A Probabilistic Approach to Assess Sediment Ejecta Hazard for Nuclear Power Plant Siting: Insights from the Serpong Case Study

Authors

  • Akhmad Muktaf Haifani Research Centre for Nuclear Reactor Technology, Research Organization for Nuclear Energy, National Research and Innovation Agency, Building No. 80 BJ Habibie Science and Technology Area, South Tangerang 15314, Indonesia
  • Hadi Suntoko Research Centre for Nuclear Reactor Technology, Research Organization for Nuclear Energy, National Research and Innovation Agency, Building No. 80 BJ Habibie Science and Technology Area, South Tangerang 15314, Indonesia
  • Topan Setiadipura Research Centre for Nuclear Reactor Technology, Research Organization for Nuclear Energy, National Research and Innovation Agency, Building No. 80 BJ Habibie Science and Technology Area, South Tangerang 15314, Indonesia
  • Widjojo A. Prakoso Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia.

Keywords:

Probabilistic EPI, Liquefaction hazard, Sediment ejecta, Core pressure, Hydro-mechanical boundary, Nuclear site safety

Abstract

Liquefaction-induced sediment ejecta endanger the safety of nuclear power plant (NPP) sites, yet traditional indices like LPI and LSN ignore important underlying mechanisms. This paper introduces the Probabilistic Ejecta Potential Index Analysis (Prob_EPI), a physics-based alternative that takes into consideration pore pressure dynamics, interlayer effects, and hydraulic gradients. When normalized against a Hydro-Mechanical Boundary (HMB) and confirmed with six statistical measures, the 80% artesian gradient is found as the essential threshold. When applied to two boreholes (DH11 and DH17) at the proposed Serpong NPP site under 250–5000-year seismic scenarios, Prob_EPI increases with seismic strength and reveals vulnerable sand layers at depths of 5–22 m. The approach strengthens the basis for evaluating ejecta hazards and increases confidence in nuclear site selection.

References

1. Bray F., R., Olaya, J., D. “2022 H. Bolton Seed Memorial Lecture: Evaluating Liquefaction Effects,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., vol. 149, no. 8, p. 03023002, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-11242.

2. Ding T., Zhang Y., Liu, G., and Yang Y., “Experimental Study of Liquefaction Strength Affected by Residual Excess Pore Water Pressure Induced by Earthquake,” Japanese Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ., vol. 10, no. 21, pp. 786–790, 2024, doi: 10.3208/jgssp.v10.os-10-06.

3. Green B., Cubrinovski R., A., Cox M., Wood B., Wotherspoon C., Bradley L., & Maurer B., “Select liquefaction Case Histories from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Earthquake Spectra,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 131-153., 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1193/030713EQS066M.

4. Boulanger R., W., and Idriss I., M., “CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Report UCD/CGM-10/2,” Cent. Geotech. Model, no. April, pp. 1–138, 2014.

5. Van Ballegooy C., H., S., Malan P., Lacrosse V., Jacka M. E., Cubrinovski M., Bray J. D., “Assessment of Liquefaction-induced Land Damage for Residential Christchurch.,” Earthq. spectra, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 31-55., 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1193/031813EQS070M.

6. Hutabarat J,. D., & Bray D., “Effective Stress Analysis of Liquefiable Sites to Estimate the Severity of Sediment Ejecta,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 147(5), 04021024., vol. 147, no. 5, p. 04021024., 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002503.

7. Maurer B. A., Green B., W., Cubrinovski R., A. & Bradley M., “Evaluation of the Liquefaction Potential Index for Assessing Liquefaction Hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand.,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., vol. 147, no. 5, p. 04021024., 2014.

8. Bray J., D., and Hutabarat D., “CPT-based Liquefaction Ejecta Evaluation Procedure,” Cone Penetration Test. 2022 - Proc. 5th Int. Symp. Cone Penetration Testing, CPT 2022, no. 2016, pp. 844–849, 2022, doi: 10.1201/9781003308829-125.

9. Yang X., Zhang Y., and Li Z., “Embankment Displacement PLAXIS Simulation and Microstructural Behavior of Treated-Coal Gangue,” 2020. doi: 10.3390/min10030218.

10. Cubrinovski M., et al., “Geotechnical Aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake,” Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 205–226, 2011, doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.44.4.205-226.

11. Bray J., & Macedo J. D. “6th Ishihara lecture: Simplified Procedure for Estimating Liquefaction-induced Building Settlement,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 102, pp. 215–231, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.08.026.

12. IAEA, “Seismic Hazard Assessment in Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations: Ground Motion Prediction Equations and Site Response [Internet]. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency,” 2016.

13. USNRC, “Site Safety Analysis Report Standard Review Plan: Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation,” 2015.

14. János Katona T., Győri E., Bán Z., and Tóth L., “Assessment of Liquefaction Consequences for Nuclear Power Plant Paks,” Transactions, no. Iaea 2017, p. 23, 2015.

15. BATAN, “Site Evaluation Report of RDE on Seismic Aspect,” Jakarta, 2016.

16. Katona T., J., Bán Z., Gyori E., Tóth L., and Mahler A., “Safety Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants for Liquefaction Consequences,” Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install., vol. 2015, 2015, doi: 10.1155/2015/727291.

17. Boulanger R., W., and Idriss I., M., “CPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedure,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 1–11, 2016, doi: 10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001388.

18. Cubrinovski M., Rhodes A., Ntritsos N., and Van Ballegooy S., “System Response of Liquefiable Deposits,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 124, no. April 2018, pp. 212–229, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.013.

19. Das B., M., Advanced Soil Mechanics, Fifth Edition, 5th Edition. London: CRC Press, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351215183.

20. Fortela M., E., Mikolajczyk D., L., Hernandez A., P., Revellame R., Sharp E., Holmes W., Zappi W., “Dynamic Time Warping as Elementary Effects Metric for Morris-Based Global Sensitivity Analysis of High-Dimension,” Dyn. Model. Math. Comput. Appl., vol. 29, no. 6, p. 111, 2024.

21. Saltelli S., Ratto A., Andres M., Campolongo T., Cariboni F., Gatelli J., Tarantola D., “Sensitivity Analysis: A Review of Recent Advances,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 248, no. 3, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.032, 869-887.

22. Amin A., A., “Kullback–Leibler Divergence to Evaluate Posterior Sensitivity to Different Priors for Autoregressive Time Series,” Commun. Stat. - Simul. Comput. 48(5), 1277–1291., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1277–1291, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2017.

23. Impraimakis M., “A Kullback–Leibler Divergence Method for Input–system–state Identification,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 569, p. 117965., 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2023.117965.

24. IAEA, “Site Evaluation for Ninstallations: Safety Requirements (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSR-1),” 2016.

Downloads

Published

2026-04-01

How to Cite

Haifani, A. M., Suntoko, H., Setiadipura, T., & Prakoso, W. A. (2026). A Probabilistic Approach to Assess Sediment Ejecta Hazard for Nuclear Power Plant Siting: Insights from the Serpong Case Study. Jurnal Teknologi Reaktor Nuklir Tri Dasa Mega, 27(2), 77–94. Retrieved from https://ejournal.brin.go.id/tridam/article/view/15792

Issue

Vol. 27 No. 2 (2025): June 2025

Section

Articles