Main Achievements of the Multidisciplinary SINAPS@ Research Project: Towards an Integrated Approach to Perform Seismic Safety Analysis of Nuclear Facilities

This contribution provides an overview of the SINAPS@ French research project and its main achievements. SINAPS@ stands for “Earthquake and Nuclear Facility: Improving and Sustaining Safety”, and it has gathered the broad research community together to propose an innovative seismic safety analysis for nuclear facilities. This five-year project was funded by the French government after the 2011 Japanese Tohoku large earthquake and associated tsunami that caused a major accident at the Fukushima Daïchi nuclear power plant. Soon after this disaster, the international community involved in nuclear safety questioned the current methodologies used to define and to account for seismic loadings for nuclear facilities during the design and periodic assessment review phases. Within this framework, worldwide nuclear authorities asked nuclear licensees to perform ‘stress tests’ to estimate the capacity of their existing facilities for sustaining extreme seismic motions. As an introduction, the French nuclear regulatory framework is presented here, to emphasize the key issues and the scientific challenges. An analysis of the current French practices and the need to better assess the seismic margin of nuclear facilities contributed to the shaping of the scientific roadmap of SINAPS@. SINAPS@ was aimed at conducting a continuous analysis of completeness and gaps in databases (for all data types, including geology, seismology, site characterization, materials), of reliability or deficiency of models available to describe physical phenomena (i.e., prediction of seismic motion, site effects, soil and structure interactions, linear and nonlinear wave propagation, material constitutive laws in the nonlinear domain for structural analysis), and of the relevance or weakness of methodologies used for seismic safety assessment. This critical analysis that confronts the methods (either deterministic or probabilistic) and the available data in terms of the international state of the art systematically addresses the uncertainty issues. We present the key results achieved in SINAPS@ at each step of the full seismic analysis, with a focus on uncertainty identification, quantification, and propagation. The main lessons learned from SINAPS@ are highlighted. SINAPS@ promotes an innovative integrated approach that is consistent with Guidelines #22, as recently published by the French Nuclear Safety Authority (Guidelines ASN #22 2017), and opens the perspectives to improve current French practice.

[1]  S. Rice Mathematical analysis of random noise , 1944 .

[2]  T. Caughey,et al.  Classical Normal Modes in Damped Linear Dynamic Systems , 1960 .

[3]  J. Millis Challenges ahead , 1998, Nature.

[4]  R. Clough,et al.  Dynamics Of Structures , 1975 .

[5]  E. Vanmarcke On the Distribution of the First-Passage Time for Normal Stationary Random Processes , 1975 .

[6]  J. P. Wolf,et al.  Effects of horizontally propagating waves on the response of structures with a soft first storey , 1981 .

[7]  John P. Wolf,et al.  Response of a nuclear power plant on aseismic bearings to horizontally propagating waves , 1983 .

[8]  James M. Kelly,et al.  Seismic response of heavily damped base isolation systems , 1993 .

[9]  Manolis Papadrakakis,et al.  Earthquake simulator testing of pounding between adjacent buildings , 1995 .

[10]  Andre Filiatrault,et al.  Analytical prediction of experimental building pounding , 1995 .

[11]  D. Komatitsch,et al.  The spectral element method: An efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of 2D and 3D geological structures , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[12]  James M. Kelly,et al.  The role of damping in seismic isolation , 1999 .

[13]  F. Ragueneau Fonctionnement dynamique des structures en béton : influence des comportements hystériques locaux , 1999 .

[14]  F. Cotton,et al.  NEW EMPIRICAL RESPONSE SPECTRAL ATTENUATION LAWS FOR MODERATE EUROPEAN EARTHQUAKES , 2003 .

[15]  Jinkook Kim,et al.  Evaluation of equivalent damping ratio of a structure with added dampers , 2004 .

[16]  John F. Hall,et al.  Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping , 2006 .

[17]  F. Charney Unintended Consequences of Modeling Damping in Structures , 2008 .

[18]  K. Campbell,et al.  NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s , 2008 .

[19]  Bruce R. Ellingwood,et al.  Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames – Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties , 2010 .

[20]  D. Clouteau,et al.  On a hybrid Laplace-time domain approach to dynamic interaction problems , 2012 .

[21]  Pierre Jehel,et al.  Initial versus tangent stiffness‐based Rayleigh damping in inelastic time history seismic analyses , 2013, 1309.2741.

[22]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk‐based assessments , 2013 .

[23]  Benjamin Richard,et al.  Experimental characterization and modeling of energy dissipation in reinforced concrete beams subjected to cyclic loading , 2013 .

[24]  A. Correia,et al.  Seismic Energy Dissipation in Inelastic Frames: Understanding State-of-the-Practice Damping Models , 2013 .

[25]  Dimitri Komatitsch,et al.  The spectral-element method in seismology , 2013 .

[26]  Khalid M. Mosalam,et al.  PEER Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology, Revisited , 2013 .

[27]  Irmela Zentner,et al.  A procedure for simulating synthetic accelerograms compatible with correlated and conditional probabilistic response spectra , 2014 .

[28]  K. Pilakoutas,et al.  Seismic strengthening of severely damaged beam-column RC joints using CFRP , 2014 .

[29]  Farhang Ostadan,et al.  Consistent site-response/soil-structure interaction analysis and evaluation , 2014 .

[30]  Robert Cybulski,et al.  A Timoshenko finite element straight beam with internal degrees of freedom , 2015 .

[31]  F. Scherbaum,et al.  Development of a Response Spectral Ground‐Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) for Seismic‐Hazard Analysis from Empirical Fourier Spectral and Duration Models , 2015 .

[32]  H. Dumontet,et al.  Dissipative Homogenised Reinforced Concrete (DHRC) constitutive model dedicated to reinforced concrete plates under seismic loading , 2015 .

[33]  David Néron,et al.  Time‐space PGD for the rapid solution of 3D nonlinear parametrized problems in the many‐query context , 2015 .

[34]  P. Kotronis,et al.  A novel multi-fiber Timoshenko beam finite element formulation with embedded discontinuities to describe reinforced concrete failure under static loadings , 2016 .

[35]  M. Vitse Réduction de modèle pour l'analyse paramétrique de l'endommagement dans les structures en béton armé , 2016 .

[36]  Benjamin Richard,et al.  SMART 2013: Experimental and numerical assessment of the dynamic behavior by shaking table tests of an asymmetrical reinforced concrete structure subjected to high intensity ground motions , 2016 .

[37]  F. Lopez-Caballero,et al.  THE SINAPS@ FRENCH RESEARCH PROJECT: FIRST LESSONS OF AN INTEGRATED SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS SAFETY , 2016 .

[38]  L. Bollinger,et al.  Evidence for the release of long‐term tectonic strain stored in continental interiors through intraplate earthquakes , 2016 .

[39]  Stéphane Grange,et al.  A multifiber beam model coupling torsional warping and damage for reinforced concrete structures , 2016 .

[40]  Thomas Heitz,et al.  Nonlinear local behaviours and numerical modeling of damping in civil engineering structures in dynamic , 2017 .

[41]  Benjamin Richard,et al.  Strong discontinuity analysis of a class of anisotropic continuum damage constitutive models – Part II: Concrete material application , 2017 .

[42]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  Toward an integrated seismic risk assessment for nuclear safety improving current French methodologies through the SINAPS@ research project , 2017 .

[43]  Ioannis Politopoulos,et al.  Influential Structural Parameters of Pounding between Buildings during Earthquakes , 2017 .

[44]  E. Faccioli,et al.  An Overview of the SIGMA Research Project: A European Approach to Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2017 .

[45]  P. Bard,et al.  Analysis of rotation sensor data from the SINAPS@ Kefalonia (Greece) post-seismic experiment—link to surface geology and wavefield characteristics , 2017, Earth, Planets and Space.

[46]  A. Borovkov On the distribution of the first passage time of a random walk to an arbitrary remote boundary , 2017 .

[47]  F. Scherbaum,et al.  Stochastic source, path and site attenuation parameters and associated variabilities for shallow crustal European earthquakes , 2017, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[48]  P.-Y. Bard,et al.  Derivation of consistent hard rock (1000 < VS < 3000 m/s) GMPEs from surface and down-hole recordings: analysis of KiK-net data , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[49]  E. Faccioli,et al.  Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for South-Eastern France , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[50]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Adaptive artificial neural networks for seismic fragility analysis , 2017, 2017 2nd International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS).

[51]  V. Fernandes,et al.  DYNAMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODELING STRATEGIES APPLIED TO KASHIWAZAKI-KARIWA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CASE-STUDY , 2017 .

[52]  M. Causse,et al.  Near-Fault Broadband Ground Motion Simulations Using Empirical Green’s Functions: Application to the Upper Rhine Graben (France–Germany) Case Study , 2017, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[53]  Sara Touhami,et al.  STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF NUPEC TEST CASES , 2017 .

[54]  D. Sicilia,et al.  Pleistocene Involutions and Patterned Ground in France: Examples and Analysis Using a GIS Database , 2017 .

[55]  M. Balmaseda,et al.  A discrete anisotropic damage constitutive law with an enhanced mixed-mode kinematics: Application to RC shear walls , 2017 .

[56]  P. Bard,et al.  Spatial coherency analysis of seismic ground motions from a rock site dense array implemented during the Kefalonia 2014 aftershock sequence , 2017 .

[57]  Y. Sieffert,et al.  ENHANCEMENT OF MULTIFIBER BEAM ELEMENTS IN THE CASE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES FOR TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LATERAL CONFINEMENT OF CONCRETE DUE TO STIRRUP , 2017 .

[58]  M. Cara,et al.  The French seismic CATalogue (FCAT-17) , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[59]  S. Erlicher,et al.  Stress resultant nonlinear constitutive model for cracked reinforced concrete panels , 2017 .

[60]  Zio Enrico,et al.  Computation of Seismic Fragility Curves Using Artificial Neural Network Metamodels , 2017 .

[61]  C. Berge-Thierry,et al.  Challenges Ahead for Nuclear Facility Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment in France: The Alternative Energies and the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Vision , 2017, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[62]  P. Traversa,et al.  Exploration tree approach to estimate historical earthquakes Mw and depth, test cases from the French past seismicity , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[63]  Ioannis Politopoulos,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of pounding between adjacent structures , 2018 .

[64]  GLRC_HEGIS GLOBAL CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR RC WALLS AND SLABS FOR SEISMIC NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL ANALYSES , 2018 .

[65]  James R. Gingery,et al.  Prenolin: International benchmark on 1D nonlinear: Site-response analysis—validation phase exercise , 2018 .

[66]  P. Kotronis,et al.  A generalized Timoshenko beam with embedded rotation discontinuity , 2018, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design.

[67]  R. Paolucci,et al.  On the effect of the 3-D regional geology on the seismic design of critical structures: the case of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant , 2018 .

[68]  P. Bard,et al.  The ARGONET (Greece) Seismic Observatory: An Accelerometric Vertical Array and Its Data , 2018, Seismological Research Letters.

[69]  G. Ameri,et al.  Intensity predictive attenuation models calibrated in Mw for metropolitan France , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[70]  Marie-Cécile Robin-Boudaoud,et al.  Progress in the understanding and modelling of components that could drive the overall fragility of a nuclear power plant , 2018 .

[71]  I. Zentner Use of RVT for Computation of In-Structure Response Spectra and Peak Responses and Comparison to Time History and Response Spectrum Analysis , 2018, Earthquake Spectra.

[72]  R. Paolucci,et al.  Broad-band 3-D earthquake simulation at nuclear site by an all-embracing source-to-structure approach , 2018, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.

[73]  Levent Isbiliroglu,et al.  Strategy for Selecting Input Ground Motion for Structural Seismic Demand Analysis , 2018 .

[74]  Y. Fukushima SEISMIC HAZARDS IN SITE EVALUATION FOR NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS Draft Safety Guide DS507 , 2018 .

[75]  M. Causse,et al.  Radiation Patterns Control the Near‐Source Ground‐Motion Saturation Effect , 2018, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[76]  Benjamin Richard,et al.  Dissipations in reinforced concrete components: Static and dynamic experimental identification strategy , 2018 .

[77]  B. Delouis,et al.  Optimization of a Simulation Code Coupling Extended Source (k−2) and Empirical Green’s Functions: Application to the Case of the Middle Durance Fault , 2019, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[78]  David Néron,et al.  Dealing with a nonlinear material behavior and its variability through PGD models: Application to reinforced concrete structures , 2019, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design.

[79]  T. Bodin,et al.  Quantifying location uncertainties in seismicity catalogues: application to the Pyrenees , 2018, Journal of Seismology.

[80]  Benjamin Richard,et al.  Sensitivity of engineering demand parameters as a function of structural typology and assessment method , 2019, Nuclear Engineering and Design.

[81]  M Bertin,et al.  Using Bayesian model averaging to improve ground motion predictions , 2020 .

[82]  Irmela Zentner,et al.  Seismic Fragility Curve Assessment Based on Synthetic Ground Motions with Conditional Spectra , 2019, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[83]  D. Clouteau,et al.  A holistic approach of numerical analysis of the geology effects on ground motion prediction: Argostoli site test , 2020, Journal of Seismology.

[84]  Andrés Guzmán,et al.  Earthquake Simulator , 2021, 2021 IEEE 5th Colombian Conference on Automatic Control (CCAC).