• No results found

A Study on the Criterion of Fixed Base Condition in Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Structure

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "A Study on the Criterion of Fixed Base Condition in Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Structure"

Copied!
8
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

A

Study on the Criterion of Fixed Base Condition in Soil-Structure Interaction

Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Structures

Sung Gook Cho1), Yong Il Lee1), Jae Suk Kim2) and Yeong Woon Jeong1)

1) JACE KOREA Co., Inc., Seoul, Korea 2) SD Engineering Co., Inc., Seoul, Korea ABSTRACT

The major concern of this study is a criterion associated with fixed base condition in seismic analysis of nuclear power plant (NPP) structures. The parametric studies are performed to validate that the criterion described in the industrial design code is reasonable in engineering sense. The various shear wave velocities of foundation medium and the various stiffnesses of super-structure are considered as parameters. The comparative objects are the dynamic characteristics and the dynamic responses obtained from modal analyses and harmonic load analyses for several idealized structural models. The study results indicate that the soil-structure interaction effect is governed by the relative stiffness between structure and foundation medium. It is justified that the criterion presented by the industrial design code is reasonably applicable to engineering practice.

INTRODUCTION

Flexibility of foundation medium may give considerable influences on the seismic response of structure constructed on it. The soil-structure interaction (SSI) effect due to the foundation soil requires large engineering efforts to construct the analytical model and to perform the seismic analysis. The fixed base condition excludes these additional efforts to pay in process of SSI analysis. Furthermore, the fixed base analysis could eliminate the various uncertainties resulted from SSI analysis. Therefore, the structural engineer who designs the nuclear safety-related structures takes interest in the fact that the SSI analysis is required. A simple criterion to judge the fixed base condition of foundation medium is very useful to structural engineers.

According to the current Korean industrial guidance [1] for seismic analysis of NPP structures, a foundation medium is assumed as fixed base condition based on its shear wave velocity. However, it is unreasonable that the extent of firmness of foundation medium just determines whether the SSI analysis is required or not. It is known that the relative stiffness between the super-structure and the foundation is more rational criterion on this matter. The ASCE 4-98 standard [2] presents a simplified criterion for determining that a structure is supported by fixed base.

This study performs the parametric analyses to validate the fixed-base criterion of ASCE 4-98 in engineering sense. The various shear wave velocities of foundation medium and the various stiffnesses of super-structure are considered as parameters. Several analytical models were constructed as parameters and dynamic analyses were carried out to obtain their dynamic properties and responses. This paper discusses on the parameters, the analytical models, and the types of analyses. The dynamic characteristics of the models and the acceleration responses obtained from harmonic load analyses are comparatively investigated.

CRITERION FOR FIXED BASE CONDITION

The current Korean industrial guidance [1] specifies that the foundation medium having a shear wave velocity of 1100 m/sec or greater at a shear strain of 0.003 or smaller is considered as fixed base condition in seismic analysis of structures. As mentioned above, it is unreasonable to judge the fixed base condition by considering just stiffness of foundation soil. The previous studies [3, 4] indicate that the SSI effects are governed by the relative stiffness between the structure and the foundation.

Meanwhile, the ASCE 4-86 standard [2] describes that a fixed-base support may be assumed in modeling structures for seismic response analysis when the frequency obtained assuming a rigid structure supported on the flexible foundation medium is more than twice the dominant frequency obtained from a fixed base analysis of the flexible structure representation. The flexible foundation is modeled by the equivalent spring constants and the equivalent damping coefficient as shown in Table 1 [2]. Fig. 1 illustrates the schematic configuration of three different models representing the following structures:

1)Flexible structure supported on fixed base: (a) of Fig. 1

2)Rigid structure supported on flexible foundation medium: (b) of Fig. 1 3)Flexible structure supported on flexible foundation medium: (c) of Fig. 1.

(2)

Table 1. Lumped Representation of Structure-Foundation Interaction at Surface for Circular Base [2]

Motion Equivalent Spring Constant Damping Coefficient

Horizontal

ν ν

8 7 ) 1 ( 32

− −

= GR

Kx

G R K

Cx=0.576 x ρ

Rocking

) 1 ( 3

8 3

ν

ψ = GR

K K R G

B

C ψ ρ

ψ

ψ = +

1 30 . 0

Vertical

ν − =

1 4GR

Kz

G R K

Cz=0.85 z ρ

Torsion

3 16GR3

Kt=

5 2 1

R I

I K C

t t t t

ρ + =

Notes:, ν, G, and ρ=Poisson’s ratio, shear modulus, and mass density of foundation medium, respectively; Bψ =3(1−ν)Io/8ρR5; R=radius of circular basemat; Io= total mass moment of inertia of structure and basemat about the rocking axis at the base; and It=polar mass moment of inertia of structure and basemat

H

MS

MF

EI=const

MS

MF

EI=∞

MS

MF EI=const

(a) Fixed Base Model (b) Flexible Foundation Model (c) SSI Model Fig. 1 Schematic Representation of Soil-Foundation system

According to the criterion of ASCE 4-98 standard, the foundation is assumed as fixed base support when the following condition is satisfied:

SOIL FIXED f

f

2 (1) where, fFIXED is the frequency of structure supported by fixed base and fSOIL is the frequency of rigid structure supported by flexible foundation. The frequency of SSI system fSSI is obtained by combining the frequencies of

FIXED

f and fSOIL by square root of the sum of squares. Thus, the relation of Equation (1) is expressed by the following form [4]:

SSI FIXED f

f ≤1.12 (2)

From Equation (2), the criterion of ASCE 4-98 standard is interpreted as that the fixed-base analysis of structure is possible if the difference between the natural frequencies of SSI system and structure itself are less than 12%.

PARAMETRIC STUDY

For parametric studies, several example structures were selected and modeled as lumped masses-beam sticks

(3)

1)Three simple structures with 2 nodes: see Fig. 1

2)Three shear wall structures with box shape (3, 5, and 7 stories): see Fig. 2 3)Three frame structures with beams and columns (3, 5, and 7 stories): see Fig. 2

(a) Shear Wall Structure (b) Frame Structure (c) Lumped Mass Beam Model Fig. 2 Actual Structure Model

Table 2. Soil Properties for Parametric Study

Properties

Name Vs (m/sec)

Mass Density

Poissoin’s

Ratio Remark

A 228.6 0.194 0.35 Dense Soil

B 457.2 0.194 0.35 Dense Soil

C 762.0 0.204 0.30 Soft Rock

D 1066.8 0.204 0.30 Soft Rock

E 1371.6 0.204 0.30 Medium Rock

F 1828.4 0.204 0.30 Medium Rock

G 2438.4 0.214 0.28 Hard Rock

H 3048.0 0.214 0.28 Hard Rock

2N1.0 285.6 0.194 0.35 Twice the super-structure frequency of 1.0Hz 2N2.5 717.8 0.204 0.30 Twice the super-structure frequency of 2.5Hz 2N5.0 1434.7 0.204 0.30 Twice the super-structure frequency of 5.0Hz 2N7.5 2151.6 0.204 0.30 Twice the super-structure frequency of 7.5Hz 2N10 2833.7 0.214 0.28 Twice the super-structure frequency of 10.0Hz 2N15 4251.0 0.214 0.28 Twice the super-structure frequency of 15.0Hz

(4)

Considering the various stiffness of the structure, the simple structures are idealized as models having 6 natural frequencies of 1.0Hz, 2.5Hz, 5.0Hz, 7.5Hz, 10Hz, and 15Hz. Three different stories are parameters of actual structure models to consider the various stiffness of structure. Eight types of soil are selected to account for dense soil, soft rock, medium rock, and hard rock. The shear wave velocity varies from 230m/sec (750ft/sec) to 3,000m/sec (10,000ft/sec), which are selected to represent the extent of firmness of foundation medium. The soil conditions of the foundation medium are summarized in Table 2. The foundation medium is assumed as an elastic half space. The soil layer and embedded effects are neglected in this study.

Dynamic properties of each model are calculated by modal analyses. In addition, harmonic load analyses were carried out by using the direct integration method [5] to obtain the frequency response functions. The sine sweep waves having a rate of two octaves per minute were used as excitation motions in harmonic load analysis. The frequency ranges of the motion are 0.5Hz to 30Hz. The duration and time interval of the motion are 184.32 sec and 0.005 sec, respectively. The amplitude of the motion x(t) is defined as Equation (3):

⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜

⎝ ⎛

⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

= 2 30

2 log

30 2 sin )

(t xo t

x π (3)

where, xo is the maximum amplitude and t is time in seconds. Fig.3 shows time history acceleration and power spectral density function of the sine sweep wave.

0 5 10 15 20 25

-1 0 1

Time (sec)

A

c

c

e

le

rat

ion (g)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 1 2 3

Frequency (Hz)

PSD

(a) Time History Acceleration (b) Power Spectral Density Function Fig. 3 Sine Sweep Wave of Input Motion

Typical recorded response time-histories and transfer functions at the top of model with respect to the base motion are shown in Fig. 4 to Fig. 6.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-10 -5 0 5 10

Time (sec)

Ac

c

e

le

ra

ti

o

n

(g

)

0 5 10 15

0 2 4 6 8

Frequency (Hz)

M

agn

it

u

de

(a) Times History Acceleration (b) Transfer Function Fig. 4 Typical Dynamic Response of 2 Node Simple Model (f=5.0Hz) Supported on Fixed Base

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

-10 -5 0 5 10

Time (sec)

A

cce

le

ra

ti

o

n

(g

)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0 5 10

Frequency (Hz)

M

agn

it

ud

e

(a) Times History Acceleration (b) Transfer Function

(5)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -10 -5 0 5 10 Time (sec) Acc e le ra ti o n (g )

0 5 10 15 20 25

0 5 10 Frequency (Hz) M ag ni tude

(a) Times History Acceleration (b) Transfer Function Fig. 6 Typical Dynamic Response of 5 Storied Shear Wall Structure Supported on Fixed Base

For the purpose, the dynamic characteristics and the harmonic load responses obtained from fixed base analyses are compared to those obtained from SSI analyses. Fig. 7 shows the variation of frequency ratios of two node simple models. The symbols fFIXED, fSOIL, and fSSI appeared in Fig. 7 are the natural frequencies of (a), (b), and (c) models shown in Fig. 1, respectively. From the review of frequency ratios for idealized two node simple models, it is found that the SSI effect would not be anticipated when fSOIL are 2.5 to 3.0 times to fFIXED. When the ratio of

SOIL

f /fFIXED is about 2.0, fSSI/fFIXED reaches at 0.92.

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Shear Wave Velocity (m/sec)

Freq

uency Ratio (

f SSI /f F IXED ) f=1.0Hz f=2.5Hz f=5.0Hz f=7.5Hz f=10.0Hz f=15.0Hz 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Frequency Ratio (fSOIL/fFIXED)

Fr eq uenc y R a ti o ( f SSI /f F IXED ) f=1.0Hz f=2.5Hz f=5.0Hz f=7.5Hz f=10.0Hz f=15.0Hz

(a) fSSI/fFIXED vs. Shear Wave Velocity (b) fSSI/fFIXED vs. fSOIL/fFIXED Fig. 7 Variation of Frequency Ratios of Two Node Simple Models

Fig. 8 shows the variation of fundamental frequencies of the actual structure models in accordance with the extent of firmness of foundation medium. It is found that the natural frequencies of SSI systems for the shear wall structures do not vary when the shear wave velocity is above 1500 m/sec. Meanwhile, the natural frequencies of SSI systems for the frame structures are not governed by the shear wave velocities of foundation medium.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Shear Wave Velocity (m/sec)

Funda m ent al Fr eque nc y ( H z ) 3 Story 5 Story 7 Story 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Shear Wave Velocity (m/sec)

Fundam ent al F requenc y ( H z ) 3 Story 5 Story 7 Story

(a) Shear Wall Structure (b) Frame Structure Fig. 8 Fundamental Frequencies of Typical Structure Models

(6)

Fig. 9 shows the transfer functions at the top of simple 2 node models with respect to the sine sweep harmonic motion at the base. The following remarks were made from the review of the functions:

1) Both natural frequency and response amplitude of SSI system are increased by increment of shear wave velocity of foundation soil.

2) Even though the structure is supported on foundation medium stiffer than the soil having shear wave velocity of 1100m/sec, the amplitude of harmonic response and the dominant frequency vary with shear wave velocity. These responses are different from those of fixed base model.

3) When the stiff structures whose natural frequency are greater than 5.0Hz are supported on firm foundation having above shear wave velocity of 1,100m/sec, they would be governed by SSI effects.

4) The structure would not governed by SSI effect when the frequency ratio of fSSI to fFIXED is in the range of 2.0 ~ 2.5.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Frequency (Hz) A m p lit ud e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=286 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 1 2 3 4 5

Frequency (Hz) A m p lit ud e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=718 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base

(a) 1.0Hz (b) 2.5Hz

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 2 4 6 8 10

Frequency (Hz) Am pli tude Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1435 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base 0 2 4 6 8

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15

Frequency (Hz) A m p lit ud e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2152 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base

(c) 5.0Hz (d) 7.5Hz

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 4 8 12 16 20

Frequency (Hz) A m p lit u d e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=2834 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency (Hz) Am pl it ud e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Vs=4251 m/sec Fixed Base

(e) 10.0Hz (f) 15.0Hz Fig. 9 Transfer Function of Simple Model with 2 Nodes

In the same manner as simple 2 node models, the transfer functions at the top of actual structure models with respect to the sine sweep harmonic motion at the base were calculated as shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. The following

(7)

1) When the flexible structures having a natural frequency less than 1.0 Hz are supported on the foundation soil whose shear wave velocity is above 305m/sec, the foundation medium could be assumed as fixed base condition.

2) Stiffer structure such as shear wall structures is affected by SSI effect although that is supported on rock like material having shear wave velocity of 1,100m/sec or greater.

3) When the frequency ratio of fSSI tofFIXED is equal to 2.0, the difference between the natural frequencies of SSI system and fixed base structure are within 10%.

4) The criterion of ASCE 4-98 standard yields a conservative design since the magnitude of response of SSI system is smaller than that of fixed base structure due to the effects of soil damping.

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Frequency (Hz) A m p lit u d e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency (Hz) A m p lit u d e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base

(a) 3 Story (a) 3 Story

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Frequency (Hz) Am pl it ude Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency (Hz) A m p lit u d e Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base

(b) 5 Story (b) 5 Story

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Frequency (Hz) Am pl it ude Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency (Hz) Am pl it ude Vs=229 m/sec Vs=457 m/sec Vs=762 m/sec Vs=1067 m/sec Vs=1372 m/sec Vs=1829 m/sec Vs=2438 m/sec Vs=3048 m/sec Fixed Base

(c) 7 Story (c) 7 Story

Fig. 10 Transfer Function of Framed Structure Fig. 11 Transfer Function of Shear Wall Structure

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper discussed on a criterion to determine the foundation condition of structure in SSI analysis. From the parametric studies, it is validated that the criterion of ASCE 4-98 standard is conservatively applicable to engineering practice. The study results also confirmed the fact that it is more reasonable to judge the fixed base condition by considering the relative stiffness between the foundation soil and the structure rather than considering just the shear wave velocity. Further studies are required for the case that two or more structures having different dynamic characteristics share common foundation.

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was partially supported by the Korea Electric Association (KEA) and the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS). The authors wish to express the appreciation for their financial support.

REFERENCES

1.ASCE Standard 4-98, “Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary”, ASCE, 1999. 2.KEPIC, “Analysis and Evaluation of Seismic Capacity”, Korea Electric Power Industry Code, Division of STB,

Korea Electric Association, 2005.

3.Park, H. G., Joe, Y. H. and Lee, Y. I., “Effects of Stiffness Characteristics of Super-Structure on Soil-Structure Interaction” (In Korean), Journal of KSCE, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1985, pp.123-132.

4.Kim, J. M., Kim, W. H. and Hyun, C. H., “Evaluation of a Simplified Criterion for SSI Analysis”(In Korean), Proc. Of EESK Conference 2006, Vol. 10, pp.337-344, South Korea, March 2006.

5.SAP2000 - Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structure, Analysis Reference, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, May 2000.

Figure

Table 1. Lumped Representation of Structure-Foundation Interaction at Surface for Circular Base [2]
Fig. 2 Actual Structure Model
Fig. 3 Sine Sweep Wave of Input Motion
Fig. 7 Variation of Frequency Ratios of Two Node Simple Models
+2

References

Related documents

Background: To explore the efficacy of sorafenib in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and its relationship with the computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN 2395 0056 Volume 02 Issue 01 | Mar 2015 www irjet net p ISSN 2395 0072 ? 2015, IRJET NET All Rights Reserved

We present numerical simulations away from the strong coupling limit, taking into account the higher order gauge corrections via plaquette occupation numbers.. In particular,

Only one of the six included studies related specifically to women’s experiences of deinfibulation and this included women who had undergone the procedure for

In order to address the first problem, we propose a new discriminative learning algorithm to improve people identification accuracy using limited training data labeled from the

In Semantic Web Mining, it refers to the application of data mining techniques to mine knowledge from World Wide Web [2] or the part of data mining that refers to the