Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Kinoshita, Takahiro*; Okamura, Shigeki*; Nishino, Hiroyuki; Yamano, Hidemasa; Kurisaka, Kenichi; Futagami, Satoshi; Fukasawa, Tsuyoshi*
Transactions of the 26th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT-26) (Internet), 7 Pages, 2022/07
The seismic evaluation of key components such as reactor vessel is important for the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (S-PRA) in a Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). Many components were damaged by cumulative damage like fatigue damage during seismic ground motion. However, general evaluation method for key components under seismic ground motion has been based on static loads and elastic region of materials. More accurate evaluation method for S-PRA, which can evaluate the failure of key components such as reactor vessels, has been actually required. In this study, failure probability evaluation method with integrated energy was developed by comparing the energy with vibration tests and fatigue tests. Vibration tests were performed to evaluate integrated vibration energy at failure by energy balance equation and fatigue tests were performed to evaluate integrated vibration energy at failure based on experimental results of fatigue tests.
Kondo, Masaaki
Dai-6-Kai Kakuritsuronteki Anzen Hyoka (PSA) Ni Kansuru Kokunai Shimpojiumu Rombunshu (IAE-9206), p.53 - 59, 1993/01
no abstracts in English
; *; *; Abe, Kiyoharu
Doboku Gakkai Rombunshu, 0(437), p.143 - 152, 1991/10
no abstracts in English
*; ; *; Abe, Kiyoharu
IAE-R-8807, p.89 - 95, 1988/00
no abstracts in English
Choi, B.; Nishida, Akemi; Takada, Tsuyoshi*
no journal, ,
In this paper, in order to clarify the influence of difference due to modeling methods on the results of seismic response analysis for a nuclear facility, seismic response analysis using various earthquake events was conducted and the findings obtained from the uncertainty assessment of the response result due to the difference in modeling methods are reported.
