SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSES AND UPGRADING WORKS FOR SSCs IN KASHIWAZAKI KARIWA NPS AFTER THE 2007 NIIGATAKEN

CHUETSU-OKI EARTHQUAKE
Kazuyuki Nagasawa*, Naoki Fukushi** and Takuma Hadano*** * Tokyo Electric Power Company INC. ** Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Ltd. *** Toshiba Corporation Power Systems Company 1Introduction After the 2007 Niigataken Chuetsu-oki earthquake (the NCO earthquake), we carried out inspections and repair works of components, and we formulated new design basis seismic motion aiming at the restart of NPS, then we have conducted seismic safety re-evaluation and seismic upgrading as necessary. 2Seismic safety re-evaluation (seismic response analysis) In the seismic safety re-evaluation, we conducted seismic response analysis to safety related components (mainly S-class components) using the design basis seismic motion. The new design basis seismic motion Ss in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPS formulated after the NCO earthquake is a size about 3 to 5 times compared with former design basis seismic motion S2(Fig.1).
Ss-1 (F-B fault, response spectrum) Ss-2 (F-B fault, fault model) Ss-3 (Nagaoka Plain Western Rim Fault Zone, response spectrum) Ss-4 (Nagaoka Plain Western Rim Fault Zone, fault model) Ss-5 (Nagaoka Plain Western Rim Fault Zone, fault model) S2 Estimated earthquake motion on the free surface of base stratum at the time of the Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake
(h=0.05)
(h=0.05) 6000

Acceleration (cm/s2)

6000

5000

Acceleration (cm/s2)
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5

5000

4000

4000

3000

3000

2300 Gal 2000

2000 1209 Gal 1000 450Gal 0 0.02

1000 450Gal 0 0.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

Period (s)

Period (s)

(a)Unit14

(b)Unit57

Fig.1. Response spectra for the design basis seismic motion Ss (Free surface of base stratum).

Seismic response analysis using this design basis seismic motion Ss was conducted to all Sclass components, and we evaluated structural and functional integrity based on the stress value or response acceleration calculated by response analysis. In evaluation of such as primary containment vessel and reactor pressure vessel and core internals which are large-sized components in a reactor building, seismic response analysis was conducted using models which combined the building and large-sized components. And we evaluated structural and function integrity of these components using seismic force (moment, shear force, axial force etc.) acquired from seismic response analysis. 117

In evaluation of each component and piping, analysis which using the acceleration (seismic intensity, spectrum) of the floor of the building was conducted, and we evaluated structural and function integrity of these components. The procedure of seismic response analysis is shown in Fig.2.

RCCV

GL

Acceleration Seismic intensity Spectrum

20 15 Acceleration [G]

Fuel Handling Machine

RPV

10

Dynamic analysis (Reactor Building)

0 0.05

0.1 Period [s]

0.5

Pumps

Pipe

Seismic force Moment Shear force Axial force

Dynamic analysis (Reactor vessel Combined with Building)

Shroud

Reactor Pressure Vessel

Fig.2.

The procedure of seismic response analyses

3Upgrading As a result of seismic response analysis, we compared calculated values with criteria, and when calculated values exceeded criteria, it was performed upgrading. Below, examples of equipments which performed upgrading are shown. Piping In order to reduce vibration of piping in the case of an earthquake, additional support structures were installed. About 3,000 additional support structures were installed in Unit-7. Heat Exchanger A new support structure was installed in order to reduce the seismic force of foundation bolts. Overhead CraneFuel Handling Machine (FHM) Strengthening of the leg, etc. was performed in order not to fall in the case of an earthquake.

Fig.3 Examples of upgrading (Piping, Heat Exchanger, Overhead Crane). 118