0
Research Papers: Seismic Engineering

Study on Piping Seismic Response Under Multiple Excitation

[+] Author and Article Information
Satoru Kai

Piping Engineering Department,
Nuclear Power Business Unit,
IHI Corporation,
1 Shin-nakahara-cho,
Isogo 235-8501, Yokohama, Japan
e-mail: satoru_kai@ihi.co.jp

Tomoyoshi Watakabe

Advanced Nuclear System Research
and Development Directorate,
Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
Oarai,
Narita 4002, Ibaraki, Japan

Naoaki Kaneko, Akihito Otani

Piping Engineering Department,
Nuclear Power Business Unit,
IHI Corporation,
1 Shin-nakahara-cho,
Isogo 235-8501, Yokohama, Japan

Kunihiro Tochiki

Vibration Engineering and Tribology Department,
IHI Corporation, 1 Shin-nakahara-cho,
Isogo 235-8501, Yokohama, Japan

Kazuyuki Tsukimori

Visiting Professor
Research Institute of Nuclear Engineering,
University of Fukui,
1-2-3 Kanawa-cho,
Tsuruga-shi, Fukui-ken 914-2255, Japan

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 28, 2017; final manuscript received February 12, 2018; published online April 10, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Oreste S. Bursi.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 140(3), 031801 (Apr 10, 2018) (16 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1118; doi: 10.1115/1.4039453 History: Received June 28, 2017; Revised February 12, 2018

The uniform response spectrum (URS) analysis method is generally used to seismic qualification of piping systems in nuclear power plants (NPPs). This method can reasonably not only compute dynamic responses of the piping systems exposed to different seismic motions from the building but also tend to overestimate the responses due to an assumption while conservatively considering a variety of the characteristic among input loadings. Increases of design seismic motions for NPPs in Japan by 2–3 times due to the 2011 off Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake resulted that structures, systems, and components such as piping systems are subject to numbers of additional supporting structures to meet the design code requirements. Use of multiple-input analysis methods (independent support motion methods) is expected to bring high degree of precision in dynamic responses than the URS method. However, existence of a handful of experimental tests prevents from utilizing the method in the design process for NPPs in Japan. In order to practically utilize the multiple-input analysis methods in the plant design, this paper provides validation analyses and results for the multiple-input analysis methods for piping by conducting excitation tests and validation analyses. Some recommendations were also found in the study for seismic design of NPPs.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Kasawara, R. P. , and Peck, D. A. , 1973, “Dynamic Analysis of Structural Systems Excited at Multiple Support Locations,” ASCE Second Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, Chicago, IL, Dec. 17–18, pp. 73–88.
Vashi, K. M. , 1975, “Seismic Spectral Analysis of Structural Systems Subject of Non-Uniform Excitation at Supports,” Second ASCE Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 8–10, pp. 188–211.
Shaw, D. E. , 1975, “Seismic Structural Response Analysis for Multiple Support Excitation,” Third International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT), London, Sept. 1–5. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:8301423
Thailer, H. J. , 1976, “Spectral Analysis of Complex Systems Supported at Several Elevations,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 98(2), pp. 162–165. http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1453636
Bezler, P. , Subudhi, M. , and Hartzman, M. , 1987, “Dynamic Analysis Independent Support Motion Response Spectrum Method,” Brookheaven National Laboratory, New York, Report No. NUREG/CR-1677.
Ishimaru, S. , Ishii, T. , Ide, T. , Yada, K. , Shintani, T. , and Oguri, S. , 1985, “The Response Characteristics of Structures Under Multiple Seismic Excitation,” Architectural Institute of Japan, Summaries of Technical Papers of Research Meeting, Tokai, Japan, pp. 329–330.
Chiba, T. , Koyanagi, R. , Ogawa, N. , and Minowa, C. , 1987, “An Experimental Study of the Multiple Support Piping Systems,” Nineth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT), Lausanne, Switzerland, Aug. 17–21, pp. 975–980.
Watakabe, T. , Kitamura, S. , Tsukimori, M. , Moriizumi, M. , Miyamoto, A. , and Morishita, M. , 2010, “Investigation on Response Behavior of Piping Subjected to Multiple Input (1st Report, Response of Piping Model Supported by Two Point),” JSME Dynamics and Design Conference, p. 419.
ASME, 1992, “ASME B&PV CODE Sec. III, DIVISION 1, Appendix N, N-1227 Multiple-Input Response Spectra Analysis and N-1228 Multiple Time History Excitations,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
U.S.NRC, 1985, “Piping Benchmark Problems Dynamic Analysis Independent Support Motion Response Spectrum Method,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG/CR-1677. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:17017244
U.S.NRC, 1993, “Piping Benchmark Problems for the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG/CR-6049. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:25015346
Wu, R. W. , Hussain, F. A. , and Liu, L. K. , 1978, “Seismic Response Analysis of Structural System Subjected to Multiple Support Excitation,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 47(2), pp. 273–282. [CrossRef]
JEAG, 1984, “Technical Code for Aseismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,” The Japan Electric Association, Tokyo, Japan, Standard No. JEAG 4601-1984 (in Japanese).
U.S.NRC, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” NRC, Washington, DC, Standard No. NUREG-0800. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/
Ishizaki, H. , 1955, “The Application of Calculus of Finite Differences to the Vibration Computing of Structures,” Architectural Institute of Japan Kinki Chapter Architectural Research Meeting.
Sone, A. , and Suzuki, K. , 1986, “A Study on Load Combination Method Considering the Correlation Among Dynamic Loads (3rd Report, Response Analysis for Multi-Supported Piping System, Part 1),” JSME Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng., Ser. C, 52(477), pp. 1493–1498. [CrossRef]
Fujita, S. , Furuya, O. , and Mikoshiba, T. , “Research and Development of Measurement Method for Structural Fracturing Process in Shake Table Tests Using Image Processing Technique,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 126(1), pp. 115–121. [CrossRef]
Kai, S. , Kaneko, N. , and Otani, A. , 2012, “Analytical Study on Seismic Response of Piping Under Multiple Support Excitations,” ASME Paper No. PVP2012–78203.
Watakabe, T. , Kaneko, N. , Aida, S. , Otani, A. , Moriizumi, M. , Tsukimori, K. , and Kitamura, S. , 2013, “Study on Piping Response Under Multiple Excitation—Part 1: Triple Shaking Table Test of Piping Having Three-Supporting Points,” ASME Paper No. PVP2013–97832.
Kai, S. , Watakabe, T. , Kaneko, N. , Tochiki, K. , Moriizumi, M. , and Tsukimori, K. , 2013, “Study on Piping Response Under Multiple Excitation—Part 2: Validation for Multiple Excitation Analysis of Piping,” ASME Paper No. PVP2013–97841.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic model for verification of multiple-input condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Random acceleration time history for input

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of element forces (coupled versus decoupled model)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of element forces (building case 1, 0.001 s, node 8)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Triple shaking tables and performance curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Configuration of test piping

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Diagram of 6DOF system with three input points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Participation factors of 6DOF system with three Inputs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Schematic image for waves A and B

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of input waveforms (waves B in displacement)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Correlations between test model and input waves (natural frequency versus response spectra)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Sensor configuration on test piping

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of mode shape between test and analysis at each mode

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Multiple-input excitation versus uniform input excitation in response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Multiple-input excitation versus uniform input excitation in response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Summary of comparison of piping response acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Response acceleration on elbow (AE-2, direction: X, load case 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Summary of comparison of piping resultant element forces

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Resultant moments at worst error case in excitation direction (S-6, Y, load case 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Summary of piping stresses

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In