Book of Abstracts, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Division VI: Paper ID# 457

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF A TYPICAL VITRIFIED WASTE

STORAGE FACILITY
Rajiv V. Iyer1, Kapilesh Bhargava2, Atul R. Sandhan1, Ranjan Bhattacharya3, H. A. Mapari1, S.M. Palekar1, P.D.
Ozarde3, K.V. Subramanian1, S. Basu3
1
TATA Consulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai, INDIA-400083
2
Architecture & Civil Engineering Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, INDIA-400085
3
Nuclear Recycle Board, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, INDIA-400085
E-mail of corresponding author: rviyer@tce.co.in

INTRODUCTION

In a typical nuclear fuel cycle, the fuel is loaded into the reactors for power generation. After its use, the
fuel is unloaded from the reactor and stored in the spent fuel bay for the decay of low half-life fission products. The
spent fuel is then reprocessed in a fuel reprocessing plant to separate fission products from the fissile materials.
During reprocessing, radioactive waste is generated that needs to be stored safely. Long-term storage of radioactive
waste requires the stabilization of the waste into a form that neither reacts nor degrades for an extended period of
time, and this can be achieved through vitrification of waste. The vitrified waste is stored in canisters that are housed
in concrete vaults. These concrete vaults act as the final containment of the waste. Design of these vaults is therefore
very critical, for them to survive intact even during an abnormal event such as the occurrence of earthquake.
This paper presents the seismic analyses and design of a typical vault structure meant for the storage of
vitrified waste storage canisters. Load transfer from the vault to the foundation is achieved through a central column
and a set of peripheral columns. Two types of supporting arrangements have been envisaged for the vault structure:
(i) monolithic connection between vault bottom slab and central column plus all the peripheral columns, and (ii)
monolithic connection between vault bottom slab and central column, and simply supported arrangement between
slab and peripheral columns by providing bearing pads between them. Columns are connected by tie beams in
supporting arrangement (i), while in (ii) they are connected by a combination of tie beams and shear walls. Seismic
analyses have been carried out considering soil-structure interaction effects. Analyses and design results of the vault
structure for both the aforementioned supporting arrangements are discussed in this paper.

DESIGN SAFETY FEATURES

The most important consideration for any nuclear safety related structure is to serve the desired purposes
without any radioactive hazard to the plant personnel, public and the environment under various normal and
abnormal conditions. Thus, the design of a nuclear safety related structure housing radioactive materials is based on
defense-in-depth philosophy by providing multiple barriers to the release of radioactivity and detailed analyses of
the structure. Preliminary calculations for the thickness of such structures are based on the shielding considerations.
In addition to this, design of these structures is also governed by various postulated loading conditions. The concrete
vault structure for the storage of vitrified radioactive waste is classified as a nuclear safety related structure. Thus, it
is designed as per ASCE and ACI standards [1 – 2].

STRUCTURAL FEATURES

The vitrified waste storage vault is a rectangular reinforced concrete (RC) box structure of size 16.1m x
12.8 m x 13 m height. The vault structure comprises of four walls, top slab, intermediate slab and bottom slab. The
thicknesses of walls, top and bottom slabs are decided based on shielding considerations. The typical cross section
of the vault is shown in Fig.1.
Load transfer from the vault to the foundation is achieved through a central column and a set of peripheral
columns. Height of the columns between bottom slab of vault and top of raft is 4.35 m. Two types of supporting
arrangements for the vault structure have been envisaged:
(i) Type 1: Central column and all the peripheral columns are monolithically connected to the bottom slab of
vault. Columns are connected by tie beams that are provided at mid height of columns.
(ii) Type 2: Only central column is monolithically connected to the bottom slab of vault. Bearing pads are
provided between peripheral columns and bottom slab of vault, thereby, creating simply supported
arrangement between bottom slab and peripheral columns. Columns are connected by tie beams that are
Book of Abstracts, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Division VI: Paper ID# 457

provided at mid height of columns. In addition to tie beams, shear walls are also provided in a plus fashion to
connect the central column with the peripheral columns. The shear walls are provided up to mid height of
columns.

Fig. 1: Typical Cross-section of Concrete Vault Structure

The seismic analyses and design results for the considered typical vault structure are presented in this
paper.

CONCLUSION

Following conclusions are drawn from the present study:

(i) Comparison of response parameters for Type 1 and Type 2 supporting arrangements reveal that the provision
of bearing pads between bottom slab of vault and peripheral columns in Type 2 supporting arrangement has
resulted in: (a) reduced frequencies of vibration in global horizontal directions, (b) reduced observed peak
acceleration at the top slab of vault, (ii) lowering of peak acceleration in floor response spectrum at top slab
level of vault, (d) higher seismic displacements, (e) lesser displacements for temperature loads, and (f) higher
requirements for main reinforcement for various structural members.
(ii) For both the supporting arrangements, the requirements of main reinforcement for structural members are
less than the maximum values that a structural member should accommodate as per codal provisions.
Therefore, the design of present vault structure is possible with both the supporting arrangements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors thank the management of TATA Consulting Engineers Ltd. and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
for their constant encouragement during the course of present case study and for according the permission to publish
this paper.

REFERENCES

[1] ASCE (1998), “ASCE 4-98: Standard for Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures.”
American Society of Civil Engineer, USA.
[2] ACI (2006), “ACI 349-06: Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures and
Commentary.” American Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA.