329 CHARACTERIZATION AND PROPERTIES RELATION FOR NATURAL SEISMIC BASE
ISOLATION SYSTEM IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING: A REVIEW Lokesh Choudhary
Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Eklavya University, Damoh
Dr. Anudeep Nema
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Eklavya University, Damoh
Abstract - The seismic way of behaving of optional framework (S-framework) mounted on the essential framework (P-framework) has been a subject of impressive exploration interest before. The seismic presentation of all around planned S-framework has been assessed for seismic evaluation of significant S-frameworks in both atomic and different businesses. Notwithstanding these, numerous disappointments of S-frameworks were seen during key position shaking prompting the closure of the modern units. The explores on the seismic way of behaving of S-framework included various kinds of S- framework like, single upheld and multi upheld S-frameworks, channeling and hardware in modern units, light and weighty machines in power plants and so on. A couple of cutting edge papers have been distributed which summed up various kinds of examination and parametric investigations performed on the S-framework. Various shake table tests were additionally done to tentatively check the association impacts between the S and P-frameworks.
1 GENERAL
The individuals that are utilized to serve the basic activity in load-bearing and casing structure however are not pieces of the essential design are normally known as optional frameworks. These designs are commonly situated in enormous modern structures and in this way are not presented to loads like breeze, snow, and encompassing temperature loads. Be that as it may, they should be broke down and intended for their own functioning burdens like those emerging due to vibrating machine, and unplanned burdens which happen in the modern working condition. Aside from these heaps, they may likewise be vibrated by ground movement which is created during tremor. These ground movements are moved to the optional frameworks through their supporting essential designs. Normally optional frameworks vibratory impact is vigorously affected by the element of the supporting essential construction during a seismic tremor. The optional designs can be isolated into various gatherings. For seismic examination, they are habitually isolated into single or different backings. A gear with one level of opportunity or a more muddled framework with numerous levels of opportunity might have single excitation. They are named a solitary
upheld optional framework. On other hand, the increase upheld optional frameworks are a multi-level of- opportunity framework with various info movements at various backings. A typical property of the optional framework is that, comparative with their supporting design, they are regularly light, in spite of the fact that they may likewise be weighty in specific occasions.
(a) Service item of buildings - Things required for the commonsense utilization of rooms, for example, (I) apparatuses and little things, for example capacity cupboards, (ii) administrations and apparatuses, for example generators, TVs, fridges, bogus roofs, clothes washers, motor gas chambers, and staggered material stacks (iii) window and entryway boards and edges, huge glass sheets with outlines (and furthermore windows or wall mounting material) and different boundaries inside structures;
(b) Building appendages - Objects projecting from structures or associated with their outer surfaces, either on a level plane or in an upward direction, for example, smokestacks distending from designs, glass or stone cladding utilized as exteriors, railings, little water repositories on top of designs, coverings, promoting drapes joined to the upward
330 essence of the structure or connected to
the highest point of the structure, and little correspondence towers introduced on top of designs. Some of them carry out compositional roles, while the others are physical.
(c) Services and utilities - Things expected to help basic tasks in structures, like pipes lines (e.g., water administration lines, gas pipeline, squander water pipeline and water channel pipes), electrical links and electrical wires from outside to inside and inside the house, cooling pipe work, lifts, fire hydrants (counting water choke pipes), network pipeline in modern structures and thermal energy stations, light equipment’s and machine mounted in modern units and forces to be reckoned with
1.1 Failure of Secondary Systems Due to Earthquakes
Throughout the past many years, optional designs have been viewed as powerless against tremors. The breakdown of auxiliary designs causes huge monetary expenses, yet in addition influences the security of life. In the 1994 Northridge seismic tremor in Los Angeles, many significant clinics had to empty, not due to disturbance to the primary designs, but since of the breakdown of a few basic optional administrations, for example, crisis power frameworks, clinical gear control frameworks, pipeline of water, and so on
Figure 1.1 Secondary System during (a) 1989 Loma Prieta, Earthquake and (b) 1994 Northridge Earthquake: (Photos:
The EERI Annotated Slide Collection, 1997)
Figure 1.2 Failure of Secondary System During (a) 1983 Coalinga Earthquake
and (b) 1994 Northridge Earthquake:
ceiling (Photos: The EERI Annotated Slide Collection, 1997)
1.2 Need for the Present Study
The short writing survey (The explained audit is introduced in part 2) shows that optional funneling framework (multi upheld) running along the level of the essential construction like the structure and auxiliary framework as hardware (single upheld) have been broadly concentrated previously. In any case, the reactions created in the channeling framework because of the bi-directional quake are not generally explored. Not much review has likewise been led on the presentation of a channeling framework connected to a three dimensional base- detached building exposed to a bi- directional quake. The effect of the upward part of the quake on the reaction of the single upheld auxiliary framework appended to the base-confined essential framework is one more region where the writing regarding the matter is independently.
Aside from the above research holes, more examinations are expected to concentrate on the impact of the sort of seismic tremors, to be specific, far field and close to field, PGA of quakes and the proportion between the parts of the ground movement on the reaction of the auxiliary framework mounted on the floor of the base confined essential framework.
At last, the delicacy examination of the vibrating machines (mounted on building), intended for a specific contagiousness, under quake excitation has not drawn a lot of consideration of the specialists. It is an issue of pragmatic interest in modern structures and needs due consideration for the seismic security examination of the mounted optional frameworks.
331 1.3 Scope and Objective of Work
Keeping the above research need in view, the current review is attempted. The significant targets of the review comprise of exploring the seismic way of behaving of multi upheld and single upheld optional frameworks mounted on the base segregated structures. Significant boundaries considered are the sort and PGA of seismic tremors. The sort of quake incorporates the all over field seismic tremors with directivity and indulgence step impacts. The PGA levels are changed to examine the reactions of the auxiliary frameworks under both in versatile reach and inelastic states. Multi part quakes are considered for the examination with fluctuating proportions between various parts of the ground movement. The multi upheld SS comprises of the line running along the level of a 3D six story building.
The single ally SS, comprise of a machine upheld at the focal point of the gateway outline mounted on a story of the structure. The other single upheld SS broke down is a machine mounted on the floor of a structure, and intended for various contagious qualities. Explicit targets of the current review include:
1) Seismic way of behaving of different upheld pipe running along the level of a 3D model of six story working under bi-directional quake.
2) Evaluation of the viability of base seclusion in controlling the seismic reaction of a liquid line running along the level of a six story 3D model of a base secluded working under bi-course tremor.
3) Evaluation of the viability of base detachment in controlling the vibration of a machine upheld at the focal point of an entry outline mounted on the floor of the 3D model of a base secluded working under three part quake.
4) Fragility examination of a machine mounted on the floor of a structure and intended for various contagious qualities exposed to the upward part of ground movement.
5) Parametric examinations as for the tremor boundaries like the sort, PGA, number of parts and the proportion between the parts of quakes.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction
There is extraordinary viable interest in the reaction investigation of auxiliary frameworks for quake prompted ground movement as many in confirmations of the breakdown of optional frameworks appended to the essential design were accounted for during seismic tremor.
Subsequently, over the most recent couple of many years this issue has gotten consideration of numerous analysts. These frameworks might have a generally light mass and have different damping qualities; There are a few issues with planning fitting logical models for hypothetical investigations of optional framework is they incorporate (I) it increment the size of the issue to be settled (ii) tackling a non-traditionally damped framework for which modular examination isn't substantial and (iii) managing lopsided mass and solidness disseminations.
2.1 Seismic Response Behavior of P-S System Which Include Different Analytical Technique Develop for Seismic Isolation of P-S System
Singh and Burdisso, (1987) set forward techniques to get the info data expected in the seismic examination of the optional frameworks which was associated at various backings. The data sources included (I) auto floor reaction spectra (ii) cross floor reaction spectra, (iii) floor relocations and their relationships, and (iv) floor speeds and their connections. To get the information data, a unique investigation of the supporting essential construction was performed utilizing irregular vibration standards.
Hernried and Jeng, (1987) proposed a strategy for tracking down the seismic reaction of nonstructural part and used it to look at a combination of tangled multi-level of opportunity essential optional frameworks presented to ground shock. The frameworks were either damped or undamped. To show the impact of spatial coupling on the reaction, various associations were chosen. The frameworks were either totally detuned or independently tuned. A mathematical incorporation of the consolidated framework (Newmark conspire) is utilized to compute the greatest unique reaction
332 of the optional subsystem and looked at
the technique at first proposed by Hernried and Sackman (1984).
Singh, (1988) introduced a cutting edge survey on the seismic plan of the optional framework portraying the advancement of the techniques beginning with the improvement of the floor reaction range up to the advancement of cross floor reaction spectra as the seismic information. He demonstrated the way that the presence of an optional framework could influence on the essential construction's reaction by unique connection, which can likewise influence its own reaction.
Singh, et al (1992) gave a method to the seismic investigation by considering the relationship impact at different backings of multi upheld channeling framework. An evaluation was done of the cycles normally utilized for seismic computation of different upheld channeling frameworks. A viable illustration of a 3D essential construction supporting a 3D channeling framework at different levels was taken in this examination.
(Singhal and Kiremidjian, 1996) concentrated on a normalized strategy for working out delicacy bends and harm risk networks for different primary model. He proposed a strategy in view of the nonlinear powerful examination of the construction somewhat than experimental information.
(Vanzi, 1996) proposed a methodology and machine a computational strategy to assess the dependability of electric power networks under seismic burden.. Condition of force stream in the organization are realistic and improved to represent the current setup of the organization for seismic burden.
(Camensig et al., 1997) concentrated on structure dependability of electric substation under seismic stacking. He does delicacy examination of logical and exploratory information performed by ISMES.
Gupta and Gupta, (1997) developed a modular combination mixture strategy for evaluating the otherworldly speed increase of oscillator. Another mixture strategy was recommended that gave exact ghostly speed increase to both
zero and non-zero mass proportion in non-traditionally damped structure in tuned optional frameworks. For the detailing, PC program CREST-IRS was utilized which was created by Gupta and Jaw (1986).
Villaverde, (1997) introduced a condition of workmanship on seismic reaction of optional designs in which explores completed over the most recent thirty years in the space of seismic examination of gear's, compositional parts, and non-underlying parts connected to the floors, rooftop, and walls of structures were examined. He tended to various actual parts of auxiliary designs that were particularly powerless against the impacts of seismic tremor. The creator investigated different scientific methodologies, for example, consolidated essential auxiliary frameworks and the strategy utilizing floor reaction range. He additionally made sense of advantages, disadvantages, limits of the methodologies and configuration arrangements for various codes, for example, the Uniform Building Code 1994, NEHRP. Different research facility and field test results, for example, tests via completed Craig and Goodno (1981), Kelly and Tsai (1985), Wang (1987), Rlhal (1988), Nims and Kelly (1990), Juhn et al. (1990), Ohtani et at (1992), Chiba et al. (1992), Rlhal (1994), Pantelides and Behr (1994) and Behr et al. (1995) were likewise talked about. The creator distinguished a couple of regions for future exploration like, (I) nonlinerality of the optional construction (ii) the impact of the torsional developments of a supporting design on the reaction of an optional framework, (iii) base separation and underlying control of auxiliary designs.
(Ozaki et al., 1998) concentrated on seismic delicacy examination of reactor working by utilizing further developed reaction factor technique. He cleared up how for work out the limit increment factor for the straight reaction process.
Second, he recommended a non-straight reaction based approach and a separated two-point assessment method for working out the fluctuation of non-direct reactions.
Agrawal and Datta, (1998) analyzed the reaction of a helper framework mounted on torsionally
333 coupled non-direct casing to show the
effect of torsionally coupling and non- linearity of the essential primary design on the reaction amounts of the straight optional framework in a stochastic circumstance. Recurrence space phantom strategy was utilized to get the reaction.
In another paper, Agrawal and Datta, (1999) concentrated on seismic way of behaving of an optional design for bi-directional irregular ground excitation when oscillator was mounted over a torsionally coupled non-straight essential construction. The reaction amounts of interest included relative removal and the outright speed increase of the oscillator.
With the utilization of linearized recurrence area examination and time space investigation reactions of oscillator were acquired. Communication impact between the essential and the optional construction was additionally gotten by the flowed examination.
(Dimova and Hirata, 2000) concentrated on seismic delicacy investigation of design with two kind of grinding gadgets. The delicacy study's discoveries show that at whatever point the underlying uncovered outline is retrofitted by unbendingly connected bracings, the impact is a lot more modest as when the bracings are retrofitted by erosion gadgets, particularly rubbing gadgets and restrictors
Adam and Fotiu, (2000) inspected the powerful examination of inelastic essential optional frameworks and formulated two techniques to give the reaction of the inelastic composite PS framework. The procedure depended on the deterioration into undamped base modes. The inelastic disfigurements of the base were treated as extra imaginary stacking in an iterative amalgamation interface and their forces were estimated in an iterative cycle.
(Calvi et al., 2006) presents a condition of workmanship survey on the improvement of seismic weakness evaluation procedures up to 2006. He examining strategies from harm likelihood frameworks to general assessment of insightful strategy. He examining benefits and disservices of these strategy.
Furtmuller, (2008) decided the reaction of vibration delicate assistant designs mounted on normal essential
construction presented to ground-speed increases delivered by standard seismic tremors.
Sone et al., (2011) introduced a strategy for getting the nonlinear seismic greatest reaction of different upheld channeling frameworks in unique structures, for example, the thermal energy station and petrochemical plant.
In the proposed strategy, impact of the erosion in the reaction decrease was just thought of.
(Quilligan et al., 2012) concentrated on the delicacy investigation of steel and substantial breeze turbine tower. He computes relative execution for choosing level and wind speed. He utilized lagrangian strategy for estimation of condition of movement of the framework.
He performing investigation of pinnacle of range from 88m to 120m.
Lim and Chouw, (2014) carried out a trial examination of associating force at the point of interaction of the PS framework. The powers created at the connection point of the optional construction relied upon the unique qualities of the ground movements and PS framework. Shake table test review were directed to examine the communication impact. The optional designs had essentially higher frequencies and less mass than the essential construction.
Pardalopoulos, (2014) assessed the seismic way of behaving of nonstructural part fitted at structures through well established floor stomach technique. According to the investigation, the seismic way of behaving of SS could be limited which relied on the type of help conditions. Nonstructural parts presented to consistent help movement were impacted basically by indisputably the unearthly speed increase that created on the association point of the structure.
Lucchini et al (2015) concentrated on probabilistic seismic interest model (PSDM) for nonstructural parts. It was proposed to utilization of a multivariate interest model to nonstructural components communicating necessities as far as both interstory floats and floor speed increase spectra. A model was built through request vector insights got from the investigation of a construction's set number of inelastic reaction history examination. The model was then used to
334 work out quite a few extra interest vector
expected to gauge the probability of loss of capability accurately.
(Mandal et al., 2016) concentrated on the seismic delicacy development of essential restraint working of Indian 700 MWe PHWR. He doing delicacy examination by you IDA focused approaches and customary procedure. By examination he recommended new relapse base strategy which is superior to traditional technique
Nikfar and Konstantinidis, (2016) played out an exploratory concentrate on the seismic reaction of clinical gear introduced on wheels or casters. Two kinds of gear were thought of, a significant ultrasound machine and truck conveying more modest clinical hardware for the investigation. The haggles of the gear were consolidated by a controlled uprooting technique on the shake table.
Dhakal et al. (2016) did investigate on SS components and building contents.
Since the 2010-2011 Canterbury quakes, which brought about huge closures and financial harm because of harm to SS parts and parts, concentration to seismic tremor examination and plan of SS parts and parts in structure has expanded essentially in New Zealand. Complete mathematical and computational examinations on the seismic investigation of roofs, veneers, drywall in fills, and building contents being directed out as a component of an arranged exploration concentrate on SS parts and design parts at the University of Canterbury.
(Gautham and Gopi Krishna, 2017) introducing the productivity of delicacy bends in show appraisal of primary frameworks. Working of different design and anomalies is viewed as in the review. He involved limit range technique for nonlinear static examination.
Lim et al (2017) analyzed the powerful reaction for multi-directional tremors of three upheld auxiliary frameworks utilizing huge scope tests, particularly for chose ground movements The twist of the essential design and the impact of the upward excitation were viewed as in the review. The exploratory outcomes showed that when multi- directional excitations were taken in the examination more number of reaction
boundaries ought to be thought about for the evalution of the nonstructural parts.
Skillet, Zheng and Wang (2017) further developed modular weakling investigation was utilized to make the floor reaction spectra. The utilization of floor reaction spectra (FRS) was a normal way to examination of SS parts against tremor ground movement. Just a nonlinear time-history development of the structure exposed to a given quake ground movement can exactly decide FRS.
Lim and Chouw, (2018) concentrated on reaction of the helper frameworks under the seismic stacking considering essential auxiliary construction connection utilizing 130 tests. The focal point of exploration was the reaction to effect and consonant burdens on essential and optional designs.
Derakhshan et al., (2019) concentrated on seismic delicacy examination of nonstructural part in unreinforced dirt block stone work building. He portions delicacy of railings, fireplaces and stacked veneers of low ascent pre 1940 structures in New Zealand and Australia.
Derakhshan et al., (2019) concentrated on the likelihood of quake harm to non-underlying unreinforced workmanship (URM). The parts contain railings, smokestacks, of low-ascent pre 1940 design in Australia and New Zealand. The examination was centered around a constituent plan road evaluation, in-situ mechanical property information, and easier mechanical models.
Jiang et al.,(2021) determined a strategy for making floor reaction spectra (FRS) by considering the effect of soil structure collaboration in light of the base method.
2.2 Performance of Base Isolation P-S System Including Different Technique for Obtaining the Seismic Response of Isolated P-S System
Kelly and Tsai, (1985) concentrated on the presentation of light hardware mounted on base segregated structures. They performed both insightful and trial concentrates on base confined PS framework and inferred that the base disconnection strategy with lead plug
335 significantly diminished the reaction of
light interior gear's. The test was performed on a (I) fixed base; (ii) base segregated by elastomeric bearing without lead fitting and (iii) base detached by elastomeric holding on for lead plug. As the essential framework over the detachment moves similar as an inflexible body, all help points of the funneling framework along the numerous accounts have practically a similar removal and the effect of various help excitation was limited. Utilization of the detachment for the entire structure would limit the expense of the plan for gear and channeling frameworks and work on the security of the hardware.
Tsai and Kelly, (1988) performed dynamic examination of inner gear fitted inside a base detached outline. The utilization of base detachment not just diminished the reaction of an essential primary framework yet additionally limited the reaction of an optional framework introduced on or inside the fundamental design.
Tsai and Kelly, (1989) played out a modular investigation of the base- disengaged PS framework. As indicated by the review, thought of the principal method of the base confined structure didn't just limit the reaction time history of the superstructure, yet additionally limited the reaction history of high recurrence connections. They performed bother investigation of a base-segregated construction to examine the reaction of the superstructure and connected hardware.
Dolce and Cardone, (2003) talked about various kinds of base detachment frameworks which were utilized for decreasing the time history of the light auxiliary framework. They talked about advantages and hindrances of different sorts of segregation strategies which were utilized to safeguard inward gear and part inside the structure during tremor. Inside the MANSIDE (Memory Alloys for New Seismic Isolation Devices) project, the expansive exploratory program of shake table tests was completed on decreased scale RCC primary models.
Malushte and Whittaker, (2005) did an overview of the utilization of base confinement method utilized in thermal energy station and enterprises. The
exploration gave a survey of past applications for seismic base separation and studies pertinent to atomic applications and addressed the hindrance that was fundamental to be defeated to increment industry and administrative endorsement for execution in potential US thermal energy stations.
Huang, (2007) played out the seismic examination of the auxiliary frameworks in base-disconnected thermal energy stations. They concentrated on seventeen mathematical models of a decent endlessly base disconnected thermal energy station (NPP) reactor building.
3 CONCLUDED REMARK
From the writing audit it is obvious that the writing on the exploration completed on the seismic reaction of P-S framework is tremendous. A few condition of workmanship papers regarding the matter, particularly corresponding to the atomic business, have been distributed.
The auxiliary frameworks considered in the writing included funneling frameworks, hardware's, multi upheld nonstructural components and so on. An extensive variety of the arrangement technique for the reaction investigation has been introduced for the seismic reaction examination of P-S framework.
Further, various kinds of isolator gadgets for both essential and auxiliary frameworks were utilized and the seismic examination of P-S framework had been depicted. Regardless of the gigantic exploration did on the seismic reaction of P-S framework, the examination is as yet forging ahead with the subject.
The current survey of writing uncovers that there is an absence of concentrates on a couple of points, for example:
I) Seismic reaction examination of P-S framework under multi part quakes, particularly for multi upheld funneling framework.
II) Seismic way of behaving of optional frameworks mounted on base secluded essential framework under multi part quake, particularly to concentrate on the impact of isolator on the reaction of the auxiliary framework in the upward heading.
336 III) Relative ways of behaving of P-S
framework under all over field quakes IV) Seismic ways of behaving of base
disconnected P-S framework under multi part tremors under low to outrageous level quakes.
V) Performance assessment of vibratory gear's intended for various degrees of contagiousness under quakes.
Keeping the fore referenced research hole, the targets of the current work have been planned.
REFERENCES
1. Adam, C. and Fotiu, P. A. (2000) “Dynamic analysis of inelastic primary-secondary systems”, Engineering Structures, 22(1), pp.
58–71. DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00073- X.
2. Agrawal, A. K. (2000) “Behaviour of equipment mounted over a torsionally coupled structure with sliding support”, Engineering Structures, 22, pp. 72–84.
3. Agrawal, A. K. and Datta, T. K. (1998)
“Seismic responce of a secondary system mounted on a torsionally coupled non-linear primary system”, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 2(3). Doi:
10.1080/13632469809350326.
4. Agrawal, A. K. and Datta, T. K. (1999)
“Seismic behavior of a secondary system on a yielding torsionally coupled primary system”, JSEE, 2(1).
5. Burdisso, R. A. and Singh, M. P. (1987)
“Seismic analysis of multiply supported secondary systems with dynamic interaction effects”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 15(8), pp. 1005–1022. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.4290150807.
6. Bhargava, K., Ghosh, A.K., Agrawal, M.K., Patnaik, R., Ramanujam, S., Kushwaha, H.S., 2002. “Evaluation of seismic fragility of structures - A case study”. Nucl. Eng. Des.
212, 253–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029- 5493(01)00491-5
7. Calvi, G.M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J.J., Restrepo-Vélez, L.F., Crowley, H., 2006.
“Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years”. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 43, 75–104.
8. Chaudhuri, S. R. and Gupta, V. K. (2002)
“Variability in seismic response of secondary systems due to uncertain soil properties”, Engineering Structures, 24(12), pp. 1601–
1613. Doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00103-7.
9. Camensig, C., Bresesti, L., Clementel, S., Salvetti, M., 1997. “Seismic risk evaluation for high voltage air insulated substations”.
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 55, 179–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951- 8320(96)00107-X
10. Chaudhuri, S. R. and K., G. V. (2002) “A response-based decoupling criterion for multiply-supported secondary systems”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31(8), pp. 1541–1562. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.175.
11. Contento, A. and Di Egidio, A. (2014) “On the use of base isolation for the protection of rigid bodies placed on a multi-storey frame under seismic excitation”, Engineering Structures.
Elsevier Ltd, 62–63, pp. 1–10. DOI:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.019.
12. Derakhshan, H., Walsh, K.Q., Ingham, J.M., Griffith, M.C., Thambiratnam, D.P., 2019.
Seismic fragility assessment of nonstructural components in unreinforced clay brick masonry buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
49, 285–300.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3238
13. Dey, A. and Gupta, V. K. (1999) “Stochastic seismic response of multiply-supported secondary systems in flexible-base structures”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28(4), pp. 351–369.
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-
9845(199904)28:4<351::AID- EQE821>3.0.CO;2-S.
14. Dimova, S.L., Hirata, K., 2000. Simplified seismic fragility analysis of structures with two types of friction devices. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 29, 1153–1175.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1096- 9845(200008)29:8<1153::AID- EQE961>3.0.CO;2-Y
15. Dolce, M. and Cardone, D. (2003) “Seismic protection of light secondary systems through different base isolation systems”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering ISSN: 2469. DOI:
10.1080/13632460309350447.
16. Fan, F. G. and Ahmadi, G. (1992) “Seismic responses of secondary systems in base- isolated structures”, Engineering Structures, 14(1), pp. 35–48. DOI: 10.1016/0141- 0296(92)90006-C.
17. Farhan, M., Bousias, S., 2020. Seismic fragility analysis of LNG sub-plant accounting for component dynamic interaction. Bull.
Earthq. Eng. 18, 5063–5085.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00896- y
18. Filiatrault, A. et al. (2018) “Performance- Based Seismic Design of Nonstructural Building Elements”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Taylor & Francis, 00(00), pp. 1–
33. DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2018.1512910.
19. Firoozabad, E. S. et al. (2015) “Seismic fragility analysis of seismically isolated nuclear power plants piping system”, Nuclear Engineering and Design. Elsevier B.V., 284,
pp. 264–279. DOI:
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.12.012.
20. Furtmuller, T. (2008) “Seismic response of secondary structures mounted on ductile frames”, Applied Math, 8, pp. 10273–10274.
DOI: 10.1002/pamm.200810273.
21. G. Juhn And G. D. Manolis (1992) “Stochastic Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Secondary System in Base isolated Structures”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 159, pp. 207–222.
22. Gautham, A., Gopi Krishna, K., 2017.
Fragility Analysis - A Tool to Assess Seismic Performance of Structural Systems. Mater.
Today Proc. 4, 10565–10569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.06.42 1
337 23. Gupta, A. and Gupta, A. K. (1997) “Seismic
response of tuned single degree of freedom secondary systems”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 172, pp. 3–9.
24. Hernried, A. G. and Jeng, H. (1987) “Dynamic response of secondary systems in structures subjected to ground shock or impact”, Engineering Structures, 9(1), pp. 19–26. DOI:
10.1016/0141-0296(87)90036-8.
25. Huang, Y.-N. A. S. W. M. C. C. S. M. (2007)
“Seismic demands on secondary systems in base-isolated nuclear power plants”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(11), pp. 1549–1568. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.
26. Hwang, H.H.M., Huo, J.R., 1998. Seismic fragility analysis of electric substation equipment and structures. Probabilistic Eng.
Mech. 13, 107–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0266- 8920(97)00017-9
27. Jeon, B. et al. (2014) “Seismic fragility evalution of base isolated nuclear power plant”, ICTWS2014-0901; SEISMIC, (May 2015).
28. Juhn, B. G. and Manolis, G. D. (1993)
“Experimental study of secondary system in base-isolated structure”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol., 118(8), pp.
2204–2221.
29. Juhn, G., Manolis, G. D. and Constantinou, M. C. (1992) “Stochastic response of secondary systems in base-isolated structures”, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 7, pp. 91–102.
30. Jiang, W et al (2021) “Direct Method for Generating Floor Response Spectra Considering Soil Structure Interaction”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2020.1852137
31. Kelly, J. M. and Tsai, H.-C. (1985) “Seismic response of light subsystems on inelasitc structures”, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 13, pp. 711–732.
32. Kennedy, R., 1984. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 79, 47–68.
33. Kennedy, R.P., Cornell, C.A., Campbell, R.D., Kaplan, S., Perla, H.F., 1980. Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant. Nucl. Eng. Des. 59, 315–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0029- 5493(80)90203-4
34. Khechfe, H. et al. (2002) “An experimental study on the seismic response of base- isolated secondary systems”, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Transactions of the ASME, 124(1), pp. 81–88. DOI:
10.1115/1.1445795.
35. Kim, S. et al. (2018) “Seismic fragility evaluation of the base-isolated nuclear power plant piping system using the failure criterion based on stress-strain”, Nuclear Engineering and Technology. Elsevier Ltd. DOI:
10.1016/j.net.2018.10.006.
36. Kim, Y. S. and Lee, D. G. (1993) “Seismic response of support-isolated secondary structures in a multistorey structure”, Engineering Structures, 15(5), pp. 335–347.
DOI: 10.1016/0141-0296(93)90037-5.
37. Lee, M. ‐C and Penzien, J. (1983) “Stochastic analysis of structures and piping systems subjected to stationary multiple support excitations”, Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 11(1), pp. 91–110. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.4290110108.
38. Lim, E. and Chouw, N. (2014) “Experimental investigation of the interacting force at the primary-secondary structure interface”, 6th International Conference, (April 2015).
39. Lim, E. and Chouw, N. (2015) “Review of Approaches for Analysing Secondary Structures in Earthquakes and Evaluation of Floor Response Spectrum Approach”, International Journal of Protective Structures, 6(2), pp. 237–257. DOI:
10.1260/2041-4196.6.2.237.
40. Lim, E. and Chouw, N. (2018) “Prediction of the response of secondary structures under dynamic loading considering primary–
secondary structure interaction”, Advances in Structural Engineering, 21(14), pp. 2143–
2153. DOI: 10.1177/1369433218768563.
41. Lim, E., Jiang, L. and Chouw, N. (2017)
“Dynamic response of a non-structural component with three supports in multi- directional earthquakes”, Engineering Structures. Elsevier Ltd, 150, pp. 143–152.
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.028.
42. Lin, B. J., Mahin, S. A. and Asce, M. (1985)
“Seismic responce of light subsystems on inelastic structure”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(19504), pp. 400–417.
43. Lucchini, A., Franchin, P. and Mollaioli, F.
(2015) “Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling‟, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, (056), pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.
44. Malushte, S. R. and Whittaker, A. S. (2005)
“Survey of past base isolation applications in nuclear power plants and challenges to industry/regulatory acceptance”, 18th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 18), (SMiRT 18), pp. 3404–3410.
45. Mandal, T.K., Ghosh, S., Pujari, N.N., 2016.
Seismic fragility analysis of a typical Indian PHWR containment: Comparison of fragility models. Struct. Saf. 58, 11–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.08.0 03
46. Nikfar, F. and Konstantinidis, D. (2016)
“Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, (056), pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.
47. Ozaki, M., Okazaki, A., Tomomoto, K., Iba, T., Satoh, R., Nanba, H., Seya, H., Moriyama, K., Ugata, T., 1998. Improved response factor methods for seismic fragility of reactor building. Nucl. Eng. Des. 185, 277–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029- 5493(98)00237-4
48. Pardalopoulos, S. I. P. J. (2014) “Seismic response of nonstructural components attached on multistorey buildings”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(11), pp. 1549–1568. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.
49. Pisharady, A.S., Basu, P.C., 2010. Methods to derive seismic fragility of NPP components: A
338 summary. Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 3878–3887.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.0 8.002
50. Porter, K., Johnson, G., Sheppard, R., Bachman, R., 2010. Fragility of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing Equipment. Earthq.
Spectra 26, 451–472.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3363847.
51. Quilligan, A., O’Connor, A., Pakrashi, V., 2012. Fragility analysis of steel and concrete wind turbine towers. Eng. Struct. 36, 270–
282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.12 .013.
52. Saouma, V.E., Hariri-Ardebili, M.A., 2019.
Seismic capacity and fragility analysis of an ASR-affected nuclear containment vessel structure. Nucl. Eng. Des. 346, 140–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.0 2.011.
53. Shin, T. M. and Kim, K. J. (1997) “Seismic response of submerged secondary systems in base-isolated structures”, Engineering Structures, 19(6), pp. 452–464. DOI:
10.1016/S0141-0296(96)00090-9.
54. Singh, A. K. and Ang, A. S. (1974) “Stochastic prediction of maximum seismic response of light secondary system”, Nuclear Engineering and Design.
55. Singh, M. P. (1988) “Review Paper”, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 3(3), pp.
151–158.
56. Singh, M. P. and Burdisso, R. A. (1987)
“Multiply supported secondary systems part I:
Response spectrum analysis”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 15(1), pp. 53–72. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290150105.
57. Singh, M. P., Burdisso, R. A. and Maldonado, G. O. (1992) “Methods Used for Calculating Seismic Response of Multiply Supported Piping Systems”, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 114 (February 1992).
58. Singhal, A., Kiremidjian, A.S., 1996. Method for Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Structural Damage By Ajay Singhal and Anne S. Kiremidjian 1. J Struct. Eng. 122, 1459–
1467.
59. Sone, A. et al. (2011) “Seismic response analysis of multiple supported piping system considering friction characteristics of support”, Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference, 1, pp. 1–10.
60. Suarez, L. E. and Singh, M. P. (1987)
“Seismic response of SDF
equipment‐structure, system”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 113(1), pp. 16–30.
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-
9399(1987)113:1(16).
61. Tsai, H. ‐C and Kelly, J. M. (1988)
“Non‐classical damping in dynamic analysis of base‐isolated structures with internal equipment”, Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 16(1), pp. 29–43. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.4290160104.
62. Tsai, H. ‐C and Kelly, J. M. (1989) “Seismic response of the superstructure and attached equipment in a base‐isolated building”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 18(4), pp. 551–564. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.4290180409.
63. Vanzi, I., 1996. Seismic reliability of electric power networks: Methodology and application. Struct. Saf. 18, 311–327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167- 4730(96)00024-0.
64. Villaverde, R. (1997) “Seismic design of secondary structures: State of the art”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(August), pp. 1011–1019.
65. Whittaker, A. S., Sollogoub, P. and Kim, M. K.
(2018) “Seismic isolation of nuclear power plants: Past, present and future”, Nuclear Engineering and Design. Elsevier, 338(May),
pp. 290–299. DOI:
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2018.07.025.
66. Zentner, I., 2010. Numerical computation of fragility curves for NPP equipment. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 240, 1614–1621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.0 2.030.
67. Zentner, I., Gündel, M., Bonfils, N., 2016.
Fragility analysis methods: Review of existing approaches and application. Nucl. Eng. Des.
323, 245–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.1 2.021.
68. Zentner, I., Humbert, N., Ravet, S., Viallet, E., 2011. Numerical methods for seismic fragility analysis of structures and components in nuclear industry - Application to a reactor coolant system. Georisk 5, 99–109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1749951100363051 2.
69. Kang Yuan, Dan Gan, Junlin Guo, Wenjie Xu,
“Hybrid geotechnical and structural seismic isolation: Shake table tests”, Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 2021; 50: 3184–3200.
70. Lei Qi, Xuansheng Cheng, Qiankun Zhu and Shanglong Zhang, “Seismic characteristics of isolated plate-shell integrated concrete LSS”, European Journal of Environmental and Civil
Engineering, 2021, DOI:
10.1080/19648189.2021.1955748.
71. Pınar Usta, “Investigation of a Base-Isolator System’s Effects on the Seismic Behavior of a Historical Structure”, Buildings 2021, 11, 217.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11050217.
72. Amir M.A. and N.H. Hamid, “Hysteresis Loops of Base Isolation System - An Overview”, 2021 Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland.
73. Chunwei Zhang, Amir Ali, Li Sun,
“Investigation on low-cost friction-based isolation systems for masonry building structures: Experimental and numerical studies”, Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112645.
