Abstract
The industrial equipment consists of vessels, heat exchangers, valves, pumps, motors, fans, and blowers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Abbreviations
- N :
-
Number of nodes
- M :
-
Number of modes
- α and β:
-
Proportional damping coefficients
- \( \xi \) :
-
Damping ratio
- \( \omega_{\hbox{min} } \) and \( \omega_{\hbox{max} } \):
-
Undamped circular frequencies (minimum and maximum frequencies)
- \( M\sum {\phi^{T}\Gamma } \) :
-
Mass participation (nodewise)
- dof:
-
Degree of freedom
- \( R_{\text{f}} \) :
-
Ratio of frequencies of secondary and primary systems
- R m :
-
The ratio of mass of secondary and primary systems
- \( F_{\text{Y}} \) :
-
Maximum vertical force response due to empty tank shell, per unit length
- C :
-
Longitudinal compressive stress per unit length in tank shell
- M B :
-
Combined overturning moment at the base
- \( \rho_{\text{m}} \text{and} t \) :
-
Mass density of tank wall and wall thickness, respectively
- \( d_{\hbox{max} } \) :
-
Maximum slosh height
- T :
-
Fundamental period of the structure, seconds
- T L :
-
Long-period transition period, seconds
- l :
-
Length of the beam
- μ :
-
Mass per unit length of the beam
- I :
-
Moment of inertia of the structure about its axis of bending
- E :
-
Young’s modulus of elasticity
- Z :
-
Zone factor
- I :
-
Importance factor
- R :
-
Response reduction factor
- V b :
-
Wind speed
- \( V_{Z} \) :
-
Design wind speed at any height z in m/s
- \( k_{2} \) :
-
Terrain, height and structure size factor
- \( k_{3} \) :
-
Topography factor
- \( p_{z} \) :
-
Design wind pressure in N/m2 at height z
- \( V_{Z} \) :
-
Design wind velocity in m/s at height z
- \( P_{Z} \) :
-
Modified design wind pressure
- C s :
-
Shape factor, for cylindrical geometry = 0.7 (Table 23 of IS 875 Part 3)
- G :
-
Gust response Factor
References
ASCE Standard, ASCE 4-98, “Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures”
ASME SectionIII,Div. 1, Appendices, 2004
ASCE 7, 2005,“Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05 including Supplement No. 2”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2007) ASME SECTION VIII Division 1 and 2: Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels. ASME, New York
AERB Safety Guide, “Seismic Qualification of Structures, Systems and Components of Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors”, AERB/NPP-PHWR/SG/D-23 (2009)
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components”, Section III Division 1-Subsection NC (2004)
Di Carluccio, G. Fabbrocino, E. Salzano, G. Manfredi, 2008, Analysis of pressurized horizontal vessels under seismic excitation, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12–17, 2008, Beijing, China
ACI 350.3, 2001, “Seismic design of liquid containing concrete structures”, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, MI, USA
Akira Niwa, Ray W. Clough, 1982, Buckling of cylindrical liquid‐storage tanks under earthquake loading, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 10(1):107–122. Association of New Zealand, Wellington
BIS (2014) Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
Chopra A. K.,“Dynamics of structures”, Prentice Hall of India, 1998
Dorninger K, Fischer FD, Rammerstorfer F G and Seeber R, 1986, Progress in the analysis of earthquake loaded tanks, Proceedings of the 8theuropian conference on earthquake engineering 8ECEE, Lisabon, Portugal, pp- 73–80
Eswaran M, 2011, Numerical and experimental investigations of capturing liquid free surface characteristics in externally induced sloshing tanks, PhD thesis, IIT Guwahati
Eurocode 8, 1998, “Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, Part 1- General rules and Part 4 – Silos, tanks and pipelines”, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
E.L Wilson, A Der Kiureghian and E. P Bayo, “ A Replacement for the SRSS Method in Seismic Analysis”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9, 1981, PP 187-192.IS 1893 Part-4, 2005, Criteria for Earthquake resistant Design of Structure
G.R. Reddy, 1998, Advanced Approaches for the Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Equipn1ent and Piping Systems, PhD thesis, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan
Housner, G. W., 1963a, “Dynamic analysis of fluids in containers subjected to acceleration”, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, Report No. TID 7024, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington D.C
IBC (2006) International Building Code. International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Seismic Design and Qualification for Nuclear Power Plants, Safety Guides Series No.NS-G-1.6, IAEA, Vienna (2003)
IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: General Provisions and Buildings”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
IS 875: Part 3: “Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures: Wind Loads”, 1987
Arlaud JC (1975) Application of Reliability Analysis Methods to Rapsodie Reactor. IAEA, Proc. Reliability of Nuclear power Plants
Kobayashi, N. et al., “A Study of the Liquid Slosh Response in Horizontal Cylindrical Tanks”, Transactions of ASME, Vol. 111, February, (1989)
Jaiswal, O. R. Rai, D. C. and Jain, S.K., 2004, “Codal provisions on design seismic forces for liquid storage tanks: a review”, Report No. IITK-GSDMA-EQ-01-V1.0, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur
Jaiswal OR, 2004, Review of code provisions on seismic analysis of liquid storage tanks, Document No: IITK-GSDMA-EQ04-V1.0, Final Report: A - Earthquake Codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building Codes
JSME international journal, Vol.33(2), pp 111–124
Karamanos A.,Lazaros A. Patkas, Manolis A. Platyrrachos, 2006, “Sloshing effects on the seismic design of horizontal-cylindrical and spherical industrial vessels”, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 128, 329–340
NZS 3106, 1986, “Code of practice for concrete structures for the storage of liquids”, Standards
P K. Malhotra and M Eeri,2005, Earthquake Induced Sloshing in Tanks with Insufficient Freeboard, Earthquake Spectra 21(4), November 2005
Papaspyrou S, Valougeorgis D, Karamanos A (2004) Sloshing effects in half-full horizontal cylindrical vessels under longitudinal excitation. J Appl Mech 71:255–265
Rammerstorfer FG, Scharf K, Fischer FD (1990) Storage tanks under earthquake loading. Appl. Mech. Reviews 43:261–281
UBC, 1997, “Uniform Building Code”, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA
USNRC, Regulating Guide 1.61, Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plant, 2007
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1: Safety and Seismic Categorization and Service Levels for Equipment of Nuclear Facilities
Appendix 1: Safety and Seismic Categorization and Service Levels for Equipment of Nuclear Facilities
Integrity and functionality for equipment of nuclear facilities are to be ensured under earthquake condition. Safety classification and seismic categorization for equipment of nuclear facilities are described below.
10.1.1 A.10.1.1 Safety Classification of Equipment of Nuclear Facilities
The objective of safety classification of nuclear facilities is to ensure pubic and plant safety by identifying those systems and components that are important from the point of view of safety and grade them in importance [5].
Safety requirement: The defense in depth philosophy in ensuring nuclear safety consists of three important steps:
-
a.
Design of components and systems with adequate margins,
-
b.
Prevention of accidents,
-
c.
Mitigation of consequences of accidents.
Safety Class I: It includes those functions necessary to prevent release of substantial fraction of radioactive material to the containment.
Safety Class II: It includes those functions necessary to mitigate the consequence of accidents which would otherwise lead to substantial radioactive release.
Safety Class III: It includes those safety functions performing support roles to safety functions in safety classes 1, 2, or 3. Failure of this would not lead to a direct increase in radiation exposure.
Safety Class IV: It includes all safety functions which do not fall within safety classes 1, 2, or 3.
10.1.2 A.10.1.2 Service Levels
Service levels are defined to categorize all loads into various levels according to their occurrence and severity of load. The service limits are defined in ASME Section III [4] are as follows. Table A.10.13 defines the graded approach for different service level and frequency of occurrences [22].
Level A service limits: (normal)
The piping components or supports must satisfy these sets of limits in the performance of their specified service function.
Level B service limits: (abnormal)
The piping components or support system must withstand these loadings without damage requiring repair.
Level C service limits: (emergency condition)
The occurrence of the stress up to these limits may necessitate the removal of the piping component from service for inspection or repair of damage.
Level D service limits: (faulted condition)
These sets of limits permit gross general deformations with some consequent loss of dimensional stability and damage requiring repair which may require removal of the piping components from service.
Table A.10.2 defines that the various loads can be categorized in different service levels . The relation between plant classifications and service conditions is also correlated in following table.
10.1.3 A.10.1.3 Seismic Categorization for Equipment of Nuclear Facilities
The purpose of seismic categorization of equipment of nuclear facilities is to facilitate the protection of public and environment against radioactive releases [19]. It is categorized in terms of their importance to safety in the event of an earthquake .
Seismic Category I
Item under this category shall be designed and demonstrated to withstand the consequences of ground motion associated with earthquakes of levels S-2 (SSE ) and S-1 (OBE ). Category I shall include:
-
(a)
Items whose failure could directly or indirectly cause accident conditions,
-
(b)
Item required for shutting down the reactor, maintaining the reactor in a shutdown condition, and removing residual heat over a long period,
-
(c)
Item that are required to prevent radioactive releases are to maintain release below limits stabilized by the regulatory body for accidental conditions (e.g., containment systems).
Seismic Category II
The items categorized under this category shall be designed to withstand with ground motion associated with earthquake of level S-I (OBE ). Category II should include:
-
1.
That an earthquake of defined severity will occur during this period. Items not in Category I which are required to prevent the escape of radioactivity beyond normal operation limits,
-
2.
Items, not in Category I, required to mitigate those accident conditions which last for such long periods that there is a reasonable likelihood.
Seismic Category III
Seismic Category 3 should include all items that could pose a radiological hazard but that are not related to the nuclear reactor (e.g., the spent fuel building and the radioactive waste building). In some states, these items are required to have safety margins consistent with their potential for radiological consequences, which are expected to be different from the potentials associated with the reactor, as they would be in general related to different release mechanisms (e.g., leakage from waste, failure of spent fuel casks).
Seismic Category IV
Seismic Category 4 should include all items that are not in seismic Category 1 or 2 or 3. Nuclear power plant items in seismic Category IV should be designed as a minimum in accordance with national practice for non-nuclear applications, and therefore for facilities at conventional risk. For some items of this seismic category important to the operation of the plant, it may be reasonable to choose more stringent acceptance criteria based only on operational targets.
10.1.4 A.10.4 Qualification of Equipment of Nuclear Facilities for Seismic Load
The first step in qualification of equipment of nuclear facilities is to obtain the design basis ground motion (DBGM) parameters of the site and floor response spectra (FRS) of location where the equipment is mounted. The generation of DBGM parameters for a site is explained in Chap. 2. Then the equipment is analyzed for corresponding seismic load . Qualification of equipment is carried out by comparing the resulting response with allowable limits provided by design codes.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reddy, G.R., Kiran, A.R., Agrawal, M.K., Eswaran, M. (2019). Seismic Analysis and Design of Equipment. In: Reddy, G., Muruva, H., Verma, A. (eds) Textbook of Seismic Design. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3176-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3176-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3175-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3176-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)