Determining Seismic Safety Margins By Nonlinear Soil-Structure Analysis

Determining Seismic Safety Margins By Nonlinear Soil-Structure Analysis

Sunay Stäuble Akcay Andrii Nykyforchyn Jens-Uwe Klügel Payman Khalili Tehrani Benjamin Kosbab Iman Talebinejad

NPP goesgen, Switzerland.

Sc Solutions Inc, U.S.A.

9 September 2019
| Citation



The nuclear power plants (NPP) in Switzerland have to review their plant safety against the updated seismic hazard (uniform hazard Spectra, from 10−3/a to 10−7/a– denoted as ENSI-2015)—by perform- ing both deterministic and probabilistic safety analyses. For this purpose, a method for direct estimation of seismic safety margins based on nonlinear soil-structure analysis was developed and applied for systems and components located inside the reactor building of NPP goesgen. The method is based on the evaluation of safety factors derived from scaling of response spectra for different hazard levels. For this purpose, two sets of deterministic in-structure floor response spectra (ISrS) were developed tak- ing into account soil-structure interaction (SSI). The first set consists of the new linear elastic ISrS for the reference review level Earthquake (uhS, frequency of exceedance of 10−4/a, PgA=0.41g (mean value), called NESK3 in Swiss national regulations). The second one consists of the calculated nonlin- ear ISrS computed for the Safety margin review level Earthquake (uhS, frequency of exceedance of 10−5/a, PgA=0.71g (mean value), SmrlE). For obtaining the ISrS an equivalent linear-elastic 3D finite element model of the reactor building and the associated soil column (Soil structure analysis (SSI) in frequency domain, SASSI (ElFD), for NESK3) as well as a nonlinear model (SSI in time-domain using lSDyNA, for the SmrlE (NlTD)) were developed. Soil nonlinearity for the latter was incorpo- rated through a hysteretic plasticity model whose shear response is dependent on soil effective pressure. To calibrate the plasticity model, gravel’s shear-stiffness degradation-curve was modified to produce shear strength values consistent with the laboratory-measured friction angle. It is demonstrated that the direct estimation of safety margins by nonlinear soil-structure analysis yields more realistic results than extrapolations common to standard fragility analysis methods.


Fragility Analysis, Nonlinear Soil-Structure Analysis, Seismic Safety Margins.


[1] Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee, Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, NUREG/CR-6372, 1997.

[2] EPRI, Seismic Fragility Application Guide, TR 1002988, 2002.

[3] Klügel, J.U. & Stäuble Akcay, S., Development of intensity compatible time-histories for dynamic analysis of buildings. In 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017, Santiago Chile, 2017.

[4] SC Solutions, SC SASSI Manual, Version 2.1.14, 2016.

[5] ENSI, Verfügung: Erdbebengefährdungsannahmen ENSI-2015 für die Standorte der Schweizer Kernkraftwerke, Brugg: ENSI, 26.5.2016.

[6] NAGRA, Probabilistische Erdbebengefährdungsannahmen für die Standorte der

Schweizer Kernkraftwerke (PEGASOS), Nagra, Wettingen, 2004.

[7] PROSEIS, Calculation of the Seismic Hazard at the Four NPP Sites Based on the Hybrid SED-PRP Model, Technical Report, 2015.

[8] European-Mediterranean Seismological Center (EMSC), Resource Reference Database for Seismic Ground—Motion in Europe, 2013.

[9] Atalik, L.A. & Abrahamson, N., An improved method for non-stationary spectral matching.Earthquake Spectra, 26(33), pp. 3034–3047, 2010.

[10] Vanmarcke, E.H. & Lai, S.P., Strong-motion duration and RMS amplitude of earthquake records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 70(4), pp. 1293–1307, 1980.

[11] ENSI, Methodik deterministischer Erdbebennachweise der Schweizer Kernkraftwerke,ENSI-AN-8567, Brugg, 2013.

[12] Khalili  Tehrani,  P.,  Talebinejad,  I.,  Kosbab,  B., Nykyforchyn, A.,  Stäuble,  S.  & Klügel, J., Effects of nonlinearities on seismic soil-structure-interaction behavior of a nuclear plant reactor building: A case study. Technical Innovations in Nuclear Civil Engineering (TINCE), Paris, 2018.

[13] SQUG, Seismic Qualification Utility Group, Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Power Plant Equipment, Revision 3A, 2001.

[14] EPRI, Seismic Fragility Application Guide Update, Report 1019200, December 2009.