292

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011
G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. Muller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4

Risk-Based Safety Analysis of the Seismic Resistance of the NPP Structures

1

Juraj Krlik1
Department of Structural Mechanics, FCE, STU Bratislava, Radlinskho 11, 813 68 Bratislava
email: juraj.kralik@stuba.sk

ABSTRACT: This paper gives the results of the risk-based safety analysis of the seismic resistance of the NPP (Nuclear Power
Plants) in Slovakia. The probabilistic assessment of NPP safety analysis is presented. On the base of the geophysical and
seismological monitoring of locality the peak ground acceleration and the uniform hazard spectrum of the acceleration was
defined for the return period 10 000 years using the Monte Carlo simulations. There is showed summary of calculation models
and calculation methods for the probability analysis of the structural safety considering load, material and model uncertainties.
The numerical simulations were realized in the system ANSYS. The results from the reliability analysis of the NPP structures
are presented.
KEY WORDS: Earthquake; NPP; Probability; Safety; ANSYS.
1

INTRODUCTION

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) set up a

program [4 - 6] to give guidance to its member states on the
many aspects of the safety of nuclear power reactors. The risk
of the NPP performance from the point of the safety must be
calculated by consideration of the impact of the all effects
during plant operation. The PSA (Probabilistic Safety
Analysis) is one from the effective methods to analyze the
safety and reliability of the NPP. The international standard
NUREG-1150 [19] defines the principal steps for the
calculation of the risk of the NPP performance by LHS
probabilistic method
Accident frequency (systems) analysis
Accident progression analysis
Radioactive material transport (source term) analysis
Offsite consequence analysis
Risk integration.
The accidents caused by the earthquake even are the critical
emergencies from the point of the NPP performance. This
paper gives the experiences from the seismic analysis of the
operated NPP in Slovakia [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and
22]. The earthquake resistance analysis of NPP buildings in
Slovakia were based on the recommends of international
organization IAEA in Vienna to get international safety level
of the nuclear power plants [5]. Seismic safety evaluation
programs of the NPP structures should contain three important
parts [12]
The assessment of the seismic hazard as an external event,
specific to the seismic-tectonic and soil conditions of the site,
and of the associated input motion;
The safety analysis of the NPP resulting in an identification
of the selected structures, systems and components
appropriate for dealing with a seismic event with the objective
of a safe shutdown;
The evaluation of the plant specific seismic capacity to
withstand the loads generated by such an event, possibly
resulting in upgrading.

SEISMIC SAFETY METHODOLOGY

On the base of the experience from the re-evulation programs

in the membership countries IAEA in Vienna the seismic
safety standard No.28 was established at 2003 [6].
Seismic safety evaluation programs should contain three
important parts
The assessment of the seismic hazard as an external event,
specific to the seismo-tectonic and soil conditions of the site,
and of the associated input motion;
The safety analysis of the NPP resulting in an identification
of the SSSCs (Selected Structures, Systems and Components)
appropriate for dealing with a seismic event with the objective
of a safe shutdown;
The evaluation of the plant specific seismic capacity to
withstand the loads generated by such an event, possibly
resulting in upgrading.
2.1

Seismic Hazards

The assessment of the seismic hazards specific to the seismotectonic conditions at a site is performed on the following
bases:
IAEA Safety Guides [4-6],
Use of current internationally recognized methods and
criteria [12, 19, 20, 21],
New data [2 and 16].
Two levels of the seismic load are defined in the standards
[4]. SL-1 (First level) is coincident with the design earthquake
and SL-2 (second level) corresponds to the maximum design
earthquake. On the base of the IAEA requirements the NPP
structures of the first category have been resistance due to
seismic level SL-2. This seismic level [4] should be updated
in accordance with the above bases in the event that a reason
for this has appeared since the evaluation of the SL-2 design
level and should be used in the evaluation. In particular, the
PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) of the RLE (Review Level
of Earthquake) should not be less than 0.1g. The level of the
seismic risk is characterized by the probability level (return

293

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

period) and the peak ground accelerations values, which are

the typical free field zero period acceleration values at the
ground surface. The comparison of the ground motion input
level for new plants is presented in the Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of the PGA in various countries
Probability/ Peak Ground
Return
Acceleration*
Period
Bulgaria
10-4
0,20g
-3
Canada
10 to 10-4
Czech
10-4
0,10g
Republic
Germany
10-4 to 10-5 0,10g - 0,20g
Japan
S1
10-4
0,20g - 0,45g
S2
0,38g - 0,60g
Korea
10-3 to 10-4
Slovak
10-4
0,14g - 0,34g
Republic
Sweden
10-3
Schwitzerland
10-4
UK
10-4
US
Design
0,30g
Margin
0,50g
The practice/guidance [12] that was referred to by a number
of countries generally fall under the broad headings of a
number of organizations, specifically ASME, IAEA, IEEE,
NRC, and, in some cases, local national regulations, as
presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Practice/Guidance use in re-evaluation process
ASME IAEA IEEE NRC National
Belgium

Bulgaria
Czech Repub.
Slovak Repub.
Spain
Schwitzerland
US

3.1

Existing nuclear facilities throughout the world are being

subjected to investigation of their safety in the event of an
earthquake. In the United States, there have been several
licensing and safety review issues for which industry and
regulatory agencies have cooperated to develop rational and
economically feasible criteria for resolving the issues.
Currently, all operating nuclear power plants in the United
States are conducting an Individual Plant Examination of
External Events, including earthquakes beyond the design
basis. Western European countries also have been reevaluating their older nuclear power plants for seismic events
often adapting the criteria developed in the United States.
With the change in the political systems in Eastern Europe,
there is a strong emphasis from their Western European
neighbors to evaluate and upgrade the safety of their operating
nuclear power plants. Finally, nuclear facilities in Asia are
also being evaluated for seismic vulnerabilities.

SEISMIC RE-EVALUATION PROGRAM IN SR

A re-assessment of the seismic hazard specific to the seismotectonic conditions at the site was considered by the SAV
(Slovak Academy of Sciences) based on IAEA NUSS SO-SGS1 and S8 [4]; US NRC-RG 1.60 and NUREG/CR-0098 [18].
IAEA is providing technical assistance to the Slovak
regulatory authorities for reviewing the work results.
Therefore the RLE (Review Level Earthquake) should
correspond to the SL-2 level (Second Seismic Level), directly
related to ultimate safety requirements. This is a level of
extreme ground motion that shall have a very low probability
of being exceeded during the plant lifetime and represents the
maximum level of ground motion to be used for design and
re-evaluation purposes. For the probability of occurrence a
typical value of 10-4/yr is usually used and for the ground
response spectra an elastic one is selected.
As formulated by the Slovak authorities, the main objective
of the seismic re-evaluation programs of NPP is to enhance
the seismic safety of the plant to the level generally accepted
by the international community and in compliance with the
valid standards and recognized practice. These programs
should have three important components:
(i) the re-assessment of the seismic hazard as an external
event, specific to the site seismo-tectonic conditions;
(ii) the evaluation of the plant specific seismic capacity to
withstand the loads generated by such event;
(iii) upgrading if necessary.
Regarding the first component (i), the geological stability
and the ground motion parameters should be assessed
according to specific site conditions and in compliance with
criteria and methods valid for new facilities. In relation to the
second component of the programs (ii) and considering that
the plant has been originally designed for an earthquake level
lower than the one would preliminarily be established for the
site in compliance with IAFA NUSS 50-SG-S1 [4]. On the
base of the results of the seismic analysis of the structure
capacity the upgrade concept (iii) will be designed.
Safety Aspects

The decision should be made early on whether either the

SPSA (Seismic Probabilistic Safety Assessment), SMA
(Seismic Margin Assessment), or EPRI (Electric Power
Research Institute) seismic safety evaluation methods are to
be used [12, 19-21]. These methods have an advantage in that
the entire plant may be evaluated as an integrated unit,
including system and spatial interactions, common cause
failure, human actions, non-seismic failures and operating
procedures. The seismic resistance of the existing building
structures as well as the technological equipment can be
executed by the SMA method, especially its variant known as
CDFM (Conservative Deterministic Failure Margin)
depending on HCLPF (High Confidence Low Probability of
Failure) determination of the seismic margin values. The
CDFM method is based on an assumption that all the building
structures and all the technological equipment components
were designed properly for any non-seismic loads and
conditions.

294

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

3.2

Acceptance Criteria

The individual seismic resistance re-evaluation of each

building structure and each single component of NPP,
technological equipment needs to be executed in the following
way:
seismic margin assessment of the equipment structure or
component in the existing state, which means the seismic
margin HCLPF values determination in the existing state,
projection of seismic modifications (measures), if necessary
if the seismic margin HCLPF value is calculated > ZPA,
seismic margin assessment of the equipment structure or
component in the so-called fixed state after the projected
modifications were executed, which means the seismic margin
HCLPF values determination for this state.
The HCLPF seismic margin value is calculated for the PGA
for the review level of earthquake (RLE = SL-2) and it is
defined mathematically as 95% probability that an earthquake
will cause violation, SME (Seismic Margin Earthquake), in
less than 5% of cases. The condition is to have the SME value
greater than RLE (ergo SL-2) value; in other words to gain
HCLPF seismic margin values greater than PGARLE=SL-2.
3.3

High Confidence Low Probability of Failure

The concept of the HCLPF (High Confidence Low

Probability Failure) capacity is used in the SMA (Seismic
Margin Assessment) reviews to quantify the seismic margins
of NPPs. In simple terms it corresponds to the earthquake
level at which, with high confidence ( 95%) it is unlikely
that failure of a system, structure or component required for
safe shutdown of the plant will occur (< 5% probability).
Estimating the HCLPF seismic capacity of a system,
structure and component requires an estimation of the
response, conditional on the occurrence of the RLE. Two
candidate procedures to determine the HCLPF seismic
capacities for NPP's structures and equipment components
have been developed:
(1) the Fragility Analysis (FA), and
(2) the Conservative Deterministic Failure Margin (CDFM)
method.
The HCLPF approach or an equivalent method may be used to
verify the seismic capacity of Mochovce NPP. The general
criteria for CDFM approach is contained in [1].
The value of the HCLPF parameter depends on the
equipment structure or component resistance (R) and the
corresponding effect of action (E) using elastic or inelastic
behavior. The following equation follows for the strength and
response (R/E) in respect to linear elasticity
(R/E)el = R / [(ESi2 + ESa2)1/2 + ENS]

2), then (R/E)ep is greater than 1.0 and vice-versa. However,

the (R/E)el and (R/E)ep ratios do not define the multiplication
factors for RLE (SL-2) to gain the HCLPF seismic margin
value. These factors are calculated as follows:
(FS)el = (R - ENS) / (ESi2 + ESa2)1/2

(3)

(FS)ep = (R - ENS) / (ESi / kD)2 + (ESa kD)2]1/2

(4)

The equation (4) is valid provided that (FS)ep > (FS)el and it
can be significantly simplified if the ESa response to different
seismic support movement as a result of RLE (SL-2) is
negligible or it does not need to be considered. Then
(FS)ep = (FS)el kD

(5)

HCLPF (CDFM) = (FS)ep PGARLE=SL-2

(6)

Generally it follows
and this value must always be HCLPF > PGA.
The HCLPF seismic margin value can also be determined
via a non-linear elastic-plastic calculation (e.g. limit analysis
defined in the ASME BPVC Section III (ed. 92) Mandatory
Appendix XIII). Generally, such calculation needs to be
repeated several times before the seismic margin value is
reached. No ductility coefficient is used in these non-linear
calculations, of course (ductility coefficients are used only in
linear elastic calculations).
3.4

Seismic Input Data

The seismic response can be calculated in the frequency

(spectrum response analysis) or time domain (transient
analysis) [12].

Figure 1. Comparison of the horizontal acceleration response

spectrum NUREG and GRS.

(1)

where ESi, or ESa is the seismic response to RLE (SL-2)

inertial actions, or corresponding different seismic support
movement, respectively, calculated according to linear
elasticity. Then ENS is a total response to all the co-incidental
non-seismic bearings in the given combinations.
Analogically, considering the elastic-plastic effect
(R/E)ep = R / {[(ESi / kD)2 + (ESa kD)2]1/2 + ENS)}

(2)

where kD is ductility coefficient (kD 1.0). The partial seismic

response ESa in equation (2) is really multiplied, not divided,
by the ductility coefficient. If SME is greater than RLE (SL-

Figure 2. Comparison of the horizontal acceleration response

for various probability values.

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

Also, hence the earthquake input must be specified in terms of

free-field ground motion accelerograms for time-history
dynamic analyses [1]. The foundation of the reactor building
NPP can be embedded into the subsoil. This embedment has
generally two effects on the dynamic analysis of the building:
In comparison to a surface foundation the dynamic behavior
of the foundation is different. In the case of rock these
differences are minimal. The impedance analysis results in
stiffness parameters and damping ratios for the foundation soil
system, which are higher than those for a surface foundation.
The second effect is that the acceleration time histories at
foundation level are different from the control motions
specified at the surface of the free field.
In the case where structure and soil are idealized in only one
Finite Element System or a consistent substructuring analysis
the control motion is specified at the top of the surface and the
effect of the embedment on both impedance and free field
motion are automatically taken into account.
3.5

295

of three and one accelerograms is showed in Figure 3 and 4.

Using three accelerograms for the calculation of spectrum
response the calculation results is less conservative than for
one accelerogram.

Figure 3. The spectrum compatible design horizontal

accelerograms.

Response Spectrum Compatible Accelerogram

To provide input excitations to structural models for sites with

no strong ground motion data, it is necessary to generate the
synthetic accelerogram. It has long been established that due
to parameters such as geological conditions of the site,
distance from the source, fault mechanism, etc. different
earthquake records show different characteristics. Based on
Kanai's investigation regarding the frequency content of
different earthquake records, Tajimi proposed the following
relation for the spectral density function of the strong ground
motion with a distinct dominant frequency [12]:

1 + 4 2 ( )2
g
g

S ( ) =
S0
2
2
1 ( ) + 4 ( )2
g
g
g

Figure 4. The spectrum compatible design vertical

accelerograms.

(7)

Here g and g are the site dominant damping coefficient and

frequency, and S0 is the constant power spectral intensity of
the bed rock excitation.
The FORTRAN program "COMPACEL" has been developed
by Krlik [12] for generate synthetic ground motion
accelerogram assuming the site effect and requirement of
standard.
The requirements for the synthetic ground motion
accelerogram according to standard ASCE 4/98 [1] are
following:
1. The mean of the zero-period acceleration (ZPA) values
shell equal or exceed the design ground acceleration,
2. In the frequency range 0,5 to 33 Hz, the average of the
ratios of the mean spectrum to the design spectrum, where the
ratios are calculated frequency by frequency, shall be equal to
or greater than 1.
3. No one point of the mean spectrum (from the time
histories) shall be more than 10% below the design spectrum.
4. The three components of motion in the orthogonal
directions shall be statistically independent (with mean
correlation smaller than 0,3), and the time histories shall be
different.
The program COMPACEL was created by J.Kralik to
generate synthetic accelerograms. The comparison of the
synthetic acceleration spectrum and GRS spectrum in the case

Figure 5. Comparison of the synthetic acceleration spectrum

and GRS spectrum.
4

CALCULATION MODEL OF NPP STRUCTURE

The NPP WWER 440 building consists of six objects - reactor

building, bubbler tower, air-conditioning centre, turbine
building, and lengthwise side electrical building and cross side
electrical building [12]. The foundation plate (75,0/43,0m)
under building on part V-D/10-22 is on two levels -8.5m. The
foundation plate (39,5m/27,0m) under bubbler tower on part
D-E/10-17 is on level -8.5m too. The foundation strip and
foot under columns are in the cross side electrical building
and turbine building. The global geometry of the NPP
structures in Jaslovsk Bohunice and Mochovce is identical,

296

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

but the bracing system and the section area of the steel
elements are different.

where i is a damping ratio of i-mode, i is a natural circular

frequency i-mode, i is a participation factor defined
following

{ }i .[ M ] .1
i =
,
T
{ }i .[ M ] .{ }i
T

(12)

Modal damping in the equation (11) is defined as

i = ( / 2i ) + ( i / 2) + + mj ,

Figure 6. Calculation model of NPP.

The NPP building was discredited [12] by the 3D finite
elements model to obtain realistic behavior of structure. The
model (VUT Brno and STU Bratislava) consists of 161.856
elements with 440.531 degrees of freedom. The drawbars are
modeled by bilinear elements and contact between bubbler
tower and air-conditioning center by gap elements.
The seismic loading was considered by spectrum
compatible 3D accelerograms at foundation level to response.
The material damping occurring in the soil and the structure
mainly involves a frictional loss of energy [17].
4.1 Seismic Response Analysis
The differential equation of motion of finite element system
under seismic motion of ground can be written [3] in the wellknow matrix form

[ M ] .({u&&r } +{u&&b } ) + [C ] .{u&r }

+ [ K ] .{ur } = {0} , (8)

where [M], [C], [K] are mass, damping and stiffness matrices
respectively; {ur } , {u&r } , {u&&r } are relative vector of nodal
displacements, velocities and accelerations; {u&&b } is absolute
vector of base accelerations (earthquake excitation). We
propose, that

{u} = {ur } + {ub } , {u&&} = {u&&r } + {u&&b }

(9)

Equation (9) can be decomposed to m-vectors of the

eigenvalues by substitutions
m

{u} = { }i .{Y }i ,

(10)

i =1

where { }i is a mode shape vector (m x 1) of mode i using

the normality condition

{ }i [ M ]{ }i
T

= 1 , and {Y }i is the

vector of normal and general coordinates (m x 1).

Putting the equation (10) to (8) the equation of motion of the
modal coordinates is obtained in the form:
Y&&i + 2. i .i .Y&&&i + i2 .Yi = - i .u&&s ,

(11)

(13)

where is an uniform mass damping multiplier, is an

uniform stiffness damping multiplier, is a constant damping
ratio, mi is a modal damping ratio.
The transient analysis was realized by direct integration in
time of dynamic equations (8) or (11) by Newmark. This
method is move convenient for problem solution with
necessity to wave character of action.
For the structures where the different materials provide
drastically differing energy loss mechanisms in various parts
of the structure, the distribution of damping forces will be not
similar to the distribution of the inertial and elastic forces.
Moreover, the resulting damping will be non proportional.
The most effective way to determine the non-proportional
damping matrix is first evaluate one or more proportional
damping matrices.
5

SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF NPP BUILDING

On the base of SMA methodology the seismic resistance of

the NPP structures in Slovakia was calculated. The seismic
load for the NPP site was defined by peak ground acceleration
(PGA) and local seismic spectrum in dependence on
magnitude and distance from source zone of earthquake. The
locality of J. Bohunice and Mochovce are in the different
tectonic and seismic site. Also, hence the seismic risk level
and the geological condition are different too.
The original design seismic load was defined in accordance
with the contemporary Soviet standards VSN - 15 - 78 and
SNIP-2-7-81.
The following values were defined at that time for the seismic
design of seismic category I buildings:
Design Earthquake-DE, with an intensity 5 in MSK-64
scale;
Maximal Calculation Earthquake - MCE, with an intensity 6
in MSK-64 scale, and PGA= 0,05g (e.g. PGA= 0,1g) for
Mochovce (e.g. J.Bohunice).
During the last 30 years the seismic monitoring of these
localities were realized under the supervision of the Slovak
Academy of Sciences [2 and 16]. On the base of the
investigation results and the requirements of the IAEA NUSS
SO-SG-S1 (Rev.1) and S8 [4] the RLE correspond to the SL-2
level was established. The new value of the PGA was
established using the probabilistic methodology and new
results of the seismic monitoring of the locality [12].
In the actual time the new values of the peak ground
accelerations were defined PGARLE=0,35g in J.Bohunice
and PGARLE=0,14g in Mochovce site for the re-evaluation of
the seismic resistance of the NPP structures. The seismic
resistance of the origin structures in J. Bohunice was not
convenience from the point of new IAEA requirements and

297

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

new seismic load. During the years 2001-2003 the NPP

structures in J. Bohunice were upgraded. The seismic
upgrading concept was created in cooperation the STU
Bratislava and Stevenson & Associate, subsequently it was
developed in cooperation the STU Bratislava and Framatome
ANP GmbH [12]. The principal conception included the
jointed of steel structure of reactor hall to the concrete
structure of bubbler condenser tower at roof level of the
ventilating building (module G-D/10-22) using the new
horizontal bracing system (Figure 8 and 9). The bracing
systems of the vertical wall in turbine hall, reactor hall
longitude and transversal galleries were strengthened. The
anchorage of steel structures of gallery floors to the concrete
structure of the reactor building was strengthened.
The alternative conception was used in NPP in Paks [12].
There was built the steel bridge structure between two
concrete structures of the bubbler towers. The level of the
seismic risk is lower in Mochovce site as in J. Bohunice site.
The seismic resistance of the NPP structures is satisfying in
accordance of the IAEA requirements.

The recapitulation of the HCLPF parameters of principal

structure elements of the NPP buildings in Mochovce is
demonstrated in [12].
Table 3. HCLPF parameters for structural elements
Columns Vertical
primary bracing
0,184
0,235
0,157

Figure 8. Upgraded structure - NPP EBO V2.

Plane
Roof
truss bracing
SO 490 Tools Hall
0,240
0,468 0,243
SO 800 Reactor Hall
0,232
0,457 0,186
SO 800 Ventilation Hall
0,173
1,095
0,244
SO 805 Longitude Gallery

0,890

0,642

0,715

0,228

0,368

SO 806 Transversal Gallery

0,235
0,264
1,008

Anchors
0,050*)
0,190
0,190

The seismic safety of NPP building, after strengthening of

the steel structures of gallery building floors to the concrete
structure of the reactor building, is determined by the seismic
resistance of the gallery anchors and secondary columns of the
ventilating hall.
6

Figure 7. Scheme of jointed of steel structure of reactor hall

and concrete structure of bubbler tower.

Beams

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM

The equipment and interior structures of NPP are designed

using FRS (Floor Response Spectrum) as seismic loads. This
spectrum is calculated from the time-history motions resulting
from the dynamic analysis of the supporting structures in
accordance of requirements of nuclear guide RG 1.122 [19].
Interior constructions and technological components must
be analyzed using decoupled model or a coupled structuresubsystem model [12]. The analysis can be performed using
time history analysis or response spectrum method [1, 3, 4, 5,
6 and 21]. The most popular is the response spectrum method
using the FRS.
The FRS can be calculated from the in-structure spectra on
the base of deterministic and semiprobabilistic methods [12].
The results from the calculation of FRS in all NPP buildings
show, that in the case of the floor with the higher variability of
distributed masses and slab stiffness, the FRS values are more
conservative as the envelope of maximum spectrum values in
various points of floor [12].
Deterministic method to generate FRS is defined in
NUREG 0800 [20] and IAEA rep.No28 [6]. The response
spectrum in the points of floor is calculated using the transient
analysis of the structure from synthetic 3D accelerograms
(median+sigma). One or three 3D accelerograms can be used
as input loads. The material properties are calculated with
median values (best estimation). The damping values are
requirement in ASCE 4/98 [1] (max.7% for steel and 10% for
concrete structures and rock soil). The floor response
spectrum may be calculated as envelope of maximum of mean
spectrum values in each typical point (minimum 5 points are
recommended).
Probabilistic method to generate FRS is based on the
statistical methods considering the uncertainties as a seismic
risk, soil structure interaction, material properties, calculation
model and other... The response spectrum in the points of

298

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

floor is calculated using the transient analysis of the structure

from group of synthetic 3D accelerograms [12]. In the case of
the rock soil the median and variation of the input
accelerograms must be equivalent to values of seismic risk for
this locality. The FRS may be calculated as statistical
envelope (median+sigma) of the spectrum values in all typical
point. The statistical characteristic of input and output
parameters are investigated for lognormal distribution.
Semi-probabilistic method to generate FRS is based on
the combination of deterministic and probabilistic methods.
The total variation is calculated from the variation of the input
loads, material properties and response in various typical
points on the floor.
The uncertainties of the soil-structure interaction effects and
calculation model can be considered by broadening and
lowering of in-structure time history motion n accordance of
requirements of standard ASCE 4/98 [1].
In the case of deterministic method the FRS ordinates are
equal to envelope of maximum values in five or more points
on the floor. The response spectrum ordinates in one point are
equal to mean value from two or more values obtained from
the time response analysis.

in eleven or more points from three or more input

accelerograms. The ordinates of the input response spectrum
accelerograms must be compatible with the ordinates of input
response spectrum (median). The lognormal distribution
function for calculation the statistical envelope of response
spectrum in floor points is proposed. In the case of lognormal
distribution the median+sigma (84,1% probability) can be
calculated from the simplified relation [12]
x84 = xm . ew
(14)
where w is a variation of the lognormal distribution, xm is a
median of the input simples. In the case that the variation is
higher than 20% this relation is conservative. For higher
values of variation then 20% must be used the more precise
relation
x
x84 = mean exp u84 ln (1 + w2 )
(15)
1 + w2
where u84 is a quantile of the random variable for normal
distribution function, xmean is mean value, w (w=/xmean) is
variation coefficient of variable x depended on standard
deviation . If we use the simple relation (14) for variation
w=50% (e.g. 60%) the value of x84 is higher up 15% (e.g.
23%). In figures 11-14 are imagined the results from the
comparison FRS and GRS spectrum (median+sigma) with
FRS for RLE (median) values in the box PG and the Reactor
hall NPP on floor level from -5m to 20m. There are presented
the conservative values due to use the simplified relation (14).

Figure 9 No-smoothing horizontal and vertical FRS in the Box

PG NPP at level -6,5m.
Figure 11. Comparison of ratio GRS/RLE floor response
X-spectrum GRS/RLE in the Box PG NPP.

Figure 10. No-smoothing horizontal and vertical FRS in the

Box PG NPP at level +18,9m.
The semi-probabilistic method is based on the statistical
envelope (median+sigma) of the response spectrum ordinates

Figure 12. Comparison of ratio GRS/RLE floor response

Z-spectrum in the Box PG NPP.
The results from the calculation of FRS in all NPP buildings
show, that in the case of the floor with the higher variability of
distributed masses and slab stiffness, the FRS values are more

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

conservative as the envelope of maximum spectrum values in

various points of floor.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Figure 13. Comparison of ratio GRS/RLE floor response

X-spectrum in the Reactor hall NPP.

[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]

Figure 14. Comparison of ratio GRS/RLE floor response

Z-spectrum in the Reactor hall NPP.
7

[12]
[13]

CONCLUSIONS

This paper presented the deterministic and probabilistic

methodology to analysis the seismic resistance of NPP in
Slovakia. There were summarized the works performed by the
IAEA in the areas of safety review. The methodology of the
seismic reevaluation of NPP in Slovakia is based on the new
results from the geological and seismo-tectonic monitoring of
this site. There were summarized the works performed by the
IAEA in the areas of safety review. The generation of the
seismic loads on the base of probabilistic seismic risk analysis
was described. The calculation models and methods for
generation FRS in the NPP buildings in accordance with
international standard were presented. The synthetic spectrum
compatible accelerograms generated in program COMPACEL
(created by Kralik) were presented in comparison with
requirements ASCE4/98 standard. The upgraded conception
of the NPP main building steel structures was presented in
Slovakia. The results from this analysis present the
international level of the seismic resistance of the NPP
structures in Slovakia.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project was realized with the financial support of the
Grant Agency of the Slovak Republic (VEGA). The project
registration number is VEGA 1/0849/08.

299

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

[22]

ASCE 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures,

ASCE Standard, New York, 1999.
Cipciar, A., Labk, P., Moczo, P., Kristekov, M., Earthquakes in
Slovakia and seismic monitoring by the National Network of the
Seismic Stations. In: Proceedings of the CMEP2, Workshop and
Computer Simulation Fatra 2001, 14.-16.5.2001, Bratislava, Slovak
Republic. CDROM.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien,J., Dynamics of Structures, Mc Graw-Hill,
Inc. 1993.
IAEA, Safety Series 50-SG-S1, Earthquake and Associated Topics in
Relation to Nuclear Power Plants Sitting. Rev.1., IAEA, Vienna, 1991.
IAEA, Safety Series 50-SG-D15, Seismic Design and Qualification for
Nuclear Power Plants. IAEA, Vienna, 1992.
IAEA, Safety Guide No. 28, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Nuclear
Power Plants, IAEA, Vienna, 2003.
Krlik,J. and imonovi,M., Earthquake response analysis of nuclear
power plant buildings with soil-structural interaction. Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation 50. IMACS/Elsevier Science B.V. 1999, Pp.
227-236.
Krlik,J. Varga,T. Tines,R,, Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Wall and Frame Interaction in Consideration of Ductility, In proc. 6th
International Conference on Sructural Dynamics, Structural Dynamics.
EURODYN 2005. 4 - 7 september 2005, Paris, France , Millpress,
Rotterdam Netherlands, pp.1799-1804.
Krlik,J., Comparison of Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessments
for Evaluation of Seismic Safety of Nuclear Power Plants in Slovakia.
In: First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology. 3-8 September, Geneve, Switzerland. Pp 422, 2006.
Krlik,J.: Probability Seismic Hazard Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant
Buildings in Mochovce. In: 6th European Solid Mechanics Conference.
Budapest, 28. august 1. september 2006, CD.
Krlik,J.: Comparison of Deterministic and Probabilistic Methods to
Determine Floor Response Spectrum. In proc. Engineering Mechanics
2008, National Conference with International Participation, May 12-15,
2008. ITAM AS CR Prague, pp. 126-128, ISBN: 978-80-87012-11-6.
Krlik,J., Safety and Reliability of Nuclear Power Buildings in Slovakia.
Earthquake-Impact-Explosion. Ed. STU Bratislava, 307pp, 2009.
Krlik,J. and Krlik,J.,jr., Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Frame-Wall Systems Considering Ductility Effects in Accordance to
Eurocode. Engineering Structures. Elsevier 2009, ISSN 0141-0296,
Vol.31, Issue 12, pp. 2865 - 2872, December 2009.
Krlik,J., A RSM Method for Probabilistic Nonlinear Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Bubbler Tower Structure Integrity. In proc.
European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2009, Reliability,
Risk and Safety, Theory and Applications, CRC Press/A.Balkema Book,
Taylor&Francis Group, Prague, Czech Republic, 7-10 September,
Vol.2, p.1369-1372, ISBN 978-0-415-55509-8, Full test in CD.
Krlik,J., Probabilistic Safety Analysis of the Nuclear Power Plants in
Slovakia. In: Journal of KONBiN, Safety and Reliability Systems, Ed.
VERSITA Central European Science Publishers, Warszawa, ISSN
1895-8281, No 2,3 (14, 15) 2010, pp. 35-48.
Labk, P. and Moczo, P., Determination of the Review Level
Earthquake (RLE) Characteristics for the Mochovce Nuclear Power
Plant Site. Contract No.370/96, Geophysical Institute SAV Bratislava,
1998.
Nmec,I. et al: Finite Element Analysis of Structures, Principles and
Praxis, Shaker Verlag, 2010.
Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J., Development of Criteria for Seismic
Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants. Report NUREG/CR-0098.
NRC, Washington, 1975.
NUREG-1150. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five US
Nuclear Power Plants, Final Summary Report, Vol.1 and 2, US NRC,
1990.
NUREG 0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. US NRC, 2007.
NUREG/CR-6926, Evaluation of the Seismic Design Criteria in
ASCE/SEI Standard 43-05 for Application to Nuclear Power Plants,
BNL-NUREG-77569-2007, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Job Code N6112, 2007.
Plocek,Z., tpnek,P., Salajka,V., Kala,J., Kanick,V., Design of
Earthquake Resistance Enhancements of the Dukovany Nuclear Power
Plant Building Structures, In proc. Second International Symposium on
Nuclear Power Plant Life Management, 1518 October, Shanghai.