Evaluation of site-specific seismic design requirements for three Canadian cities

1988 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-423
Author(s):  
A. C. Heidebrecht ◽  
N. Naumoski
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Response ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Epicentral Distance ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Quebec City ◽  
Response Factors ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Specific Location ◽  
Tectonic Environment ◽  
Design Requirements

Siesmic design requirements as specified in building codes normally use a generic approach in which the seismic response is independent of the site location, except for a single intensity-related parameter used to define the severity of the expected ground motion. In reality, the characteristics of earthquakes that influence structural response depend on both the level of seismic motion and the seismo-tectonic environment at the specific location. This paper describes a methodology for determining seismic design requirements that uses both magnitude (M) and epicentral distance (R) to define the seismo-tectonic environment. Ensembles of actual seismic strong motion records are selected to match the combinations of M and R that dominate the seismic risk at a specific location. These time histories are used to determine both response spectra and seismic response factors (as used in the 1985 edition of the National Building Code, NBCC 1985) for the location in question. This paper applies this methodology to Vancouver, Ottawa, and Quebec City and compares the results with the response spectra and seismic response factors specified in NBCC 1985. The results indicate that a site-specific investigation of seismic design requirements is important in distinguishing between locations having different seismo-tectonic environments. Key words: structures, design, seismic, code, dynamic, acceleration, velocity, spectra, magnitude, epicentral distance.

Overview of Seismic Issues in Design Certification and Combined License Application Reviews

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Xu ◽  
Sujit Samaddar
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
License Application ◽  
Standard Design

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a new process for licensing nuclear power plants under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” which provides requirements for early site permits (ESPs), standard design certifications (DCs), and combined license (COL) applications. In this process, an application for a COL may incorporate by reference a DC, an ESP, both, or neither. This approach allows for early resolution of safety and environmental issues. The COL review will not reconsider the safety issues resolved by the DC and ESP processes. However, a COL application that incorporates a DC by reference needs to demonstrate that pertinent site-specific parameters are confined within the safety envelopes established by the DC. This paper provides an overview of site parameters related to seismic designs and associated seismic issues encountered in DC and COL application reviews using the 10 CFR Part 52 process. Since DCs treat the seismic design and analysis of nuclear power plant (NPP) structures, systems, and components (SSC) as bounding to future potential sites, the design ground motions and associated site parameters are often conservatively specified, representing envelopes of site-specific seismic hazards and parameters. For a COL applicant to incorporate a DC by reference, it needs to demonstrate that the site-specific hazard in terms of ground motion response spectra (GMRS) is enveloped by the certified design response spectra of the DC. It also needs to demonstrate that the site-specific seismic parameters, such as foundation-bearing capacities, soil profiles, and the like, are confined within the site parameter envelopes established by the DC. For the noncertified portion of the plant SSCs, the COL applicant should perform the seismic design and analysis with respect to the site-specific GMRS and associated site parameters. This paper discusses the seismic issues encountered in the safety reviews of DC and COL applications. Practical issues dealing with comparing site-specific features to the standard designs and lessons learned are also discussed.

Study on Piping Response Under Multiple Excitation: Part 2 — Validation for Multiple Excitation Analysis of Piping

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoru Kai ◽  
Tomoyoshi Watakabe ◽  
Naoaki Kaneko ◽  
Kunihiro Tochiki ◽  
Makoto Moriizumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Response ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Response Spectrum ◽  
Time History ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Shaking Table ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Multiple Time ◽  
Floor Response Spectra

The piping in a nuclear power plant is laid across multiple floors of a single building or two buildings, which are supported at many points. As the piping is excited by multiple-inputs from the supporting points during an earthquake, seismic response analysis by multiple excitations is needed to obtain the exact seismic response of the piping. However, few experiments involving such multiple excitation have been performed to verify the validity of multiple excitation analysis. Therefore, analysis of the seismic design of piping in Japan is performed by the enveloped Floor Response Spectrum (FRS), which covers all floor response spectra at all supporting points. The piping response estimated by enveloped FRS is conservative in most cases compared with the actual seismic response by multiple excitations. To perform rational seismic design and evaluation, it is important to investigate the seismic response by multiple excitations and to verify the validity of the analytical method by multiple excitation test. This paper reports the validation results of the multiple-excitation analysis of piping compared with the results of the multiple excitations shaking test using triple uni-axial shaking table and a 3-dimensional piping model (89.1mm diameter and 5.5mm thickness). Three directional moments from the analysis and the shaking test were compared on the validation. As the result, it is confirmed that the analysis by multiple time history excitation corresponds with the test result.

Period Dependence of Response Spectrum Damping Modification Factors due to Source- and Site-Specific Effects

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 745-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendon A. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Response Spectrum ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Empirical Formulas ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Soil Response ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Spectral Peaks ◽  
Displacement Based ◽  
Displacement Based Seismic Design

Response spectrum damping modification factors are key components of displacement-based seismic design methods. This paper examines the period dependence of damping modification factors as a result of near-source forward directivity, basin-induced surface waves, and surficial soil response by using recorded ground motions from the Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes as examples. It is illustrated that spectral peaks in the 5% damped response spectra have systematically different damping modification factors than those suggested by conventional empirical formulas; this is also supported by arguments based on forced vibration theory. Because source- and site-specific effects are increasingly being considered in the development of region- or site-specific design response spectra, this work illustrates the critical need to adequately consider adjustments to damping modification factors to ensure that displacement-based seismic design procedures remain consistent.

On the dynamic foundation factor for the National Building Code of Canada: low to medium rise buildings

1994 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-356
Author(s):  
A. C. Heidebrecht ◽  
A. Rutenberg
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Seismic Response ◽  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Building Codes ◽  
Building Code ◽  
Building Structures ◽  
Response Factors ◽  
Vibration Period ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Site Investigations

Site-specific seismic response factors for low-period building structures are presented as an alternative to the recently proposed foundation factor F* for inclusion in the seismic provision of the National Building Code of Canada. These factors are not explicit functions of the site vibration period, and, therefore, are more suitable for the design of small to medium rise buildings for which only limited site investigations are routinely carried out. Key words: earthquake engineering, design spectra, site-specific, building codes.

scholarly journals ONE DIMENSIONAL SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS AT THE NON-COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR REACTOR SITE, SERPONG - INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Yuliastuti Yuliastuti ◽  
Heri Syaeful ◽  
Arifan J. Syahbana ◽  
Euis E. Alhakim ◽  
Tagor M. Sembiring
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Response ◽  
Return Period ◽  
Ground Surface ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Seismic Response Analysis ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Design Spectrum

One dimensional seismic response analysis on the ground surface of the Non-Commercial Power Reactor (RDNK) site based on the mean uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) and disaggregation analysis has been conducted. The study’s objective was to perform an analysis on site-specific response spectra on the ground surface based on existing mean UHS and disaggregation data of the site that correspond to a 1,000 and 10,000 year return period of earthquakes in compliance with the national nuclear regulatory body requirements of Indonesia. Detailed site characterization was defined based on secondary data of a geotechnical drill-hole, seismic cross-hole, downhole data, and microtremor array data. The dynamic site characteristic analysis was presented along with strong motion selection and processing using two types of strong motion datasets. An investigation of strong motion selection, spectral matching, and scaling has been presented as an essential step in ground motion processing. One-dimensional equivalent linear analysis simulation was performed by computing the processed ground motions. A seismic design spectrum and ground surface response spectra from the two datasets of strong motion, both corresponding to a 10,000 and 1,000 year return period, are presented at the end of this study. This study has shown that in order to establish the appropriate seismic response design spectrum, site-specific data and seismic hazard analysis must be immensely considered.

Determination of Design Ground Motion for Potential GEN III and Plus Plants in China: A Regulatory Level Review

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziduan Shang ◽  
Yugang Sun ◽  
Hongliang Gou ◽  
Lutong Zhang ◽  
Meng Chu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Probabilistic Approach ◽  
Time History ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Motion Time ◽  
Standard Design

The determination of Design Ground Motion time history (or response spectra) is the primary and critical step to derive correct Seismic Design Inputs for a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) design. Historically Design Ground Motion (design SSE input) for a NPP was determined by early version procedure provided in RG 1.60. It was based on a theory of deterministic approach; the resulting ground motion is given in acceleration response spectra located at free surface of a site. As a transition point, 1997 was the year where new procedure was developed and recommended in RG 1.165 based on the new theory of SSE ground motion probabilistic approach. RG 1.165 was authorized for application on all new NPPs’ design after 1997. With the advancing of PSHA approach, RG 1.165 was withdrawn and replaced with new RG 1.208 in 2008. RG 1.208 established an effective way through the similar probabilistic approach used in RG 1.165 by improving PSHA method. Both RG1.165 results and RG 1.208 results are focused on addressing site-specific design, its Ground Motion Response Spectra (GMRS) and Ground Motion Time History (converted from GMRS) are used as design inputs to specific Nuclear Island (NI) seismic design. To accomplish a Standard Design Certification, the RG 1.60 DRS is used to develop the Certified Seismic Design Response Spectra (CSDRS) by modifying control points on original RG 1.60 curves to broaden the spectra in higher frequency range. In reality, CSDRS serves as a good approach to define DRS and Design Ground Motion Time History for standard design of new NPPs in current timeframe, hence envelop the site-specific GMRS given in RG 1.208. In this paper, through the comparison of above US NRC regulatory requirements and Chinese regulatory requirements, gives recommendations on the determination of Design Ground Motion Response Spectra (or Time History), which serves as the basis for deriving seismic design inputs at required specific location (e.g. the bottom of NI foundation level) for potential “GEN III & Plus” plants in China.

Study on Piping Response Under Multiple Excitation: Part 1 — Triple Shaking Table Test of Piping Having Three-Supporting Points

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoyoshi Watakabe ◽  
Naoaki Kaneko ◽  
Shigekazu Aida ◽  
Akihito Otani ◽  
Makoto Moriizumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Response ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Shaking Table Test ◽  
Response Spectrum ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Shaking Table ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
3 Dimensional ◽  
Floor Response Spectra

The piping in a nuclear power plant is laid across multiple floors of a single building or two buildings, which are supported at many points. As the piping is excited by multiple inputs from the supporting points during an earthquake, seismic response analysis by multiple excitations is needed to obtain the exact seismic response of the piping. However, few experiments involving such multiple excitations have been performed to verify the validity of multiple excitation analysis. Therefore, analysis of the seismic design of piping in Japan is performed by the enveloped Floor Response Spectrum (FRS), which covers all floor response spectra at all supporting points. The piping response estimated by enveloped FRS is conservative in most cases compared with the actual seismic response by multiple excitations. To perform rational seismic design and evaluation, it is important to investigate the seismic response by multiple excitations and verify the validity of the analysis method by multiple-excitation test. This paper reports on the result of the shaking test using triple uni-axial shaking tables and a 3-dimensional piping model (89.1mm in diameter and 5.5mm thickness). The piping model was fixed to three shaking tables, meaning three. Different inputs were possible. By the shaking test, dynamic behavior under multiple excitations was confirmed, and data to verify multiple-excitation analysis was obtained.

Evaluation of base shear provisions in the 1985 edition of the National Building Code of Canada

1989 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. J. Zhu ◽  
W. K. Tso ◽  
A. C. Heidebrecht
Keyword(s):  
Yield Strength ◽  
Seismic Response ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Building Code ◽  
Base Shear ◽  
Response Factors ◽  
Period Range ◽  
Short Period

A statistical analysis is performed to evaluate the base shear provisions in the 1985 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 1985). Three sets of real earthquake records are selected to represent seismic ground motions with low, normal, and high peak acceleration to velocity (a/v) ratios. Single degree of freedom stiffness degrading systems are used as structural models; three damage indicators are employed to measure structural damage. The yield strength of the systems is specified in two different ways: (a) a single seismic response factor is used, irrespective of the a/v ratios of the input ground motions; (b) three different seismic response factors are used in the short-period range, depending upon the a/v ratios of the input ground motions, as suggested in NBCC 1985. A comparison of the statistical results of the three damage parameters for the systems designed with these two methods of strength specification indicates that the NBCC 1985 base shear provisions provide consistent control over structural damage when the structural systems are subjected to ground motions with different a/v ratios. Key words: earthquakes, ground motions, response spectra, stiffness degrading systems, seismic design, base shear, yield strength, inelastic response, damage parameters.

scholarly journals Site Specific Response Analysis (SSRA) Kampus UNP Air Tawar, Kota Padang

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Merley Misriani
Keyword(s):  
Wave Propagation ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Rock Properties ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Specific Response ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Local Soil

In general, the seismic design provisions around the world present different criteria for local soil conditions depending on soil and rock properties to determine the design spectra representing seismic design. On the other hand, site-specific analysis results not only show the main characteristics of soil-rock profiles but also local soil characteristics where detailed studies are needed to review the earth response to earthquakes. In this study conducted Site Specific Response Analysis (SSRA) is to analyze the earthquake wave propagation from the bedrock to the surface layer. The data needed are ground stratification data and shear wave velocity parameters obtained from empirical correlation to N-SPT test drilling data. In addition, the required data is ground motion synthetic at baserocks used for the earthquake wave propagation obtained by Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) 3-dimensional earthquake source referring from the results of previous research. SSRA is based on the theory of single-dimensional wave propagation in time domain using NERA (Non-linear Earthquake Response Analysis) program. Various inputs of earthquake movement are taken by considering suitable for Padang area. The results of this analysis are shown in the form of historical time acceleration graph and peak acceleration from each bore point location which is then processed to obtain amplification and response spectra design factors for the re-quake period of 475 years and 2475 years.

scholarly journals Probabilistic seismic response analysis of coastal highway bridges under scour and liquefaction conditions: does the hydrodynamic effect matter?

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Wang ◽  
Yutao Pang ◽  
Aijun Ye
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Response ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Highway Bridges ◽  
Element Model ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Hydrodynamic Effect ◽  
Strong Earthquakes ◽  
Influence Of Water ◽  
Scour Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion Records

AbstractCoastal highway bridges are usually supported by pile foundations that are submerged in water and embedded into saturated soils. Such sites have been reported susceptible to scour hazard and probably liquefied under strong earthquakes. Existing studies on seismic response analyses of such bridges often ignore the influence of water-induced hydrodynamic effect. This study assesses quantitative impacts of the hydrodynamic effect on seismic responses of coastal highway bridges under scour and liquefaction potential in a probabilistic manner. A coupled soil-bridge finite element model that represents typical coastal highway bridges is excited by two sets of ground motion records that represent two seismic design levels (i.e., low versus high in terms of 10%-50 years versus 2%-50 years). Modeled by the added mass method, the hydrodynamic effect on responses of bridge key components including the bearing deformation, column curvature, and pile curvature is systematically quantified for scenarios with and without liquefaction across different scour depths. It is found that the influence of hydrodynamic effect becomes more noticeable with the increase of scour depths. Nevertheless, it has minor influence on the bearing deformation and column curvature (i.e., percentage changes of the responses are within 5%), regardless of the liquefiable or nonliquefiable scenario under the low or high seismic design level. As for the pile curvature, the hydrodynamic effect under the low seismic design level may remarkably increase the response by as large as 15%–20%, whereas under the high seismic design level, it has ignorable influence on the pile curvature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document