Oct 24, 2016 - [1] Robin K. McGuire. Probabilistic seismic hazard ... James C. Yount, Laurence W. Anderson, Kenneth D. Smith, Ronald L. Bruhn, Peter L K ...
Evaluation of Seismic Hazard of NPP in China Jing Xu and Guo Xing Nuclear & Radiation Safety Center, MEP, China
October 24, 2016
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
1 / 46
Content
1
Seismic Hazard Modeling
2
Seismic Shaking ε of GMPE Scenario Earthquake Site Response
3
Fault Displacement PFDSHA Example
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
2 / 46
Seismic Hazard Modeling
Seismic Hazard Modeling
Seismic Hazard Modeling Two types of methods for seismic hazard modeling, PSHA and DSHA.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
3 / 46
Seismic Hazard Modeling
PSHA & DSHA
Figure: The schematic of PSHA and DSHA(After Z. Wu, 2014) Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
4 / 46
Seismic Shaking
China probabilistic sesimic hazard analysis(CPSHA)
CPSHA Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) considers a multitude of earthquake occurrences and ground motions, and produces an integrated description of seismic hazard representing all events (After McGuire,1995) [1]; CPSHA is a model used for eavluating seismic hazard of China; Modified the PSHA proposed by Cornell based on seismicity character of China, main difference is the concept of spatatial distribution function.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
5 / 46
Seismic Shaking
ε of GMPE
Ground Motion Prediction Equation(GMPE)
log(Y ) = c1 + c2 M + c3 M 2 + c4 log(R + c5 expc6 M ) + εσ
(1)
where, Y is the ground motion parameter, c1 − c6 are regression constants, R is the epicentral distance, M is the magnitude of earthquake, σ is the standard deviation of log(Y ), ε is a random variable follow standard normal distribution.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
6 / 46
Seismic Shaking
ε of GMPE
Regional Seismotectonic Model
Figure: Regional Seismotectonic Model
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
7 / 46
Seismic Shaking
ε of GMPE
Seismic source
Figure: Seismic Sources
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
8 / 46
Seismic Shaking
ε of GMPE
Seismicity parameters of seismic statistical zones
Table: Seismicity parameters of seismic statistical zones
seismic statistical zone 11 22
1 2
b 0.625 0.628
a 4.742 4.828
µ4 1.154 1.02
Mu 8.5 7.5
TanLu From mid-lower reaches of the Yangtze river to south Yellow sea
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
9 / 46
Seismic Shaking
ε of GMPE
Influence of truncate level on CPSHA result
Figure: Influence of truncate level (ε) on PSHA
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
10 / 46
Seismic Shaking
ε of GMPE
Summary of ε
NPP sites generally located in low seismicity regions, then, in the processing to define design basis ground motion(SL-2),taken ε as 3 is an accepted level; It is adqueate to take a larger truncate level in SPRA of NPP
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
11 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Scenario Earthquake
Scenario Earthquake The earthquake threat is characterized by a single magnitude, distance, and perhaps other parameters; This allows additional characteristics of the ground shaking to be modeled, such as duration, nonstationarity of motion, and critical pulses.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
12 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Scenario Earthquake
Seismic source of a nuclear facility site
Figure: Seismic Source Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
13 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Scenario Earthquake
Probability distribution of single variables
ε
M
R
Figure: Probability distribution of single variable Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
14 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Scenario Earthquake
0.009 0.006 0.003
Distribution
0.012
Joint probability distribution of magnitude-distance
0 10
e nc
20
sta Di
6.0
) Ms de( 6.8 nitu g Ma
30
) (km
6.4
40
7.2
Figure: Joint probability distribution of magnitude-distance
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
15 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Scenario Earthquake
Joint probability distribution of magnitude-ε
Figure: Joint probability distribution of magnitude-ε
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
16 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Scenario Earthquake
Mean and median of variable (M, R, ε)
mean (7.16, 29.6, 1.22) median (7.30, 29.7, 0.99) where, M is magnitude, unit: Ms; R is the projected epicentral distance along minor axis of equivalent ellipse, unit: km; ε is the number of standard deviations that the ground motion is above or below the median predicted motion for attenuation relationship.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
17 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Scenario Earthquake
Compare of UHRS, Trimean and Trimode spectrum
Sa(gal)
103
102
UHRS Trimean
Trimode
101 0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
50
Frequency(Hz) Figure: Comparison of UHRS,Trimean spectrum and Trimode spectrum of variables (M, R, ε) matched to target PGA
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
18 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Site Response The presence of soils, geological sediments and weathered rock (collectively known as regolith), can amplify the level of ground shaking experienced during an earthquake, including the affect of regolith on earthquake ground shaking is an important component of any seismic hazard analysis; Computed transfer function relating bedrock acceleration to surface acceleration, response spectral acceleration and amplification factor, through equivalent linear site-response analysis; Verified the availablity of random vibration theory (RVT) method.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
19 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
UHRS of bedrock
Sa(g)
1.0
0.1
0.0 0.01 0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
Period(sec)
Figure: UHRS of bedrock
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
20 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Shear wave velocity profile of site Vs(m/sec) 0
1000
2000
3000
0
Depth(m)
100
200
300
400
Figure: Shear wave velocity profile of borehole
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
21 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Borehole log Relative Position 0
5
10
0
Depth(m)
100
200
300
400
Figure: borehole log
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
22 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Damping ration Vs. strain curves
Damping ratio(%)
30
20
10
0.1
1
10
100
Strain(1e−4)
Figure: damping ratio Vs. strain curves
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
23 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
G /Gmax Vs. strain curves 1.0
G/Gmax
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
1
10
100
Strain(1e−4)
Figure: G /Gmax Vs. strain curves
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
24 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Accelaration transfer function of profile of zk41 3
AR
2
1
0 0.1
1
10
Frequency(Hz)
Figure: Accelaration transfer function of profile of zk41
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
25 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
The distribution of response spectra lead by shear wave velocity 10 5
Sa(g)
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.01 0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
Period(sec)
Figure: The distribution of response spectra lead by shear wave velocity
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
26 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Compare the response spectra between best estimate profile and random variation shear wave velocity(Vs ) 10 5
Sa(g)
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.01 0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
Period(sec)
Figure: Compare the response spectra between best estimate profile and random variation shear wave velocity Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
27 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
The distribution of transfer function lead by soil dynamic character curves
AR
4
2
0 0.1
1
10
Frequency(Hz)
Figure: The distribution of transfer function lead by soil dynamic character curves
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
28 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Compare the response spectra between best estimate profile and random soil dynamic character curves
Sa(g)
1.0
0.1
0.0 0.01 0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
Period(sec)
Figure: Compare the response spectra between best estimate profile and random soil dynamic character Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
29 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
The distribution of transfer function lead by jointly random Vs and soil dynamic character curves
AR
4
2
0 0.1
1
10
Frequency(Hz)
Figure: The distribution of transfer function lead by jointly random Vs and soil dynamic character curves Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
30 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Compare the response spectra between best estimate profile and jointly random Vs and soil dynamic character curves
Sa(g)
1.0
0.1
0.0 0.01 0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
Period(sec)
Figure: Compare the response spectra between best estimate profile and jointly random Vs and soil dynamic character curves Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
31 / 46
Seismic Shaking
Site Response
Summary of site response
Acceleration transfer function result demonstrate that RVT method could display the influence of soil on ground motion; Surface acceleration spectrum indicate that the primary factor of the uncertainty in site response is the shear wave velocity; The main effect of uncertainty in profile model on site response result, is extended the frequency range of peak; The median, plus, and minus one standard deviation result of random model basiclly envelope the result of best estimate model.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
32 / 46
Fault Displacement
Fault Displacement The provisions in chapter 8 and part of chapter 9 of IAEA SSG-9, identified why and how to probabilistically analysis fault displacement hazard of NPP site. Information comes to light that requires a new assessment of fault displacement potential to be made for a site with existing nuclear power plants; With the totality of the available data, probabilistic methods analogous to and consistent with those used for the ground motion hazard assessment should be used to obtain an estimate of the annual frequency of exceedance of various amounts of displacement at or near the surface;
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
33 / 46
Fault Displacement
PFDSHA
Method
Youngs et al. (2003) introduced probabilistic fault displacement seismic hazard analysis method in the procedure of evaluating hlw repository site yucca montain, fitted the distribution of probability of surface rupture and fault displacement, based on basin and ridge province data; Stepp et al. (2001) adopted PFDSHA method to evaluate fault displacement hazard of 9 sites in yucca mountain.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
34 / 46
Fault Displacement
PFDSHA
Distribution of fault displacement
Figure: Distribution curve of fault displacement of yucca montain(After youngs et al. 2003) [2]
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
35 / 46
Fault Displacement
PFDSHA
Fault displacement hazard curves of yucca mountain sites
Figure: Fault displacement hazard curves of bow ridge and solitario canyon fault(After stepp et al. 2001) [3]
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
36 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Seismogenic Fault
Figure: Reaches of west napa fault
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
37 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Seismicity
G-R Relationship log(NM ) = a − bM where, M is magnitudea, b are regression parameters, NM is the annual number of earthquakes which magnitude equal to or larger than M.
Table: Seismicity parameters of West Napa fault
M0 5.0
µ5 1.8
β 2.1
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
38 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Fault displacement prediction equation Fault displacement prediction equation(FDPE) log(d) = C1 M + C2 log(r ) + C3 + εσ where, d is fault displacement, C1 , C2 , C3 are regression parameters, σ is standard deviation of log(d), ε is a random variable follow standard normal distribution.
Table: Regression parameters of FDPE
C1 1.42
C2 -0.16
C3 6.82
σ 1.20
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
39 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Result
Figure: The distribution of fault displacement under different APE
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
40 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Result
Figure: The fault displacement hazard curves of locations in middle part of West Napa fault
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
41 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Analysis
Along with the decrease of APE, the absolute value of fault displacement is increased; The larger displacement gradually concentrated on fault trace; The displacement near fault vertix are relatively smaller than that on middle part.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
42 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Analysis
log(d) and log(APE ) nearly follow a linear relationship; The hazard curves nearly parallel, mean APE of 45cm is approsimite to 0.0004, that is probability of exceedance of 50 years is 2%, be equal to the probability of exceedance of ’large ground motion’
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
43 / 46
Fault Displacement
Example
Discussion
It is nessary to evaluate the displacement on site introduced by fault even if a small scale strike-slip one; The distribution of fault trace is the input of PFDSHA, and have significant influence to analysis results.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
44 / 46
Reference
[1] Robin K. McGuire. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of American, 85(5):1275–1284, 1995. [2] Robert R. Youngs, Walter J. Arabasz, R. Ernest Anderson, Alan R. Ramelli, Jon P. Ake, David B. Slemmons, James P. McCalpin, Diane I. Doser, Christopher J. Fridrich, Frank H. Swan, Albert M. Rogers, James C. Yount, Laurence W. Anderson, Kenneth D. Smith, Ronald L. Bruhn, Peter L K Knuepfer, Robert B. Smith, Craig M. DePolo, Dennis W. O’Leary, Kevin J. Coppersmith, Silvio K. Pezzopane, David P. Schwartz, John W. Whitney, Susan S. Olig, and Gabriel R. Toro. A methodology for probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA). Earthquake Spectra, 19(1):191–219, 2003. Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
45 / 46
Reference
[3] J. Carl Stepp, Ivan Wong, John Whitney, Richard Quittmeyer, Norman Abrahamson, Gabriel Toro, Robert Youngs, Kevin Coppersmith, Jean Savy, and Tim Sullivan. Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for ground motions and fault displacement at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Earthquake Spectra, 17(1):113–151, 2001.
Jing Xu and Guo Xing (Nuclear & RadiationEvaluation Safety Center, of Seismic MEP, China) Hazard of NPP in China
October 24, 2016
46 / 46
