Seismic Interactions

The Problem:
Periodic Safety Reviews of Nuclear Power Stations will
typically identify potential seismic issues as far as protected
equipment is concerned:

• Potential clashing (pounding) of seismically protected

equipment in close proximity.

• Integrity of anchored equipment.

• Stability of unanchored equipment (rocking and/or sliding)

• Pipework fracture and whip damage

• Wall integrity
Not an exhaustive list!
 What the Client Wants
Usually the owner of the Power Station does not want
to implement plant modifications.=>

Lots of Paperwork and Cash!

*Preferred option*

Try all calculation based scenarios to justify why the

interaction would not occur.
 The Calculations
Assessment calculations follow a hierarchy of decreasing
conservatism until either the interaction can be ruled out or
a plant modification is required.

The following slides demonstrate two common seismic

issues which require fairly simple techniques as a first line
assessment, namely:

1. Seismic Pounding

2. Overturning of unanchored objects

 Seismic Pounding Example
Two cabinets in close proximity – idealised as vertical cantilevers
50mm gap
Displaced Shapes

Point of Contact

h2 = 2.2m
h1 = 2m

2 2
EI = 6666.67 kN/m EI = 2109.4 kN/m

Mass =1000kg/m Mass =1000kg/m

 Seismic Pounding Example
General Procedure:

• Obtain Secondary Response Spectra for the location.

• Calculate natural frequencies using suitable formula.

• Determine Spectral Displacement at the CoG for each

object using the response spectra.

• Interpolate/Extrapolate Displacement to the location

of potential contact through the fundamental mode shape.

• Sum displacements and compare with the gap to determine

whether pounding is likely.
 Seismic Pounding Example
Secondary Response spectra

12

10
Acceleration (m/s2)

0
0.1 1 10 100

Frequency (Hz)
 Seismic Pounding Example
Data for Structure No 1
2
height of structure h2 = 2m Equivalent Rigidity EI1  6666.67  kN m

1
mass of structure mass 1  1000  kg  m

Data for Structure No 2

2
height of structure h2  2.2 m Equivalent Rigidity EI2  2109.4  kN m

1
mass of structure mass 2  1000  kg  m
 Seismic Pounding Example

Calculate the natural frequency of the first cabinet using

an appropriate formula from Blevins. Choose cantilever
with distributed loading, Blevins table 8.1 (data sheet)
frame 3

0.5

2

EI1 
  1.87510407 f   
2    h 1  
2 mass1

f = 11.4 Hz
 Seismic Pounding Example
Calculate the spectral acceleration from the horizontal
secondary response spectra:
12
Spectral lateral acceleration:
10

6
f = 11.4 Hz
4

2
ah = 5m/s2
0
0.1 1 10 100

Corresponding spectral displacement

at centroid
ah
d h  dh  0.971mm

2
( 2   f )
 Seismic Pounding Example
Now extrapolate to the top of cabinet 1 using the mode
shape. First examine the mode shape function:

a = h1 σ1 = 0.734


y( x)  cosh
  x    x     x    x 
  cos    1  sinh    sin  
 a   a    a   a 
Calculate the non-dimensional mode shape factors at the
centroid and at the top of the cabinet:

 h1 
at the centroid y    0.679
 2
at structure top  
y h1  2
 Seismic Pounding Example
Now increase the spectral displacement at the centroid in the ratio
of the mode factors to obtain the displacement at the top of the
structure:

Displacement at the top of cabinet 1

 
y h1
d max   dh dmax  2.859mm

 h1 
y 
 2
 Seismic Pounding Example
Structure No 2

Natural Frequency of second cabinet - use same formula as for the

first cabinet:
0.5

2
 
EI2
  1.87510407 f    f = 5.31 Hz
 
2   h 2
2
 mass2


2
Spectral lateral acceleration ah  10 m s

Corresponding spectral displacement at centroid

ah
d h  dh  8.983mm

2
( 2   f )
 Seismic Pounding Example
Extrapolate using mode shape to height where structures will may pound,
i.e. top of first cabinet:

a  h 2 1  0.734095514


y( x)  cosh
  x    x     x    x 
  cos    1  sinh    sin  
 a   a    a   a 

Mode shape factors:

 h2 
at centroid y    0.679
 2
at structure top (note: will clash only at top of structure 1)  
y h1  1.75
 
y h1
d max   dh dmax  23.148mm

Hence displacement at top of cabinet 1  h2 
y 
 2
 Seismic Pounding Example
So the sum of the displacement of each cabinet at the top
of cabinet 1 is around 26mm. With a gap of 50mm, the
first conclusion would be that the structures do not pound.

If (as is usual) there is some uncertainty in the properties

and hence the frequency, then examine the maximum
spectral displacements regardless of frequency. For
example if the frequency of structure 2 was actually 3Hz,
then the spectral displacement is much larger, and when
extrapolated to the top, this exceeds 70mm, i.e. above the
gap width. So pounding could not be ruled out in this
case.
 Seismic Pounding Example
Conservatism:

1. The calculation assumes that displacement peaks would coincide.

This is conservative as the structures would tend to respond ‘out
of phase’, but at some stage an ‘in-phase’ scenario cannot be
ruled out

2. The calculation assumes SDOF systems and so the mode shape

factors are conservative (usually there is a weighting associated
with all of the modes)

It should also be noted that from primitive experiments carried out in

the laboratory, interaction invariably tends to occur at higher
accelerations than the calculations predict, and is more likely to occur
in lower frequency structures.
 Seismic Pounding Example
Practical solutions :

There are a number of practical solutions to the problem

if pounding cannot be mitigated in this case. The obvious
one is to tie the tops of the cabinets together, so that they
respond together (e.g. weld a metal strap across).

The cabinets could be tied to adjacent stiffer structures

Dampers can also be placed in-between.

Or simply move them apart!!

 Stability of Unanchored Plant
When unanchored objects are subjected to seismic
motion, they may do the following:

• Remain connected to the floor.

• Slide

• Rock

• Jump/rock/slide combinations

• Completely overturn.
 Stability of Unanchored Plant

1. If the plant is seismically protected and must remain

stable it is common practice to secure it to the floor
with approved fixings (Liebig/Hilti Anchors)

2. The plant may not be protected but is close to other

items that are. Hence they must not interact. The
object in question must not slide or overturn to the
extent where it will interact with the protected plant.
 Stability of Unanchored Plant
When assessing the seismic integrity of such structures it
is common to proceed through a logical hierarchy of
calculations, depending on the requirements:

• First assume the structure is fixed to the floor

• Calculate the natural frequency using standard formulae
• Using this frequency determine the relevant horizontal
and vertical accelerations from the spectra.
• Use a ‘pseudo-static’ approach to calculate the forces
due to the earthquake on the structure and whether they
overcome frictional resistance and restoring moments.
• If so then the structure response will change due to
rocking and/or sliding, and further analysis will be
required.
 Stability of Unanchored Plant
Sliding:

Usually sliding involves the analysis of ‘sticking’ and

‘slipping’ during the reponse and can be analysed using
Newmarks ‘sliding block’ approach or FE analysis.

Rocking:

The natural frequency of this type of response is dramatically

reduced. As a result, displacements may be enhanced and
the structure could potentially overturn.

This can be assessed using the “Reserve Energy Method”

 Reserve Energy

It may be sufficient for the purposes of seismic

assessment to show that although an object may rock
during an earthquake, it will not necessarily overturn.

Therefore we now introduce the concept of 'reserve

energy' which compares the kinetic energy applied by
the earthquake to the potential energy required to pass
the centre of gravity of the object past its highest point.

This is best illustrated using an example:

 Reserve Energy Method

H = 2m 1000kg

d1 d2

B = 1m
 Reserve Energy Method
Assumptions:

1. That the block has been calculated to have a natural

frequency of 7Hz assuming it is anchored.

2. From the corresponding spectra, a value of spectral

acceleration of 15m/s2 is applicable.

We can now calculate the kinetic energy from the spectral

velocity as follows:
 Reserve Energy Method
2
Data ah  15m s f  7 Hz mass  1000 kg

ah 1
Calculate spectral horizontal velocity Sv  Sv  0.341m
 s
2   f

Kinetic energy in earthquake trying to overturn the object

1 2
KE   mass Sv KE  58.156J
2
 Reserve Energy Method
Next calculate the potential energy involved in raising the
centroid of the section from its static location to its highest
point.

Assume that rocking occurs 1000kg

about either of the two
bottom corners, then the

H = 2m
height to be used in the
calculation is the difference
between the distance from
d1 d2
a bottom corner to the
centroid (d1) and the
vertical height to the B = 1m

centroid (d2).
 Reserve Energy Method
Height of object H  2 m Breadth of object B  1 m

 H 2 2
d 1       B
Distance from bottom corner to centroid
 2  d 1  1.118m
  2  
H
Vertical distance to centroid d 2  d2  1 m
2

Therefore the centroid must be raised a distance of:d 1  d 2  118.034mm


for overturning to occur

Potential energy required to overturn object

 
mass g  d 1  d 2  1157.518J
 Reserve Energy Method
First Conclusion, as KE <PE then the object will not overturn

In the first instance the natural frequency of 7Hz is

calculated as if the object was anchored to the floor. This
is o.k. for an initial assumption. Thereafter if it is proven to
rock, rocking frequencies tend to have very low natural
frequencies. Lets examine what this does to the kinetic
energy say if the frequency drops to 0.5Hz
 Reserve Energy Method
f  0.5 Hz

ah 1
Calculate spectral horizontal velocity Sv  Sv  4.775m
 s
2   f

Kinetic energy in earthquake trying to overturn the cabinet

1 2
KE   mass Sv KE  11398.633J
2

The kinetic energy is now larger than the potential

energy and will overturn the object.

Is this correct though?

 Reserve Energy Method
However the acceleration of the object at low frequencies is likely to be
The kinetic energy is now larger than the potential energy and will overturn the objec
smaller also. 2
However the Hence, let us
acceleration of assume
the objectthe acceleration
at low frequencieshas dropped
is likely to be to 2m/salso.
smaller
onHence,
the spectra. The kinetic energy now becomes:
let us assume the acceleration has dropped to 2m/s 2 on the spectra. The kinet

energy now becomes:

2
f  0.5 Hz ah  2 m s

ah 1
Calculate spectral horizontal velocity Sv  Sv  0.637m
 s
2   f

Kinetic energy in earthquake trying to overturn the object:

1 2
KE   mass Sv KE  202.642J
2

Final Conclusion: The object will NOT overturn

 Reserve Energy Method
Conclusions

1. It would be best to produce a velocity spectra for use when

employing the reserve energy method. The most conservative
velocity can then be used in the calculation for the K.E. in the
absence of accurate information regarding the structure frequency
and propensity to uplift.
2. Primitive lab tests have shown the method to be conservative also.

Notes

It should be remembered that all the preceding calculations are

designed to provide a conservative assessment of simple interaction
scenarios, if there is any doubt in the engineering judgement of a
particular problem then a more complex (possibly FE) analysis is
required.