中国核电厂抗震裕度地震谱形问题探讨

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2017.05.010

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 福岛核事故后，地震作为初始事件引发核电厂严重事故的问题引起了广泛关注。在此背景下，中国核电厂相继开展了抗震裕度评价，但在评价中选用了不同的地震谱形。基于美国针对早期运行核电厂开展的抗震裕度评价方法和中国核电厂址的地震危险性背景分析，对比了中美两国核电厂抗震设计基准的差异，针对中国目前的情况，建议优先对采用二代加堆型的运行电厂进行抗震裕度评价。通过将RG1.60谱与归一化厂址特定SL-2级加速度反应谱进行对比分析，发现部分核电厂址反应谱谱形在高频部分超过了RG1.60谱，对于这类厂址，直接放大标准反应谱作为抗震裕度地震是不恰当的。对于采用二代加堆型的核电厂，选择了某个厂址特定SL-2级地震动与标准设计比较接近的核电厂址进行了分析，采用不同方法确定其抗震裕度地震，结果表明0.3g标定的NUREG0098中值谱在平台段和长周期部分明显低于相同PGA水平的一致概率谱和设定地震谱，三者都能被0.3g标定的RG1.60谱所包络。考虑到中国运行电厂的抗震设计特点，为了评价核电厂实际抗震能力相对于厂址的抗震安全裕度，可以采用一致概率谱或设定地震谱；为了评价二代加运行核电厂实际抗震能力相对设计基准地震动的抗震安全裕度，建议采用给定PGA标定的RG1.60谱。

关键词: 抗震裕度评价, 抗震裕度地震, 反应谱谱形, 设定地震, 一致概率谱

Abstract: Fukushima nuclear accident caused widespread concern of earthquake initiated severe accident. Under this background, China nuclear utilities carried out research and application of seismic margin assessment(SMA)approach to evaluate the seismic margin of the existing nuclear power plants(NPP)by different spectra shape of seismic margin earthquake(SME). By reviewing the method used to determine SME of operational NPP in central and eastern United States(CEUS), this paper analyzed the seismic hazard characteristic of China NPP sites, contrasted the design basis ground motion between NPP in CEUS and China, and suggested giving priority to evaluating the seismic margin of operational NPP that adopted the improved second generation technology for the urgency and importance of assessment on the actual seismic capacity of NPP. Comparing RG1.60 spectrum to normalized site-specific SL-2 level acceleration spectra, we found that some normalized spectra overtook the RG1.60's in high frequency range, so it is not always adequate to scale RG1.60 spectrum to evaluate the seismic margin for sites of the improved second generation NPP. We selected a sample site whose site-specific SL-2 level ground motion is close to the standard design of improved second generation NPP(0.2g scaled RG1.60 spectrum)to determine the seismic margin earthquake by probabilistic seismic hazard analysis method of the sample site. Compared to the given PGA(0.3g)scaled scenario earthquake ground motions and the uniform hazard response spectrum(UHRS), whose PGA is 0.3g to PGA(0.3g)scaled standard spectra(median NUREG/CR0098 spectrum and RG1.60 spectrum), the results demonstrated that uniform hazard response spectrum and scaled scenario earthquake ground motions are both significantly higher than the PGA scaled median NUREG/CR0098 spectrum, and all the three spectra are enveloped by PGA scaled RG1.60 spectrum. Then, this paper suggests adopting the uniform hazard response spectrum or scenario earthquake ground motions to evaluate the seismic margin of improved second generation NPP beyond site SL-2 ground motion; and to evaluate the seismic margin of improved second generation NPP beyond standard design, we recommend to use PGA scaled RG1.60 spectrum.

Key words: SMA, SME, spectra shape, scenario earthquake, uniform hazard spectrum

中图分类号:

P315.9

荆旭, 常向东, 肖军. 中国核电厂抗震裕度地震谱形问题探讨[J]. 地震地质, 2017, 39(5): 1007-1016.

JING Xu, CHANG Xiang-dong, XIAO Jun. DISCUSSION ON THE SPECTRA SHAPE OF SEISMIC MARGIN EARTHQUAKE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN CHINA[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2017, 39(5): 1007-1016.

参考文献

韩竹军, 向宏发, 姬计法. 2011. 洞庭盆地南缘常德-益阳-长沙断裂中段活动性研究［J］. 地震地质, 33(4):839-854. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2011.04.009. HAN Zhu-jun, XIANG Hong-fa, JI Ji-fa. 2011. Activity of central segment, Changde-Yiyang-Changshan Fault at the southern margin of Dongting Basin, Hunan, China［J］. Seismology and Geology, 33(4):839-854(in Chinese).
胡聿贤, 张敏政. 1984. 缺乏强震观测资料地区地震动参数的估算方法［J］. 地震工程与工程振动, 4(1):1-11. doi:10.13197/j.eeev.1984.01.001. HU Yu-xian, ZHANG Min-zheng. 1984. A method of predicting ground motion parameters for regions with poor ground motion dada［J］. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 4(1):1-11(in Chinese).
王明明, 周本刚, 计凤桔, 等. 2009. 合浦-北流断裂带西支合浦盆地段断裂活动性研究［J］. 地震地质, 31(3):470-487. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2009.03.009. WANG Ming-ming, ZHOU Ben-gang, JI Feng-ju, et al. 2009. Fault activity on the Hepu Basin section of the Hepu-Beiliu Fault［J］. Seismology and Geology, 31(3):470-487(in Chinese).
肖和平. 2009. 湘东地区断裂活动性及潜在震源区划分研究［J］. 地震地质, 31(3):488-500. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2009.03.010. XIAO He-ping. 2009. Fault activity and delineation of the potential seismic sources in Hunan［J］. Seismology and Geology, 31(3):488-500(in Chinese).
章龙胜, 周本刚, 计凤桔, 等. 2016. 广东信宜-廉江断裂带东支西南段断裂活动性研究［J］. 地震地质, 38(2):316-328. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2016.02.007. ZHANG Long-sheng, ZHOU Ben-gang, JI Feng-ju, et al. 2016. Fault activity of the southwestern segment of the eastern branch of Xinyi-Lianjiang fault zone in Guangdong Province［J］. Seismology and Geology, 38(2):316-328(in Chinese).
张鹏, 李丽梅, 冉勇康, 等. 2015. 郯庐断裂带安丘-莒县断裂江苏段晚第四纪活动特征研究［J］. 地震地质, 37(4):1162-1176. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2015.04.018. ZHANG Peng, LI Li-mei, RAN Yong-kang, et al. 2015. Research on characteristics of late Quaternary activity of the Jiangsu segment of Anqiu-Juxian Fault in the Tanlu fault zone［J］. Seismology and Geology, 37(4):1162-1176(in Chinese).
ASME/ANS. 2009. ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard for level 1/large early release frequency probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plant applications, addendum A to RA-S-2008［S］. New York:ASME.
Bazzurro P, Allin Cornell C. 1999. Disaggregation of seismic hazard［J］. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(2):501-520.
Budnitz R J, Amico P J, Cornell C A, et al. 1985. An approach to the quantification of seismic margins in nuclear power plants. NUREG/CR-4334(UCID20444).
Chen J T, Chokshi N C, Kenneall R M, et al. 1991. Procedural and submittal guidance for the individual plant examination of external events(IPEEE)for severe accident vulnerabilities. NUREG-1407.
Harmsen S C, Frankel A D, Petersen M D. 2003. Deaggregation of U.S. Seismic Hazard Sources:The 2002 Update. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003-440.
Harmsen S, Perkins D, Frankel A. 1999. Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in the central and eastern United States［J］. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(1):1-13.
Mcguire R K, Mccann M W, Drake L. 1989. Seismic hazard methodology for the central and eastern United States. EPRI-NP-4726.
Newmark N M, Hall W J. 1978. Development of criteria for seismic review of selected nuclear power plants. NUREG/CR-0098.
Reed J W, Kennedy R P, Buttemer D R, et al. 1991. A methodology for assessment of nuclear power plant seismic margin. EPRI-NP-6041-M-Rev.1.
Silva W J, Youngs R R, Idriss I M. 1999. Development of design response spectral shapes for central and eastern U.S.(CEUS)and western U.S.(WUS)rock site conditions//Proceedings of the OECE-NEA(Organization for Economic Coordination and Development of the Nuclear Energy Agency)Workshop on Engineering Characterization of Seismic Input.
Subudhi M, Reich M, Koplik B, et al. 1980. Seismic review table. NUREG/CR-1429.
Talwani P, Cox J. 1985. Paleoseismic evidence for recurrence of earthquakes near Charleston, South Carolina［J］. Science, 229(4711):379-381.
Tarr A C, Talwani P, Rhea S, et al. 1981. Results of recent South Carolina seismological studies［J］. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 71(6):1883-1902.
USNRC. 1973. Design response spectra for seismic design of nuclear power plants［S］. Washington, DC.

[1]	陈鲲, 高孟潭, 俞言祥, 徐伟进, 杜义, 李雪靖, 陆东华. 融合三维断层源和二维潜在震源区的随机抽样概率地震危险性分析算法研发[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(2): 435-454.
[2]	曹筠, 李彦宝, 冉勇康, 徐锡伟, 马董伟, 张志强. 城市隐伏活动断层避让典型案例分析--以新沂市郯庐断裂带沿线某场地为例[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(4): 1071-1085.
[3]	范熙伟, 聂高众, 邓砚, 安基文, 夏朝旭. 基于无人机热红外遥感数据的地震倒塌房屋提取[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(6): 1657-1670.
[4]	李春果, 王宏伟, 温瑞智, 强生银, 任叶飞. 2021年青海玛多M_S7.4地震随机有限断层三维地震动模拟[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(5): 1085-1100.
[5]	张斌, 李小军, 荣棉水, 俞言祥, 王玉石, 王继鑫. 云南漾濞 M_S6.4地震强震动特征和震害分析[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(5): 1127-1139.
[6]	白仙富, 聂高众, 叶燎原, 戴雨芡, 余庆坤. 基于GIS和logistic模型的地震滑坡致死人数快速评估方法[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(5): 1250-1268.
[7]	杜浩国, 林旭川, 张建国, 杜浩标, 张方浩, 杜竹泉, 卢永坤, 代博洋. 基于改进蚁群算法与无人机影像的震害识别方法及其在漾濞地震中的应用[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 1013-1029.
[8]	陈鲲, 王永哲, 席楠, 卢永坤, 陆东华. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞6.4级地震的地震动强度图[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 899-907.
[9]	王子博, 刘瑞丰, 孙丽, 李赞, 孔韩东. 2021年云南漾濞M_S6.4地震辐射能量的快速测定[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 908-919.
[10]	何欣娟, 潘华. 2021年云南漾濞M_S6.4地震的强地面运动模拟[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 920-935.
[11]	王宏伟, 温瑞智, 任叶飞. 考虑区域特征的地震动模拟——以2020年伽师M_S6.4地震为例[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(2): 430-446.
[12]	苏桂武, Janise Rodgers, 田青, 齐文华, Philip England, Timothy Sim, John Young, 王东明, 李志强, 冯希杰, 孙磊, 陈鲲, Emily So, Barry Parsons, 赵金礼, 石建梁, 袁志祥, Yue Cao, 周旗, 魏本勇, David Milledge, Alexander Densmore. 参与式渭南地震情景构建: 中国地震风险对策的行动研究示范[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(6): 1446-1473.
[13]	陈鲲, 俞言祥, 高孟潭, 亢川川. 地震动的空间相关性——以纳帕地震为例[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(5): 1218-1228.
[14]	郭建兴, 张宇翔, 姬建中, 袁小祥, 肖本夫. 利用居民地建筑物数据和高分遥感影像评估地震烈度的方法初探[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(4): 968-980.
[15]	宗健业, 孙新蕾, 张鹏. 利用HVSR方法研究广州地区的场地效应及估算地震灾害特征[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(3): 628-639.