This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
1. Main objectives of the KARISMA 1. Main objectives of the KARISMA
benchmarkbenchmark
•• to understand behaviour of the soil and structures to understand behaviour of the soil and structures during the July 2007 during the July 2007 Niigataken Niigataken ChuetsuChuetsu--Oki Oki earthquakeearthquake (NCOE).(NCOE).
•• to capture the main characteristics of the responseto capture the main characteristics of the response of structure and equipment.of structure and equipment.
•• to calibrate different simulation methodologies and to calibrate different simulation methodologies and to identify main parameters influencing the analytical to identify main parameters influencing the analytical response, by collecting and analysing the results response, by collecting and analysing the results from different teams.from different teams.
•• to understand margins: quantifying what will happen to understand margins: quantifying what will happen both in soil and in structure, when the input is both in soil and in structure, when the input is increased. How a major event such as increased. How a major event such as Niigataken Niigataken ChuetsuChuetsu--Oki one helps reducing epistemic Oki one helps reducing epistemic uncertainties.uncertainties.
KAshiwazaki-Kariwa Research Initiative for
Seismic Margin Assessment
4
2. KARISMA benchmark features2. KARISMA benchmark features
Two parts:Two parts:
•• Structures and soilStructures and soil
•• Recorded signals Recorded signals in the soil (boreholes) and in some in the soil (boreholes) and in some
inin--structure pointsstructure points
•• Possibility of Possibility of comparison between observations and comparison between observations and
analyses analyses resultsresults
•• EquipmentEquipment
•• No recordings on equipmentNo recordings on equipment
•• “Qualitative” appreciation of damage: buckling of “Qualitative” appreciation of damage: buckling of
tanks, sloshing of poolstanks, sloshing of pools
•• Margins estimationMargins estimation
5
Layout of main buildings and seismometer positions
Cross-sectional view showing the location map of seismometers in Unit 7 and recorded maximum acceleration in N-S, E-W and U-D
directions respectively (in gal)
367, 435, 464
267, 356, 355
418, 506, 342673, 1007, 362
964,1223, 539
685, 737, 308
415, 388, 166
318, 322, 336
+9.3m
-24m
-100m
-180m
-300m
396, 586, 226
419, 407, 146
407, 450, 187
5G1
G51
G52
G53
G54
G55
2. KARISMA benchmark features2. KARISMA benchmark features
•• Different teams are calculating the behaviour of structures Different teams are calculating the behaviour of structures under the same strong event; each team use under the same strong event; each team use their their own own approach.approach.
•• Interaction between teamsInteraction between teams
•• Use of “national practices”Use of “national practices”
•• The possibility of constructing their own model of R/B, soil The possibility of constructing their own model of R/B, soil and equipment are given to teamsand equipment are given to teams..
•• Models should capture the linear and non linear Models should capture the linear and non linear behaviour of soil and structurebehaviour of soil and structure
•• NNeeded data for analyseseeded data for analyses were provided bywere provided by TEPCOTEPCO.
2. KARISMA benchmark features2. KARISMA benchmark features
3 3 -- Organization the KARISMA benchmarkOrganization the KARISMA benchmark
•• IAEA Secretariat is managing the benchmark. IAEA Secretariat is managing the benchmark.
•• ISSC Information System (IIS) is being used.ISSC Information System (IIS) is being used.
•• Guidance documents, result templatesGuidance documents, result templates
•• Organizing Committee (OC) of the benchmark adviseOrganizing Committee (OC) of the benchmark advisess
the IAEA Secretariat. the IAEA Secretariat.
•• The role of the OC is to review the participant results and to The role of the OC is to review the participant results and to
make decisions for the conduct of the benchmark. make decisions for the conduct of the benchmark.
•• Members of OC are: participant representatives, a Members of OC are: participant representatives, a
representative of the scientific committee of the EBP, experts representative of the scientific committee of the EBP, experts
K-K Unit 7 Reactor Building Floor plan: 3rd Basement (T.M.S.L. -8.2m)
6. Phase I results
16
No Participant Organization Type of
model
Model characteristics
(Number of nodes, elements)
Concrete young
modulus (MPa)
Calcuation code
1 TEAM SA Stick model 10 nodes, 9 beam elements 31300 Super-sap/ansys11.0
2 TEAM SB 3D FEM 9037 nodes, 5829 elements 31300 ANSYS 11.0
3 TEAM SC 3D FEM 2603 nodes, 4406 elements 31300 ANSYS 11.0
4 TEAM SD 3D FEM 5400 nodes, 6200 elements 30000 Abaqus/Standard-6.9
5 TEAM SE 3D FEM 4546 nodes, 6265 elements 31300 Finite Element code CAST3M (Version 2010)
6 TEAM SF 3D FEM 12600 nodes, 14500 elements 31300 Code_Aster (STA9.6)
7 TEAM SG 3D FEM 19000 nodes 31300 Sofistik 25
8 TEAM SH 3D FEM 12560 nodes, 15288 elements 31300 Femap with NX Nastran 10.1
9 TEAM SI Stick model 123 nodes, 120 elements 31300 SOFiSTiK, Version 23
10 TEAM SJ 3D FEM 16297 nodes, 16686 elements 30000 ANSYS
11 TEAM SK 3D FEM 41901 nodes, 47834 elements 31300 COSMOS/M version 2.0
12 TEAM SL 3D FEM 74780 nodes, 57316 elements 31300 COSMOS/M 2.5
13 TEAM SM 3D FEM 7571 nodes, 9440 elements 31300 SAP 2000 Ver 11.0
14 TEAM SN Stick model 31300 SAP2000 Version 7.42
15 TEAM SO 3D FEM
16 TEAM SP 3D FEM 10596 nodes, 10745 elements SAP2000 v.14.1.0 Advanced (Computer & Structures, Inc.)
17 TEAM SR 3D FEM 11278 nodes, 15626 elements 38500 SAP2000 Version 14
TASK 1- STRUCTURE: SUBTASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base model - Model Presentation
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base
model: Model Presentation
6. Phase I results
17
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base
model: Model Presentation
6. Phase I results
18
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed
base model: Resultant Forces
under Vertical
loads (weight)
Force (MN)Force
(MN)
Moment
(MNm)
Fz Fx My
1 TEAM SA 1903 19032 TEAM SB 2018 2128 16023 83 TEAM SC 2011 2011 37956 194 TEAM SD 1421 14215 TEAM SE 1971 1971 44749 236 TEAM SF 1956 1956 37843 197 TEAM SG 2051 2044 36412 188 TEAM SH 1874 1872 41853 229 TEAM SI 1992 199210 TEAM SJ 2017 2028 47803 2411 TEAM SK 1638 175712 TEAM SL 1941 1942 42860 2213 TEAM SM 2019 2019 45650 2314 TEAM SN 1992 1992 39393 2015 TEAM SO 2208 2208 43838 2016 TEAM SP 1865 1876 41069 2217 TEAM SR 2103 2103 17061 8
1940 1954 37885 19
179 173 10033 5
0.09 0.09 0.26 0.28
Mean
Standard deviationCoefficient of variation
No Participant Organization
My/Fx
Uniform distribution of 1 g acceleration, applied in X
1. STRUCTURE
TASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base model
General resultant of forces at the centre of the basemat (T.M.S.L. -13.7 m),
BP1
6. Phase I results
19
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed
base model: Displacement
6. Phase I results
20
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed
base model: Displacement
under Vertical loads (weight)Uniform distribution of 1 g
acceleration, applied in X
Uniform distribution of 1 g
acceleration, applied in Y
Δz (mm) Δx (mm) Δy (mm)
1 TEAM SA 1.84 19.73 19.37
2 TEAM SB 3.61 21.96 18.69
3 TEAM SC 2.30 17.97 16.31
4 TEAM SD
5 TEAM SE 2.57 19.43 17.72
6 TEAM SF 2.44 17.92 16.77
7 TEAM SG 2.07 15.61 13.84
8 TEAM SH 2.40 18.60 17.00
9 TEAM SI
10 TEAM SJ 2.91 19.51 18.12
11 TEAM SK 1.61 14.97 13.56
12 TEAM SL 2.36 16.56 15.95
13 TEAM SM 2.10 18.50 16.73
14 TEAM SN 2.20 14.90 11.90
15 TEAM SO 2.02 20.40 18.93
16 TEAM SP 1.74 13.93 12.03
17 TEAM SR 1.71 12.59 10.90
2.26 17.50 15.86
0.51 2.65 2.75
0.23 0.15 0.17
Mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
1. STRUCTURE
TASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base model
No Participant Organization Roof Displacement (T.M.S.L. +49.7m) at WP1
6. Phase I results
21
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed
base model: Modal Analysis
in X in Y in Z
1 TEAM SA 4.43 4.45 14.21
2 TEAM SB 4.58 5.08 8.00
3 TEAM SC 4.24 4.63 8.86
4 TEAM SD 4.88 4.85 8.35
5 TEAM SE 4.04 4.43 8.31
6 TEAM SF 4.08 4.54 9.41
7 TEAM SG 4.40 5.10 11.00
8 TEAM SH 3.93 4.33
9 TEAM SI 4.84 5.24 13.85
10 TEAM SJ 4.29 4.59 9.01
11 TEAM SK 5.21 5.62 7.70
12 TEAM SL 4.48 4.77 8.55
13 TEAM SM 4.42 4.87 11.05
14 TEAM SN 5.31 5.63 12.73
15 TEAM SO 3.50 4.07 5.10
16 TEAM SP 4.70 5.42 10.59
17 TEAM SR 4.85 5.64 7.48
4.48 4.90 9.64
0.46 0.49 2.45
0.10 0.10 0.25
Mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
1. STRUCTURE
TASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models -
Subtask 1.1.1. Static and modal analysis of the fixed base model
C. Modal analysis of the fixed base model
No Participant OrganizationNatural Frequency
(Hz)
6. Phase I results
22
Example: IAEA CRP Results
6. Phase I results
The CAMUS speciman is 5 stories shear wall structure.
23
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses:
Model Presentation
Cross-sectional view showing the location map of seismometers in Unit 7 and recorded maximum acceleration in N-S, E-W and U-D
directions respectively (in gal)
367, 435, 464
267, 356, 355
418, 506, 342673, 1007, 362
964,1223, 539
685, 737, 308
415, 388, 166
318, 322, 336
+9.3m
-24m
-100m
-180m
-300m
396, 586, 226
419, 407, 146
407, 450, 187
5G1
G51
G52
G53
G54
G55
6. Phase I results
24
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses:
Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42)
1 TEAM SA 0.083 0.055 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.022
3 TEAM SC 0.083 0.056 0.019 0.020 0.018 0.022
5 TEAM SE 0.082 0.042 0.019 0.019 0.017 0.018
6 TEAM SF 0.083 0.037 0.020 0.016 0.015 0.016
9 TEAM SI 0.082 0.056 0.021 0.020 0.018 0.021
17 TEAM SR 0.083 0.050 0.021 0.021 0.019 0.020
0.084 0.044 0.025 0.028 0.023 0.019
0.083 0.049 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.020
0.001 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003
0.010 0.161 0.055 0.090 0.073 0.131
7 TEAM SG 0.068 0.047 0.023 0.019 0.017 0.019
11 TEAM SK 0.127 0.091 0.036 0.033 0.029 0.019
12 TEAM SL 0.092 0.044 0.022 0.025 0.020 0.019
16 TEAM SP 0.036 0.025 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.019
0.084 0.044 0.025 0.028 0.023 0.019
0.081 0.052 0.023 0.022 0.019 0.019
0.039 0.028 0.010 0.010 0.008 0.000
0.480 0.541 0.446 0.451 0.433 0.011Coefficient of variation
G55
(T.M.S.L. -300.0)
Measured
Mean
Standard deviation
1. STRUCTURE
TASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil Column Analyses - B. Soil Column Analyses under Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42)
No Participant Organization B.1.2.a. Maximum Acceleration at observation levels in Y direction - Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42)
(Control point: G55)
Maximum Acceleration (g)
5G-1
(T.M.S.L. +12.3)
G51
(T.M.S.L. +9.3)
G52
(T.M.S.L. -24.0)
G53
(T.M.S.L. -100.0)
G54
(T.M.S.L. -180.0)
1. STRUCTURE
TASK 1.1- Construction and validation of the soil and structure models
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil Column Analyses - B. Soil Column Analyses under Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42)
No Participant Organization B.1.2.a. Maximum Acceleration at observation levels in Y direction - Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42)
(Control Point: 5G-1)
Maximum Acceleration (g)
5G-1
(T.M.S.L. +12.3)
G51
(T.M.S.L. +9.3)
G52
(T.M.S.L. -24.0)
G53
(T.M.S.L. -100.0)
G54
(T.M.S.L. -180.0)
Coefficient of variation
G55
(T.M.S.L. -300.0)
Measured
Mean
Standard deviation
6. Phase I results
25
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses:
Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42)
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
5G-1
G51
G52
G53
G54
G55
6. Phase I results
26
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses:
Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42), Contol Point:5G-1
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
5G-1
Team SA
Team SC
Team SE
Team SF
Team SI
Team SR
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G51
Team SA
Team SC
Team SE
Team SF
Team SI
Team SR
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G52
Team SA
Team SC
Team SE
Team SF
Team SI
Team SR
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G53
Team SA
Team SC
Team SE
Team SF
Team SI
Team SR
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G54
Team SA
Team SC
Team SE
Team SF
Team SI
Team SR
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G55
Team SA
Team SC
Team SE
Team SF
Team SI
Team SR
6. Phase I results
27
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G54
Team SG
Team SK
Team SL
Team SP
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G55
Team SG
Team SK
Team SL
Team SP
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G53
Team SG
Team SK
Team SL
Team SP
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G52
Team SG
Team SK
Team SL
Team SP
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses:
Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42), Contol Point:G55
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (
g)
G51
Team SG
Team SK
Team SL
Team SP
ACCELERATION SPECTRUM AT 5 % DAMPING
Y DIRECTION - AFTERSHOCK II
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)A
CC
EL
ER
AT
ION
(g
)
5G-1
Team SG
Team SK
Team SL
Team SP
6. Phase I results
28
Subtask 1.1.2. Soil column analyses:
Aftershock II (16th July, 17:42) MODULUS REDUCTION, G/G0 - AFTERSHOCK II in Y DIR.