Evaluating the Seismic Diversity and Robustness of Nuclear Power Plants

References

• Defence in Depth in Nuclear Safety. International Atomic Energy Agency; 1996, ( INSAG–10).
   Google Scholar
• The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. Fukushima (Japan): The National Diet of Japan; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Five Years after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Nuclear energy agency Organization for economic co-operation and development; 2016, ( NEA NO. 7284).
   Google Scholar
• Implementation of Defense in Depth at Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear energy agency Organization for economic co-operation and development; 2016, ( NEA NO. 7248).
   Google Scholar
• Fukushima Nuclear Accident Investigation Report: Tokyo Electric Power Company; 2012. Japanese.
   Google Scholar
• Takada T. Importance of risk theory for ensuring nuclear safety after the Fukushima accident. J Atom Energy Soc Jpn. 2014;56(4): 34–39. Japanese.
   Google Scholar
• Ohtori Y, Muta H, Nakajima M, et al. Evaluation of seismic diversity of SSC system in PRA. In: Annual Meeting of Atomic Energy Society of Japan; p.1L11. Mar; Mito:Japan. Japanese; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Katayama Y, Ohtori Y, Sakai T, et al. A Framework of RI-PB Design Application for Seismic Events/Part 3: evaluation of seismic diversity of SSCs focusing on response spectrum characteristics of ground motion. In: Annual Meeting of Atomic Energy Society of Japan; p.2K12 Mar; Fukushima:Japan. Japanese; 2020
   Google Scholar
• Katayama Y, Ohtori Y, Sakai T, et al. A Framework of RI-PB Design Application for Seismic Events/Part 5: evaluation of Seismic Diversity and Robustness for Nuclear Power Plants. In: Annual Meeting of Atomic Energy Society of Japan; p.1L03. Japanese:Sep; Online-meeting; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Katayama Y, Ohtori Y, Sakai T, et al. A Framework of RI-PB Seismic Design/Part 2: evaluation of seismic diversity of SSCs focusing on response spectrum characteristics of ground motion. ESREL2020 PSAM15. Nov; Venice: Italy; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Baker JW, Cornell CA. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2006;35(9):1077–1095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker JW. Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng. 2011;137(3):322–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mousavi M. Ghafory-Ashtiany M and Azarbakht A. A new indicator of elastic spectral shape for the reliable selection of ground motion records. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2011;40(12):1403–1416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin T. Haselton CB and Baker JW. Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2013;(42):1847–1865.
   Google Scholar
• Lin T. Haselton CB and Baker JW. Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part II: intensity-based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2013;(42):1867–1884.
   Google Scholar
• Azarbakht A, Ghodrati AR. The dependence of conditional spectra on the choice of target periods. Scientia Iranica A. 2018;25(1):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebrahimian H, Azarbakht A, Tabandeh A, et al. The exact and approximate conditional spectra in the multi-seismic-sources regions. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 2012;39:61–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park J-H, Jeon S-H, Park W, et al. Seismic fragility based on conditional mean spectra for multiple earthquake scenarios. 25th Conf Struct Mech Reactor Technol Transactions SMiRT-25. Aug; Charlotte: NC, USA; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Bohn MP, Lambright JA Procedures for the external event core damage frequency analyses for NUREG-1150. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1990, ( NUREG/CR-4840 SAND88–3102).
   Google Scholar
• Seismic Safety Margins Research Program; Systems Analysis (Project VIII). Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1983, (NUREG/CR-2015, Vol. 8).
   Google Scholar
• Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Implementation Guide. EPRI; 2013, ( 3002000709).
   Google Scholar
• Preckshot GG. Method for performing diversity and defense-in-depth analyses of reactor protection systems. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1994 ( NUREG/CR–6303).
   Google Scholar
• Ishikawa M New common sense of nuclear power learned from the nuclear accident part 9 Applying diversity to respond to the threat of natural disasters: denki shinbun web site; 2018 Sep 20. Available from: https://www.denkishimbun.com/sp/32632Japanese
   Google Scholar
• Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. Nuclear library.  [cited 2020 Feb Jun5]. Available from: https://www.kepco.co.jp/energy_supply/energy/nuclear_power/library/9994350_13857.htmlJapanese
   Google Scholar
• All about nuclear power: Wisdom coexisting with the earth: Atomic Energy Commission; 2003 [Sep]: 1880. [cited 2020 Feb Jun 5]. Available from: http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/sonota/study/aecall/index.htmlJapanese
   Google Scholar
• Basic concepts of nuclear safety: Concept of implementing defense in depth: AESJ-SC-TR005 (ANX2); 2015 [Dec]: 27 Japanese
   Google Scholar
• Halbaoui K, Boukhetala D, Boudjema F. Introduction to robust control techniques; 2011: 3.
   Google Scholar
• Mens MJ, Klijn F, De Bruijn KM, et al. The meaning of system robustness for flood risk management. Environ Sci Policy. 2011;14(8):121–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Structural robustness handbook: Australian Building Codes Board; 2016; 8.
   Google Scholar
• Kranz S, Messingschlager M Evaluation of seismic robustness using plant HCLPF capacity. SMiRT-24; 2017 Aug 20–25; Busan, Korea; 1
   Google Scholar
• Brett C, Lu Y. Assessment of robustness of structures: current state of research. Front Struct Civ Eng. 2013;7(4):356–368.
   Google Scholar
• Baker JW. Schubert M and Faber MH. On the assessment of robustness. Struct Saf. 2008;30(3):253–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stochino F, Bedon C, Sagaseta J, et al. Robustness and resilience of structures under extreme loads. Adv Civ Eng. 2019;4291703:1.
   Google Scholar
• Göhler SM, Ebro M, Howard TJ. Mechanisms and coherences of robust design methodology: a robust design process proposal. Total Qual Manag Bus Excel. 2018;29(3–4):239–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morikawa N, Fujiwara H. A new ground motion prediction equation for Japan applicable up to M9 mega-earthquake. J Disaster Res. 2013;8(5):878–888.
   Google Scholar
• Morikawa N, Fujiwara H Re-examination of site amplification correction term for ground motion prediction equation. The Seismological Society of Japan; 2014 Nov 24–26; Niigata, Japan; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Morikawa N, Fujiwara H An additional correction term of ground-motion prediction equation for intra-plate earthquakes. Japan Geoscience Union Meeting; 2015 May 24–28; Chiba, Japan; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Baker JW, Jayaram N. Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra. 2008;24(1):299–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The review meeting on conformity to the new regulatory requirements for nuclear power plants: NRA Japan; [cited 2020 Aug 3]. Available from: https://www.nsr.go.jp/disclosure/committee/yuushikisya/tekigousei.html
   Google Scholar
• J-SHIS [Internet]. Japan: National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention; [ 2018 Jul 2] [cited 2019 Dec 27]. Available from: http://www.j-shis.bosai.go.jp/map/JSHIS2/download.html?lang=jp
   Google Scholar
• Kosugi S, Imaoka T, Kanazawa K, et al. Ultimate properties of large-scale lead rubber bearing using full-sale break test. J Struct Constr Eng. 2017;82(732):203–213. Japanese.
   Google Scholar
• Consideration of application of seismic isolation technology to nuclear power generation facilities. The Institute of applied energy. 2018. Japanese.
   Google Scholar
• Hoshina H, Chou T, Niwa K An vibrating response analysis of the isolated LWR building considering the shock by failure of multi-layer rubber isolator. 10-th symposium on impact problems of structures of JSCE; 2010. Japanese.
   Google Scholar