Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Robustness Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants

  • Manuel PellissettiEmail author
  • Ulrich Klapp
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_166

Synonyms

Seismic margin assessment; Seismic PRA; Seismic probabilistic risk analysis; Seismic probabilistic safety analysis; Seismic PSA; SMA

Introduction

Nuclear Safety

Commercial nuclear power plants (NPP) are industrial facilities that represent a significant hazard potential. Consequently, the pertinent safety requirements are particularly stringent. Nuclear safety is assured by deterministic and probabilistic analysis. In deterministic analysis, the safety systems are shown to withstand design basis accidents (DBAs), typically using conservative assumptions. In probabilistic safety analysis (PSA), the frequency of accident progressions leading to core damage (PSA level 1) and large early release (PSA level 2) is quantified and compared to target values that are judged as low enough.

Consideration of Earthquakes in Nuclear Safety

Earthquakes are external hazards on which the duty holder of a nuclear facility, e.g., a nuclear power plant, has no or only little control.

Effects to be...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2000) Seismic analysis of safety-related nuclear structures and commentary. ASCE 4-98, RestonGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2011) Evaluation of the use of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) in the shutdown of nuclear power plants after an earthquake. In: Transactions, SMiRT 21, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen W-F, Scawthorn C (eds) (2002) Earthquake engineering handbook. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  4. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1991) A methodology for assessment of nuclear power plant seismic margin (revision 1). Report EPRI NP-6041-SL, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  5. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1994) Methodology for developing seismic fragilities. Report TR-103959, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  6. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), U.S. Department of Energy (2006) Program on technology innovation: use of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) in determining effects of small magnitude earthquakes on seismic hazard analyses. Report 1014099, Palo Alto/GermantownGoogle Scholar
  7. EUR Organisation (2001) European utility requirements for LWR nuclear power plantsGoogle Scholar
  8. International Atomic Agency (IAEA) (2003a) Seismic design and qualification for nuclear power plants. Safety guide NS-G-16, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  9. International Atomic Agency (IAEA) (2003b) Seismic evaluation of existing nuclear power plants. Safety series 28, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. International Atomic Agency (IAEA) (2009) Evaluation of seismic safety for existing nuclear installations. Safety guide no. NS-G-2.13, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy RP, Ravindra MK (1984) Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies. Nucl Eng Des 79:47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klügel J (2007) An improved methodology for the evaluation of human error probabilities in a seismic PSA. In: Transactions, SMiRT 19, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  13. Pellissetti MF, Klapp U (2011) Integration of correlation models for seismic failures into fault tree based seismic PSA. In: Transactions, SMiRT 21, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  14. Sadegh-Azar H, Hartmann H-G (2011) Grundlagen der seismischen Auslegung von Kernkraftwerken und Einfluss der Boden-Bauwerk Wechselwirkung. Bauingenieur (D-A-CH-Mitteilungsblatt)Google Scholar
  15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG) (1985) An approach to the quantification of seismic margins in nuclear power plants. NUREG/CR-4334, UCID-20444, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG). (1986). Recommendations to the Nuclear regulatory commission on trial guidelines for seismic margin reviews of nuclear power Plants. NUREG/CR-4482, UCID-20579, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG) (1987) Relay Chatter and operator response after a large earthquake. NUREG/CR-4910, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG) (1990) Procedures for the external event core damage frequency analyses for NUREG-1150. NUREG/CR-4840, SAND88-3102, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG). (1993). Subject: policy, technical, and licensing issues pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR) designs. SECY 93–087, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Yokobayashi M et al (1998) Consideration of the effect of human error in a seismic PSA. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AREVA GmbHErlangenGermany