Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 2929353, 7 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2929353
Research Article

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Site-Vicinity Infrastructure for Supporting the Accident Management of a Nuclear Power Plant

1MVM Paks Nuclear Power Plant Ltd., Paks, Hungary
2Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary
3Breuer Marcell Doctoral School of Architecture, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

Correspondence should be addressed to T. J. Katona; uh.enilno-t@10atab

Received 29 June 2017; Accepted 25 October 2017; Published 16 November 2017

Academic Editor: Enrico Zio

Copyright © 2017 T. J. Katona and A. Vilimi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. Nöggerath, R. J. Geller, and V. K. Gusiakov, “Fukushima: The myth of safety, the reality of geoscience,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 37–46, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. C. Zülfikar, N. Ö. Z. Fercan, S. Tunç, and M. Erdik, “Real-time earthquake shake, damage, and loss mapping for Istanbul metropolitan area,” Earth, Planets and Space, vol. 69, no. 1, article 9, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. T. J. Katona, “Seismic safety analysis and upgrading of operating nuclear power plants, in nuclear power- Practical Aspects,” in Nuclear Power- Practical Aspects, W. Ahmed, Ed., Chapter 4, InTech, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. HAEA, “National Report of Hungary on the Targeted Safety Re-assessment of Paks Nuclear Power Plant,” Tech. Rep., HAEA, Budapest, Hungary, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  5. J. Hornyacsek, 2011, Földrengés! Fel vagyunk készülve?, (Earthquake! Are we prepared?), (in Hungarian) Hadmérnök, VI. évfolyam 1. szám - 2011. március, pp. 276-295.
  6. S. Nagy, “A veszélyhelyzeti prognózisok és a helyi szintű védelmi igazgatás kapcsolata, (Relation of the local disaster management authorities and risk forecasts) (in Hungarian),” Hadtudomány, no. 3-4, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  7. C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G. M. Verderame, and G. Manfredi, “Observed and predicted earthquake damage scenarios: the case study of Pettino (L’Aquila) after the 6th April 2009 event,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 2643–2678, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. Dolce, A. Masi, M. Marino, and M. Vona, “Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 115–140, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. A. Sarris, C. Loupasakis, P. Soupios, V. Trigkas, and F. Vallianatos, “Earthquake vulnerability and seismic risk assessment of urban areas in high seismic regions: Application to Chania City, Crete Island, Greece,” Natural Hazards, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 395–412, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. T. Onur, C. E. Ventura, and W. D. L. Finn, “Regional seismic risk in British Columbia - Damage and loss distribution in Victoria and Vancouver,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 361–371, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. P. Mouroux and B. Le Brun, “Presentation of RISK-UE project,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 323–339, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. Hazus®–MH 2.1, Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, Technical Manual, Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, 2017, https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1820-25045-6286/hzmh2_1_eq_tm.pdf.
  13. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “eismic performance assessment of buildings volume 1—methodology,” Technical report FEMA-P58, Washington, DC, USA, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 2—implementation guide,” Technical Report FEMA-P58, Washington, DC, USA, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  15. X. Zeng, X. Lu, T. Y. Yang, and Z. Xu, “Application of the FEMA-P58 methodology for regional earthquake loss prediction,” Natural Hazards, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 177–192, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. Lestuzzi, S. Podestà, C. Luchini et al., “Seismic vulnerability assessment at urban scale for two typical Swiss cities using Risk-UE methodology,” Natural Hazards, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 249–269, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. “Earthquake loss estimation routine,” in Technical Manual and Users Guide, 2017, http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/eski/ELER/ELER_v3_Manual.pdf.
  18. S. Tyagunov, G. Grünthal, R. Wahlström, L. Stempniewski, and J. Zschau, “Seismic risk mapping for Germany,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 573–586, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. P. Guéguen, C. Michel, and L. Lecorre, “A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: Application to Grenoble (France),” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 467–490, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. E. Zio, “Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 152, pp. 137–150, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. E. Győri, P. Mónus, Bán Z., and L. Tóth, “Conclusions reached from environmental effects of historical earthquakes occurred in the Pannonian Basin,” in Proceedings of the 26th General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, vol. 22, Prague, Czech Republic, July 2015.
  22. I. P. Kovács, S. Á. Fábián, B. Radvánszky, and G. Varga, “Dunaszekcső Castle Hill: Landslides Along the Danubian Loess Bluff,” in Landscapes and Landforms of Hungary, World Geomorphological Landscapes, pp. 113–120, Springer International Publishing, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. Population census held in 2011 and published by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Housing Data, Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 2011. ÉVI NÉPSZÁMLÁLÁS, 12. Lakásviszonyok, Budapest, 2014, ISBN 978-963-235-467-5, http://www.ksh.hu/nepszamlalas/.
  24. A MAVIR ZRt. átviteli hálózati alállomásai (Substations of the transmission network of the MAVIR Plc.), 2017, http://docplayer.hu/1495610-A-mavir-zrt-atviteli-halozati-alallomasai.html#show_full_text.
  25. EMS-98 European, Macroseismic Scale 1998, G. Grünthal, Ed., Centre Europèen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
  26. G. M. Calvi, R. Pinho, G. Magenes, J. J. Bommer, L. F. Restrepo-Vélez, and H. Crowley, “Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years,” ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 75–104, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. FEMA 155 Second Edition, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA 2002.
  28. K. Pitilakis, S. Argyroudis, K. Kakderi, and A. Argyroudi, Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis for Buildings, Lifeline Networks and Infrastructures Safety Gain, SYNER-G, Synthetic Document, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  29. A. Roca, X. Goula, T. Susagna, J. Chávez, M. González, and E. Reinoso, “A simplified method for vulnerability assessment of dwelling buildings and estimation of damage scenarios in catalonia, Spain,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 141–158, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. A. Jacobson and M. Grigoriu, “Fragility Analysis of Water Supply Systems,” Technical Report MCEER-08-0009, 2008, https://nehrpsearch.nist.gov/static/files/NSF/PB2009105545.pdf. View at Google Scholar
  31. J. M. Eidinger, Ed., Fire Following Earthquake, 2004, http://www.geengineeringsystems.com/ewExternalFiles/FireFollowingEarthquake.pdf.
  32. J. E. Daniell, A. Schäfer, F. Wenzel, and B. Khazai, 2013, Weltweite Verluste durch Erdbeben induzierte Sekundäreffekte und deren Bedeutung für D-A-CH und das Versicherungswesen, 13. D-A-CH Tagung für Erdbebeningenieurwesen und Baudynamik, C. Adam, R. Heuer, W. Lenhardt & C. Schranz (Hrsg.), 29.-30. August 2013, Wien, Österreich, Beitragsnr. 138.
  33. A. Rahnavard, M. A. Jafari, A. Yavartalab, M. Samadi, and M. R. Farahani, “Seismic vulnerability assessment of electric power distribution network in Iran,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution, CIRED 2013, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. A. T. Murray and H. Tony, Critical Infrastructure Reliability and Vulnerability, Springer, New York, NY, USA.
  35. K. Pitilakis, M. Alexoudi, S. Argyroudis, O. Monge, and C. Martin, “Earthquake risk assessment of lifelines,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 365–390, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. G. P. Cimellaro, A. De Stefano, and O. Villa, “Serviceability of natural gas distribution networks after earthquakes,” Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, vol. 7, no. 2, article 1350005, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. G. Lanzano, E. Salzano, F. S. De Magistris, and G. Fabbrocino, “Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 117, pp. 73–80, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. A. Vilimi, L. Tóth, and T. J. Katona, “Analysis of consequences of a design basis earthquake for the region around a nuclear power plant,” Pollack Periodica, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 43–54, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. P. Tomka, L. Katula, and I. Bagi, “Design of trussed steel towers according to the eurocodes,” Materials Science Forum, vol. 729, pp. 497–502, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. Z. K. Mendera, “Bases of design of overhead electrical lines according to general requirements of European standard en 50341-1: 2001,” Advanced Steel Construction, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 553–564, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution Infrastructure, Chapter II: Increasing the Resilience, Reliability, Safety, and Asset Security of TS&D Infrastructure, QER Report, April 2015, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/QER%20Chapter%20III%20Electricity%20April%202015.pdf.
  42. K. Poljanšek, F. Bono, and E. Gutiérrez, GIS-based Method to Assess Seismic Vulnerability of Interconnected Infrastructure – A Case of EU Gas and Electricity Networks, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. Á. Szabolcs Sz, J. Kovács, and D. Lóczy, “Geomorphologic Hazards in The Carpathian Foreland, Tolna County (Hungary), Landform Evolution in Mountain Areas Recent Geomorphological Hazards In Carpatho-Balcan-Dinaric Region,” in Studia Geomorphologica Carpatho-Balcanica, vol. XL, pp. 107–118, 2006. View at Google Scholar