請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8197
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃尹男(Yin-Nan Huang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chun-Jen Yang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 楊淳任 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T00:49:57Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-08-31 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T00:49:57Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-08-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-08-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2008). ACI 318-08: Building code requirements for structural concrete. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2014). Seismic analysis of safety-related nuclear structures and commentary. American Society of Civil Engineers. ANSI, (2008). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. American National Standards Institute, American Nuclear Society. ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008, 33. ATC‐58. (2009). Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings. Barda, F., Hanson, J. M., Corley, W. G. (1976). Shear Strcngtli of Low-Rise Walls wit11 Boundary Elements. In ACI Symposium, Reinforced Concrete Structures in Scistnic Zones, SP-53, Detroit, Michigan. Beyer, K., Bommer, J. J. (2006). Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for different definitions of the horizontal component of motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(4A), 1512-1522. Boore, D. M. (2006). Boore-Atkinson NGA empirical ground motion model for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV and SA at spectral periods of 0.1, 0.2, 1, 2, and 3 seconds. Interim Report for USGS Review, 31. Budnitz, R. J., Amico, P. J., Cornell, C. A., Hall, W. J., Kennedy, R. P., Reed, J. W., Shinozuka, M. (1985). An approach to the quantification of seismic margins in nuclear power plants. aqsm. Campbell, K. W. (2006). Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and SA at Selected Spectral Periods Ranging from 0.01–10.0 Seconds (Version 1.1). NGA Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra. Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the seismological society of America, 58(5), 1583-1606. EPRI, E. (2009). 1019200,“. Seismic Fragility Application Update Guide,” Palo Alto. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000). FEMA 350 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment‐Frame Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000). FEMA 351 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings Gulec, C. K., Whittaker, A. S., Hooper, J. D. (2010). Fragility functions for low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls. Engineering Structures, 32(9), 2894-2901. Huang, Y. N., Whittaker, A. S., Luco, N. (2008). Performance assessment of conventional and base-isolated nuclear power plants for earthquake and blast loadings. MCEER. Huang, Y. N., Whittaker, A. S., Luco, N. (2011). A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants:(I) Methodology. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 241(9), 3996-4003. Huang, Y. N., Whittaker, A. S., Luco, N. (2011). A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants:(II) Application. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 241(9), 3985-3995. Kennedy, R. P., Kincaid, R. H., Short, S. A. (1985). Engineering characterization of ground motion, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/CR-3805. Kennedy, R. P. (1999, August). Overview of methods for seismic PRA and margin analysis including recent innovations. In Proceedings of the OECD-NEA Workshop on Seismic Risk. Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education India. Kuo, C. H., Huang, J. Y., Lin, C. M., Hsu, T. Y., Chao, S. H., Wen, K. L. (2019). Strong ground motion and pulse‐like velocity observations in the near‐fault region of the 2018 Mw 6.4 Hualien, Taiwan, earthquake. Seismological Research Letters, 90(1), 40-50. Mattock, A. H. (2001). Shear friction and high-strength concrete. Structural Journal, 98(1), 50-59. Mirza, S. A., MacGregor, J. G. (1979). Variability of mechanical properties of reinforcing bars. Journal of the Structural Division, 105(ASCE 14590 Proceeding). Partlow, J. G. (1993). Individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) for severe accident vulnerabilities--10CFR 50.54 (f)(Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4). In Supplement to nuclear EQ sourcebook: A compilation of documents for nuclear equipment qualification. Pekelnicky, R., Engineers, S. D., Chris Poland, S. E., Engineers, N. D. (2012). ASCE 41-13: Seismic evaluation and retrofit rehabilitation of existing buildings. Proceedings of the SEAOC. Pickard, L. (1982). Garrick, Inc., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Fauske Associates, Inc.,' Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study,' prepared for the Power Authority of the State of New York and Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Inc., March. Prassinos, P. G., Ravindra, M. K., Savy, J. B. (1986). Recommendations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on trial guidelines for seismic margin reviews of nuclear power plants. Draft report for comment (No. NUREG/CR--4482). Lawrence Livermore National Lab.. Reed, J. W., Kennedy, R. P., Buttemer, D. R., Idriss, I. M., Moore, D. P., Barr, T., ... Smith, J. E. (1991). A methodology for assessment of nuclear power plant seismic margin (No. EPRI-NP--6041-M-REV. 1). Electric Power Research Inst.. Reed, J. W., Kennedy, R. P. (1994). Methodology for developing seismic fragilities EPRI TR-103959. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. RegulatoryCommission, U. N. (1990). NUREG-1407. Smith, P. D., Dong, R. G., Bernreuter, D. L., Bohn, M. P., Chuang, T. Y., Cummings, G. E., ... Wells, J. E. (1981). Seismic safety margins research program. Phase I final report-Overview (No. NUREG/CR--2015 (VOL. 1)). Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Simpson Gumpertz Heger Inc. (2015). Seismic Fragility for Loss of Off-Site Power, Calculation No. 128192-CA-016, Revision 0. Simpson Gumpertz Heger Inc. (2015). Seismic Fragility Evaluation of Kuosheng Reactor Auxiliary Building, Calculation No. 128192-CA-097, Revision 0. Sturges, H. A. (1926). The choice of a class interval. Journal of the american statistical association, 21(153), 65-66. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1983). PRA Procedures Guide (NUREG/CR 2300). Washington, DC. Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C. A. (2004). Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 523-553. Watson-Lamprey, J. A., Boore, D. M. (2007). Beyond Sa GMRotI: Conversion to Sa Arb, Sa SN, and Sa MaxRot. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1511-1524. Whitman, R. V., Richart, F. E. (1967). Design procedures for dynamically loaded foundations. Yang, T. Y. (2006). Performance evaluation of innovative steel braced frames. University of California, Berkeley. Zentner, I., Gündel, M., Bonfils, N. (2017). Fragility analysis methods: Review of existing approaches and application. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 323, 245-258. 游青青 (2014) 新一代核能電廠耐震機率式風險評估與餘熱移除系統耐震行為研究. 國立臺灣大學, 台北市. 謝旻竹 (2019) 核能電廠結構元件易損性分析方法研究. 國立臺灣大學, 台北市. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8197 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 地震機率式風險評估 (Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment,SPRA) 的主要目的為估算因地震事件引致的核能電廠事故發生頻率,如爐心受損、輻射外洩等,其流程主要可概括為三個部分,包含地震危害度分析、結構與設備元件易損性分析、以及事故序列分析,並整合以上結果計算風險。本研究著重於結構元件之易損性分析方法的探討,並進一步推導不同的易損性分析結果對於總體失效事件風險所造成的影響。 研究中以案例核能電廠輔助廠房之鋼筋混凝土剪力牆為案例結構元件,分別以傳統方法 (分離變數法)、以及由非線性歷時分析結果建立易損性曲線的三種統計方法 (線性迴歸法、最大似然估計法、增量動力分析法) 對其進行易損性分析。所得結果顯示以非線性歷時分析方法建立之易損性曲線在對數標準差上相比傳統分離變數法明顯較小,為探討箇中緣由,本研究挑選了數個可能的影響因子,包含:1) 水平向最大反應之隨機性、2) 變異性參數取樣方法、以及3) 破壞層間變位角之變異性,觀察在其餘條件維持不變的前提下個別改變該些因子之設定對於非線性歷時分析方法求得之易損性曲線中位數與對樹標準差的影響,並與分離變數法進行比較。 本研究進一步以 1) 傳統SPRA將危害度與易損性曲線連續積分的方法、以及 2) 新型態SPRA以蒙地卡羅模擬法決定元件損壞狀態後,將失效機率與危害度曲線進行離散迴積的兩種方法,針對不同的易損性分析結果計算其風險,探討兩種風險評估方法對於相同條件下所得之風險計算結果的差異,以及不同易損性分析之影響因子對於最終失效事件風險所造成的影響。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The main purpose of seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) is to determine the annual frequency of unacceptable performance in nuclear power plants (NPPs), such as core melt and release of radiation. The risk-assessment procedure involves the establishment of accident sequences and integration of plant fragility data and seismic hazard curve. The study focuses on methodologies for developing fragility curves and risk- assessment. The fragility analysis of a sample auxiliary building studied in the paper was performed using four different methodologies, including conventional separation of variable method (SOV), and three statistical methods using data from nonlinear time-history analysis: regression analysis method (LR), maximum likelihood estimation method (MLE), and incremental dynamic analysis method (IDA). The results show that the logarithmic standard deviation from SOV is much larger than those from the other methods. To gain more insight into this observation, this research studied the impact of three parameters, namely, randomness of horizontal direction peak response (HDPR), the variance of damaged drift ratio (DD), and latin hypercube sampling (LHS), on the results of fragility analysis, and found that the first two parameters have significant impact on the median and logarithmic standard deviation of fragility curves, respectively. In order to identify the influence of HDPR and DD on the results of risk-assessment, SPRA procedures were performed using the above-mentioned fragility curves. Besides, the conventional SPRA and a new procedure for SPRA which involves nonlinear time-history analysis and Monte Carlo procedure were both conducted in the study to determine the difference between the results of the two risk-assessment methods. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T00:49:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1408202017341300.pdf: 9975362 bytes, checksum: 414d2d2b7ef2a029026ebd879f970986 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 審定書 i 誌謝 ii 摘要 iii Abstract iv 目錄 v 圖目錄 xi 表目錄 xi 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景 1 1.2 研究目的 2 1.3 文獻回顧 3 1.3.1 核電廠耐震安全評估方法 3 1.3.2 新形態地震機率式風險評估 4 1.3.3 易損性分析方法 5 1.4 論文結構 8 1.5 英文首字母略縮語對照表 9 第二章 地震機率式風險評估方法 10 2.1 前言 10 2.2 傳統SPRA (Zion法) 11 2.2.1 概要 11 2.2.2 地震危害度分析 13 2.2.3 元件易損性分析 15 2.2.4 核電廠系統與事故序列分析 19 2.2.5 風險評估 21 2.3 新一代地震機率式風險評估 22 2.3.1 概要 22 2.3.2 核能電廠系統分析 23 2.3.3 地震危害度分析 24 2.3.4 結構反應模擬 26 2.3.5 元件損傷評估 27 2.3.6 地震風險量化計算 30 2.4 小結 31 第三章 分離變數法 32 3.1 前言 32 3.2 案例核能電廠介紹 32 3.2.1 概要 32 3.2.2 反應爐輔助廠房基本介紹 33 3.2.3 數值模型 35 3.2.3.1 結構模型設定 35 3.2.3.2 等效土壤彈簧與阻尼設定 37 3.2.3.3 模態分析結果 37 3.3 參考反應譜 38 3.4 案例電廠以分離變數法行易損性分析 40 3.4.1 概要 40 3.4.2 結構反應因子 40 3.4.2.1 地表運動因子 41 3.4.2.2 結構阻尼因子 45 3.4.2.3 模型因子 46 3.4.2.4 模態組合因子 48 3.4.2.5 歷時分析因子 49 3.4.2.6 地震分量組合因子 50 3.4.2.7 土壤-結構互制因子 50 3.4.3 結構容量因子 54 3.4.3.1 結構強度因子 54 3.4.3.2 結構強度因子變異性 59 3.4.3.3 非彈性能量吸收因子 60 3.4.3.4 非彈性能量吸收因子變異性 65 3.4.4 易損性分析結果 67 3.4.4.1 易損性曲線中位數 67 3.4.4.2 易損性曲線對數標準差 67 3.4.4.3 案例電廠易損性曲線 68 3.5 小結 72 第四章 非線性歷時分析之易損性分析方法 73 4.1 前言 73 4.2 非線性歷時分析 74 4.2.1 概要 74 4.2.2 拉丁超立方取樣法 74 4.2.3 數值模型參數設定 76 4.2.3.1 概要 76 4.2.3.2 混凝土抗壓強度之變異性 77 4.2.3.3 結構強度之變異性 78 4.2.3.4 極限強度對應層間變位角之變異性 79 4.2.3.5 破壞層間變位角之變異性 82 4.2.3.6 土壤彈簧/阻尼之變異性 83 4.2.3.7 水平向最大反應 87 4.2.3.8 變異參數之拉丁超立方法取樣結果 88 4.2.4 輸入地震歷時 90 4.2.4.1 概要 90 4.2.4.2 地震強度等級的選取 90 4.2.4.3 地震歷時的選取 92 4.2.4.4 地震歷時縮放 94 4.2.5 非線性歷時分析結果 102 4.3 非線性歷時分析之統計方法 103 4.3.1 概要 103 4.3.2 線性迴歸法 103 4.3.3 最大似然估計法 105 4.3.4 增量動力分析法 108 4.4 案例電廠之非線性歷時分析易損性分析 110 4.4.1 概要 110 4.4.2 線性迴歸法之易損性分析結果 111 4.4.3 最大似然估計法之易損性分析結果 112 4.4.4 增量動力分析法之易損性分析結果 115 4.4.5 案例電廠非線性歷時分析之易損性分析結果 118 4.5 易損性分析結果比較 119 4.6 小結 121 第五章 易損性分析影響因子探討 122 5.1 前言 122 5.2 水平向最大反應之變異性影響 122 5.2.1 概要 122 5.2.2 非線性歷時分析結果 123 5.2.3 線性迴歸法之易損性分析結果 124 5.2.4 最大似然估計法之易損性分析結果 125 5.2.5 增量動力分析法之易損性分析結果 127 5.2.6 結果比較與探討 129 5.3 變異性參數取樣方法之影響 133 5.3.1 概要 133 5.3.2 取樣方法介紹 133 5.3.3 結果比較與探討 138 5.4 破壞層間變位角之變異性影響 139 5.4.1 概要 139 5.4.2 破壞層間變位角之變異性影響 (考量水平向最大反應因子) 140 5.4.2.1 最大似然估計法之易損性分析結果 140 5.4.2.2 增量動力分析法之易損性分析結果 142 5.4.3 破壞層間變位角之變異性影響 (無考量水平向最大反應因子) 144 5.4.3.1 最大似然估計法之易損性分析結果 144 5.4.3.2 增量動力分析法之易損性分析結果 146 5.4.3.3 最大似然估計法之另解 148 5.4.4 結果比較與探討 150 5.5 小結 155 第六章 風險評估探討 156 6.1 前言 156 6.2 案例核能電廠事故序列 156 6.2.1 事件樹 156 6.2.2 故障樹 159 6.2.3 外電損失 159 6.3 傳統風險評估方法 161 6.3.1 概要 161 6.3.2 風險計算結果 163 6.4 新一代風險評估方法 164 6.4.1 概要 164 6.4.2 蒙地卡羅模擬法 164 6.4.2.1 概要 164 6.4.2.2 需求參數矩陣 165 6.4.2.3 需求參數矩陣增廣 166 6.4.2.4 最大層間變位角之易損性曲線 172 6.4.2.5 蒙地卡羅模擬法求取目標失效事件機率 173 6.4.3 風險計算結果 175 6.5 結果比較與探討 177 6.6 小結 182 第七章 結論與建議 183 7.1 結論 183 7.2 建議 185 參考文獻 186 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 核能電廠結構元件地震機率式風險評估及易損性分析方法研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Fragility Analysis Approach for Structural Components in Nuclear Power Plants | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳東諭(Tung-Yu Wu),柴駿甫(Jun-Fu Chai) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 地震機率式風險評估,易損性分析方法,非線性歷時分析,拉丁超立方取樣法,蒙地卡羅模擬法, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Seismic probabilistic risk assessment,Fragility analysis method,Nonlinear time-history analysis,Latin hypercube sampling,Monte Carlo procedures, | en |
dc.relation.page | 189 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202003469 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-08-16 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 土木工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.date.embargo-lift | 2023-08-31 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 土木工程學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-1408202017341300.pdf | 9.74 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。