2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.net.2017.10.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic response characteristics of base-isolated AP1000 nuclear shield building subjected to beyond-design basis earthquake shaking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…e main reason is that the stiffness of nuclear island building is less in Y-direction than that in X-direction. Compared with previous studies [16,20], the horizontal displacements calculated in this paper are slightly larger. e main reason is that FSI effect is considered in the models in this paper, but the previous isolation studies do not consider FSI effect.…”
Section: Relative Displacement Responsescontrasting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…e main reason is that the stiffness of nuclear island building is less in Y-direction than that in X-direction. Compared with previous studies [16,20], the horizontal displacements calculated in this paper are slightly larger. e main reason is that FSI effect is considered in the models in this paper, but the previous isolation studies do not consider FSI effect.…”
Section: Relative Displacement Responsescontrasting
confidence: 85%
“…e research shows that the base isolation system can effectively ensure the safety of a nuclear island structure under the beyond-design basis earthquake. Wang et al [20] proposed a base isolation design for AP1000 nuclear shield building on considering the performance requirements of the seismic isolation systems and devices of shield building. e research shows that the base isolation technology is an effective approach to maintain the structural integrity which subjected to both DBE (design basis earthquake) and BDBE (beyond-design basis earthquake) shaking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to ensure the correctness of the calculation model, the modal analysis results of CAP1400 nuclear island structure were compared with the results of the relevant existing literature [11,[18][19][20][21][22]. As can be seen from Table 2, the natural vibration frequencies of the first two orders were similar to the results reported in the existing literature.…”
Section: Modal Analysis Of Nuclear Island Structurementioning
confidence: 63%
“…For seismic design, as prescribed in Sect. 1.3 of ASCE 43, performance expectations [18] are, namely, (i) less than 1% probability of unacceptable performance against 100% design basis earthquake (DBE) shaking; (ii) less than 10% probability of unacceptable performance against 150% DBE shaking (or beyond design basis earthquake (BDBE)); (iii) seismic demand at the isolated structure calculated at the 80 th percentile for DBE and 90 th percentile for BDBE; (iv) introduction of a physical stop or perimeter damper (at 90% displacement demand at 1.5xDBE input). The adoption of perimeter damper solution, proposed also by Forni et al 2009 [19], will absorb possible loads derived from the impact of isolated nuclear structure with surrounding moat in the case of earthquake magnitude exceeding the assumed design value.…”
Section: Seismic Isolation Performance Objectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%