
c , ~
ε c i (14)

In Eq. (14) the subscripts t and c refer to tension and compression, respectively;
Ð t pl Ð t pl
~ε_ t and ~ε_ c are the equivalent plastic strain rates, ~εt ¼ 0~ε_ t dt and ~εpl ε_ c dt are
pl pl pl
c ¼ 0~
the equivalent plastic strains, θ is the temperature, and f i , (i ¼ 1, 2, ::) are other
predefined field variables. Under uniaxial loading conditions the effective plastic
strain rates are given as: ~ε_ t ¼ ~ε_ 11 , in uniaxial tension and ~ε_ c ¼ ~ε_ 11 , in uniaxial
pl pl pl pl

compression (ABAQUS 2020). The response of concrete to uniaxial loading is as

illustrated in Figure 3. The left illustration is for when the system is under effect
of compression only and the right one corresponds to tension case.
To properly evaluate the degraded response of concrete two independent damage
variables which are assumed as functions of the strain values are introduced: dt
and dc. These variables can be calculated following Eqs. (15) and (16). If there is no
damage in the material then these variables are assumed to be equal to zero, on the
contrary these variables are taken as one when the material is fully damaged.


pl
dt ¼ dt ~εt , θ, f i , ð0 ≤ dt ≤ 1Þ (15)
 
dc ¼ dc ~εpl
c , θ, f i , ð0 ≤ dc ≤ 1Þ (16)

Defining EO as the initial modulus of the material, the stress values may be
determined using Eq. (17).

Figure 3.
Response of concrete to uniaxial loading.

7
Structural Integrity and Failure

  
pl
σ t ¼ ð1  dÞEO εt  ~εt , σ c ¼ ð1  dÞEO εc  ~εpl
c (17)

When tension loading protocol is the case, cracks propagate in a direction

transverse to the stresses. Further, cracks reduce the load bearing capacity of the
material and this increases the σ value. On the contrary, when compressive
loading is the case, cracks propagate in a direction parallel to the stresses.
This minimize the effect of cracks. Naming σ t and σ c as the effective uniaxial
cohesion stresses values at tension and compression, respectively, Eqs. (18) and
(19) may be applicable to determine the size of the yield surface.
σt

pl
σt ¼ ¼ E0 εt  ~εt , (18)
ð1  dt Þ
σc  
σc ¼ ¼ E0 εc  ~εpl (19)
ð1  dc Þ c

• Cyclic loading

The interaction of the cracks makes this type of loading protocol more complex
to understand the behavior. Previous experiments revealed the fact that there is
indeed some recovery of the stiffness and this is named as “the stiffness recovery
effect (SRE)”. This is a significant behavior of concrete under cyclic loading,
especially when the load changes from tension to compression. To correlate d
and E values, Eq. (20) has been proposed for the CDP model.

E ¼ ð1  dÞE0 (20)

It is previously shown that d may be related with dt and dc values. When cyclic
loading protocol is applied ABAQUS follows the relation given in Eq. (21).
In Eq. (21) st and sc are stress functions which includes the SRE associated with
stress reversals.

ð1  dÞ ¼ ð1  st dc Þð1  sc dt Þ, 0 ≤ st , sc ≥ 1 (21)

Introducing ωt and ωc material weight factors responsible from the tensile and
compressive stiffness recovery, Eqs. (22) and (23) is proposed. The constant r in
Eqs. (22) and (23) is determined from Eq. (24).

st ¼ 1  ωt r ∗ ðσ 11 Þ; 0 ≤ ωt ≤ 1 (22)
sc ¼ 1  ωc ð1  r ∗ ðσ 11 ÞÞ; 0 ≤ ωc ≤ 1 (23)
1 if σ 11 > 0
r ∗ ðσ 11 Þ ¼ Hðσ 11 Þ ¼ (24)
0 if σ 11 < 0

This observation in concrete may be accepted as a proof of SRE when cracks

close as the load goes from tension to compression. When vice versa is valid, then
the tensile stiffness is not recovered. This is ensured in ABAQUS by assuming
ωt ¼ 0 and ωc ¼ 1. Cyclic load behavior is illustrated in Figure 4.

3.2 Constitutive model for steel

Isotropic hardening model is used to simulate the elastic–plastic steel behavior. As

well as the rebars, prestressed tendons are defined using steel material. This indicates
that the yield surface changes in all directions. To define the yield function f ðσ Þ
8
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

Figure 4.
Cyclic loading protocol for ωt ¼ 0 and ωc ¼ 1.

properly, equivalent stress σ 0 is introduced first. This stress value is indeed a function
of strain and temperature, as presented in Eq. (25). Here θ is the considered temper-
ature and εpl gives the value of the equivalent plastic strain, given in Eq. (26).
 
f ðσ Þ ¼ σ 0 εpl , θ (25)

σ 0 έpl ¼ σ : έpl (26)

Rice [23] brought forward the use of this model especially when the Bauschinger
effect is forceful. The strain rate decomposition may be calculated from Eq. (27). When
Eq. (27) is integrated through the contour of the yield surface Eq. (28) is obtained.

dε ¼ dεel þ dεpl (27)

Parameters Values

Elastic modulus (MPa) 3.6  104

Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) 2.85

Ultimate compressive strength (MPa) 38.5

Poisson ratio 0.2

3
Density (kg/m ) 2400

Thermal expansion coefficient 1  105

Viscosity parameter 0.005

Dilation angle 36.31

Eccentricity 0.1

σ b0 =σ co 1.16

KC 0.667

Table 2.
Parameters of the concrete material.

9
Structural Integrity and Failure

Parameters Rebars Tendons

Elastic modulus (MPa) 2  10 5

1.95  105

Yield strength (MPa) 486.55 1860

Yield strain (m/m) 0.002613 0.008745

Poisson ratio 0.3 0.3

3
Density (kg/m ) 7850 7850
5
Thermal expansion coefficient 1  10 1  105

Table 3.
Parameters of the steel material.

ε ¼ εel þ εpl (28)

The elasticity can be then written in terms of two temperature-dependent

material parameters. These parameters are generally selected as the bulk modulus,
K, and the shear modulus, G, which are given Eqs. (29) and (30).
E
K¼ (29)
3ð1  2υÞ
E
G¼ (30)
2ð1 þ υÞ

The constitutive material parameters used in this study for concrete and steel are
as given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

4. Seismic performance assessment of the selected reactor containment

building

Two basic regulations for NPP’s may be named as the 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 100
which are published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) [24, 25]. The
former one covers the licensing issues and the latter one explains the steps of
evaluating a license. In the latter regulation, two basic earthquakes are defined
when performing a seismic hazard assessment: safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and
operating basis earthquake (OBE). While SSE is considered to be the maximum
earthquake which could occur at the investigation site, OBE is defined as the
earthquake which could be expected to occur at the site during the lifetime of the
plant. Further in the regulation, it is stated that the maximum vibratory ground
acceleration of the OBE must be at least 33% of the maximum vibratory ground
acceleration of the SSE [24, 25].
Nowadays, the methodology for risk analysis involves the use of component
fragility curves developed using ground-motion parameters. To obtain the fragility
curves the capacity and the demand parameters should be evaluated at first
instance. It is a well-known fact that failure of both structural and nonstructural
components of an NPP are much more involved with the structural response than
the ground parameters.
The FEMA P-58-1 Guidelines [26] provide a basis to improve the risk assessment
procedure for NPPs. The guideline develops next-generation tools and new
approaches for performance assessment of buildings, with a focus on measuring
performance in terms of direct economic loss, casualties and downtime. The FEMA
P-58 Guidelines [26] present procedures for performance assessment using a

10
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

probabilistic framework, which provides a robust methodology to integrate hazard

curves, component fragility curves and consequence functions and to capture the
dispersions in each of these elements for evaluating the performance of a building.
Importantly, the fragility curves used in the analysis are defined in terms of struc-
tural response parameters.

SDC Limit state

A B C D
Large permanent distortion Moderate Limited permanent Essentially
(short of collapse) permanent distortion elastic
distortion

1 SDB-1A SDB-1B SDB-1C SDB-1D

ASCE7 ASCE7 ASCE7 NA

2 SDB-2A SDB-2B SDB-2C SDB-2D

ASCE7 ASCE7 NA NA

3 SDB-3A SDB-3B SDB-3C SDB-3D

ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05

4 SDB-4A SDB-4B SDB-4C SDB-4D

ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05

5 SDB-5A SDB-5B SDB-5C SDB-5D

ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05 ASCE 43-05

Table 4.
Graded approach defined in ASCE 43-05 [18].

Figure 5.
Seismic design procedure defined in ASCE 43-05 [18] for SDC 3, 4, and 5.

11
Structural Integrity and Failure

Limit state Structural deformation limit

A Large permanent distortion, short of collapse

Significant damage

B Moderate permanent distortion

Generally repairable damage

C Limited permanent distortion

Minimal damage

D Essentially elastic behavior

No damage

Table 5.
Structural deformation limits for limit state defined in ASCE 43-05 [18].

ASCE 43-05 [18] provides seismic design criteria for structures, systems, and
components (SSC) that are used in nuclear facilities. This is executed by using a
graded approach where the design criteria are proportional with the relative impor-
tance to safety, magnitude of the seismic event and other factors. To achieve this 20
Seismic Design Bases (SDB) are defined, where for each Seismic Design Category
(SDC) probabilistic target performance goals are used. This graded approach is
summarized in Table 4. Further in the same guide for each Limit State (LS) an
acceptable level of structural response goal is defined. While International Building
Code (IBC) [27] may be followed for SDBs defined by SDC1 and 2; for SDBs defined
by SDC 3, 4, and 5, ASCE standard should be followed as illustrated in Figure 5.
Further in the mentioned code, the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) is defined by
Uniform Hazard Response Spectra (UHRS).
For DBE, Limit State A and D are defined as the intensity of the high and low
structural damage, respectively. In other words, Limit State D is where complete
elastic behavior is dominant. Damage regions between A and D are called the
intermediate levels. The deformation limits associated with each Limit State are
described in Table 5.
To properly determine the seismic demand, ASCE 43-05 [18] allows use of linear
equivalent static analysis, linear dynamic analysis, complex frequency response methods,
or nonlinear analysis. Moreover, when the fundamental mode is dominant then a
single step pushover methodology is allowed while conducting nonlinear analysis.
These procedures shall be conducted by following the criteria given in FEMA-356
[28] or ATC-40 [29]. This should be clarified that nonlinear analysis is only per-
mitted when beyond design earthquake is considered for low-rise regular NPPs,
where higher mode effects are negligible. Otherwise, elastic models are preferred in
the seismic design of safety-related structures.

5. Results of the conducted analysis

The 3D finite element model has been subjected to gravity, wind and snow loads
in accordance with Eurocode 1 [30], Section 4. First, to determine the fundamental
periods and vibration modes of the considered structure, eigenvalue analyses are
performed and eigenvectors have been determined. Figure 6 shows the results of
the modal analysis considering first six modes.
As it can be inferred from Figure 6, first three modal results reveal the fact that
the dome of the reactor building is the most vulnerable section. The displacement
value of the dome is calculated approximately 1 mm for the fundamental mode.
When considered the higher modes, stress concentrations around operational gaps
are observed.

12
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

Figure 6.
Calculated mode shapes and periods.

After determining the mode shapes of the outer containment vessel, nonlinear
dynamic time history analyses are conducted to assess the seismic behavior of the
structure and the stress distribution. For this purpose, PEER database has been used
and seven earthquake excitations are first selected in accordance with ATC 58 [31]
and scaled to fit Eurocode 8 [32] Soil type B design spectrum. Figure 7 compares

13
Structural Integrity and Failure

Figure 7.
Comparison of Eurocode 8 design spectrum with the selected ground motions spectra.

No Earthquake Station Mw Mechanism Vs30 Rjb Rrup

(m/s) (km) (km)

1 Imperial Valley (1979) Cerro Prieto 6.53 Strike slip 471.53 15.19 —

2 Irpinia Italy (1980) Rionero In Vulture 6.2 Normal 574.88 22.68 22.69

3 Loma Prieta (1989) Coyote Lake Dam - 6.93 Reverse 561.43 19.97 20.34
Southwest Abutment Oblique

4 Chi-Chi Taiwan (1999) CHY010 7.63 Reverse 538.69 19.93 19.96

Oblique

5 Chi-Chi Taiwan (1999) TCU075 6.3 Reverse 573.02 24.34 26.31

6 Landers (1992) North Palm Springs Fire 7.28 Strike slip 367.84 26.95 26.95
Sta #36

7 Chuetsu-oki Japan Matsushiro Tokamachi 6.8 Reverse 640.14 18.16 25.03

(2007)

Table 6.
Details of the selected strong ground motions.

Figure 8.
Artificial ground motion.

Eurocode 8 [32] design spectrum with the spectra of the selected ground motions.
The details of the selected strong ground motions are presented in Table 6. Fol-
lowing, an artificial time history record which is compatible with the mean spec-
trum has been generated and used in the nonlinear dynamic analyses. Figure 8
represents the artificial ground motion.

14
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

Figure 9.
Nonlinear dynamic time history results of the outer containment: (a) total displacement, (b) total deformation
and (c) total stress concentration.

Figure 10.
Nonlinear dynamic time history results of the prestressed tendons: (a) total displacement and (b) total stress
concentration.

15
Structural Integrity and Failure

Modified Newton–Raphson iterative procedure has been followed during the

dynamic analysis. ABAQUS offers several convergence norms. Besides stopping the
iteration in case of convergence, the iteration process is also stopped if a specified
maximum number of iterations has been reached or if the iteration obviously leads to
divergence. The detection of divergence is based on the same norms as the detection
of convergence. A preferred way to check the convergence is the energy norm.
As the consequence of dynamic analysis total displacement, total deformation and
total stress concentration values are illustrated in Figure 9. It should also be
highlighted that results of the modal analysis are in good correlation with the dynamic
results and the most vulnerable section is assessed as the dome of the structure. In
Figure 9(a), total displacement graph has been presented. The maximum displace-
ment value has been calculated as 7.625 mm at the roof. The deformation graph,
which is represented in Figure 9(b), is compatible with the stress concentration that
is represented in Figure 9(c). Total displacement and stress concentration graphs of
the prestressed tendons are given in Figure 10(a) and (b), respectively.

6. Conclusions

In this study, seismic behavior of the outer containment of a sample reactor

building has been analyzed. First, details of the 3D model have been presented, and
material models are described in detail. Following that, results of the eigenvalue
analysis are discussed. Then, nonlinear time history analyses are conducted using
the artificial record which is compatible with the mean design spectrum of the
selected ground motions that are previously scaled to Eurocode 8 Soil Type B design
spectrum.
The primary outcome of the study is that the most critical section of a reactor
building may be assessed as the dome of the structure. More care should be given
while designing the dome. In the recent literature, to overcome the deficiencies of
prestressed concrete, use of fiber reinforced concrete is proposed due to the fact
that these fibers in plain concrete directly effects both the ultimate capacity and
post-cracking behavior of a conventional prestressed containment. It may also be
interpreted from these ongoing studies that the structural performance of compo-
nents of an NPP improves when these fibers are used with plain concrete.
It is believed that the study should be developed to consider inelastic behavior of
soil and soil-structure interaction effects should be taken into account in the
dynamic analysis.

Acknowledgements

This paper is generated from the PhD study of the corresponding author. The
author is grateful for the endless support of her supervisor.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

16
Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

Author details

Evrim Oyguc*, Abdul Hayır and Resat Oyguc

Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

17
Structural Integrity and Failure

References

[1] Kessides IN. The future of the containment. Nuclear Engineering and
nuclear industry reconsidered: Risks, Design. 2018;328:197-208
uncertainties, and continued promise.
Energy Policy. 2012;48:185-208 [9] Park J, Park N, Lee S, Park Y, Choi Y.
Seismic analysis of the APR1400 nuclear
[2] Crimello R. Achievements and reactor system using a verified beam
prospects for advanced reactor design element model. Nuclear Engineering
and fuel cycles. IAEA – Scientific forum. and Design. 2017;313:108-117
2004. In: Nuclear Fuel Cycles Issues and
Challenges. 2004 [10] Ambrosini D, Codina RH,
Curadelli O, Martinez CA. Structural
[3] Varma V, Reddy GR, Vaze KK, analysis of the CAREM-25 nuclear
Kushwaha HS. Simplified approach for power plant subjected to the design
seismic analysis of structures. basis accident and seismic loads. Annals
International Journal of Structural of Nuclear Energy. 2017;108:42-56
Stability and Dynamics. 2002;2(2):
207-225 [11] Tunon-Sanjur L, Orr RS, Tinic S,
Ruiz DP. Finite element modeling of the
[4] Huang YN, Whittaker AS, Luco N. AP1000 nuclear island for seismic
Seismic performance assessment of analyses at generic soil and rock sites.
base-isolated safety-related nuclear Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2007;
structures. Earthquake Engineering and 237:1474-1485
Structural Dynamics. 2010;39(13):
1421-1442 [12] De Boeck B. A review of
containment accidents. Nuclear
[5] Hirama T, Goto M, Hasegawa T, Engineering Design. 1993;145:279-288
Kanechika M, Kei T, Mieda T, et al.
Seismic proof test of a reinforced [13] Kwak HG, Kim JH. Numerical models
concrete containment vessel (RCCV): for prestressing tendons in containment
Part 1: Test model and pressure test. structures. Nuclear Engineering and
Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2005; Design. 2006;236:1061-1080
235(13):1335-1348
[14] fib Task Group on Containment
[6] Leonardo TS, Richard SO, Sener T, Structures. Nuclear containments. In:
Diego PR. Finite element modeling of International Federation for Structural
the AP1000 nuclear island for seismic Concrete (Fib). 2001
analyses at generic soil and rock sites.
Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2007; [15] Sandia National Laboratories.
237(12-13):1474-1485 Pretest round Robin analysis of a
prestressed concrete containment vessel
[7] Jeremic B, Tafazzoli N, Ancheta T, model. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Orboviæ N, Blahoianu A. Seismic Commission (NRC) and nuclear power
behavior of NPP structures subjected to engineering corporation (NUPEC). In:
realistic 3D, inclined seismic motions, in NUREG/CR-6678. 2000
variable layered soil/rock, on surface or
embedded foundations. Nuclear [16] TBEC TBEC. Ministry of Public
Engineering and Design. 2013;265:85-94 Work and Settlement. Turkey: Ankara;
2018
[8] Bily P, Kohoutkova A. An estimation
of the effect of steel liner on the ultimate [17] ASCE 4-16. Seismic Analysis of
bearing capacity of prestressed concrete Safety-Related Nuclear Structures.

18
 Structural Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Building
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94956

American Society of Civil Engineers. Examination of External Events

2017. 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, (IPEEE) for Severe Accident
Virginia, U.S.A. Vulnerabilities, NUREG-1407. 1991. US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[18] ASCE 43-05. Seismic Design Criteria
for Structures, Systems, and Components [26] FEMA P-58-1. Seismic Performance
in Nuclear Facilities, American Society of Assessment of Buildings Volume 1-
Civil Engineers. 2005. Alexander bell Methodology. Applied Technology
drive, Virginia. In: U.S.A. 1801 Council. California: Redwood City; 2012

[19] Hessheimer MF, Dameron RA. [27] IBC. International Building Code.
Containment Integrity Research at International Code Council. Country
Sandia National Laboratories – An Club Hills. In: IL. 2003
Overview, Technical Report NUREG/
CR-6906; SAND2006-2274P. Sandia [28] FEMA 356. Prestandard and
National Laboratories and USNRC, Commentary for the Seismic
Washington. In: USA. 2006 Rehabilitation of Buildings. American
Society of Civil Engineers. Virginia:
[20] Hessheimer MF, Klamerus EW, Reston; 2000
Lambert LD, Rightley GS, Dameron RA.
Over Pressurization Test of a 1:4-Scale [29] ATC 40. Seismic Evaluation and
Prestressed Concrete Containment Retrofit of Concrete Buildings
Vessel Model, Technical Report Volume 1. Applied Technology Council.
National/CR-6810; SAND2003-0840p. California: Redwood City; 1996
Washington, USA: Sandia National
Laboratories and USNRC; 2006 [30] Eurocode 1. Design of structures for
earthquake resistance. Part 1. General
[21] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S. Onate E. Rules. Specific Rules, Seismic Actions
a plastic-damage model for concrete. and Rules for Buildings. Belgium:
International Journal of Solids and European Committee for
Structures. 1989;25(3):229-326 Standardization, Bruxel; 2008

[22] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage [31] ATC 58. Next- Generation
model for cyclic loading of concrete Performance-Based Seismic Desigb
structures. Journal of Engineering Guidelines,Program Plan for New and
Mechanics. 1998;124(8):892-900 Existing Buildings. FEMA 445.
California, US: Redwood City; 2006
[23] Rice JR. Continuum Mechanics and
Thermodynamics of Plasticity in [32] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for
Relation to Microscale Deformation earthquake resistance. Part 1. General
Mechanisms. Constitutive Equations in Rules. Specific Rules, Seismic Actions
Plasticity: Argon, MIT Press, and Rules for Buildings. Belgium:
Cambridge, Massachusettes; 1975 European Committee for
Standardization, Bruxel; 2008
[24] USNRC, Individual Plant
Examination of External Events,
(IPEEE) for Severe Accident
Vulnerabilities, Generic Letter No.
88-20, Supplement 4. 1991. US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

[25] USNRC. Procedural and Submittal

Guidance for the Individual Plant

19

View publication stats