Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343

Investigation upon the dynamic structural response

of a nuclear plant on aseismic isolating devices
I. Micheli a,∗ , S. Cardini a , A. Colaiuda b , P. Turroni b
a Ansaldo Energia Nuclear Division I-16161 Genova, Italy
b ENEA Accelerator Driven System Project I-40129 Bologna, Italy
Received 29 January 2002; received in revised form 16 June 2003; accepted 23 June 2003

Abstract
The behaviour of a special isolating system for the Nuclear Island of an ADS Plant is here analysed, with a preliminary
assessment of base isolation main effects on the building response to a typical earthquake excitation.
After a general description of isolators and main principles of seismic isolation, the attention is focused upon the HDRB
isolator and its major applications to date.
The application to the ADS Plant is investigated through an iterative approach combining the results from a three-dimensional
finite element model and simplified by-hand calculations taking into account the typical non-linear characteristics of considered
isolators.
The analysis results allow a comparison between the NI building seismic response for a basemat on classical foundations and
for two different types of isolators. The comparison is focused on the acceleration floor response spectra evaluated at the reactor
support level, a basic concern in the main vessel seismic design.
Given results highlight the drastic reduction of considered floor accelerations as the base isolation major effect.
The criteria presently recommended for the stability of isolated buildings are also verified.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. ADS Nuclear facility a synthetic view of the reactor vessel and main con-
nected components.
The accelerator driven system (ADS) is a hybrid
reactor, basically consisting of an ion-beam acceler-
ator and of a subcritical fast reactor, immersed in an 2. Seismic isolators
eutectic alloy Pb–Bi (the primary coolant) with an or-
2.1. Basic principles of seismic isolation
ganic synthetic oil as secondary coolant. Its design is
currently developed in Europe as an innovative and
Seismic isolation is one of the most significant en-
inherently safe concept for nuclear high-level waste
gineering developments in recent years: several exam-
management and advanced power generation.
ples of application to bridges, non-nuclear plants and
A sketch of the present reference configuration of
structures already exist in highly seismic areas, like
the ADS facility is given by Fig. 1, while Fig. 2 shows
Japan, California and European countries (like Italy,
Greece and Portugal).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-10-655-8597. Unlike the conventional design approach, which is
E-mail address: micheli@ansaldo.it (I. Micheli). based upon an increased resistance (strengthening) of

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2003.06.028
320 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
Fig. 1. ADS facility reference configuration.
the structures, the seismic isolation concept is aimed
at a significant reduction of dynamic loads induced by
the earthquake at the base of the structures themselves.
This concept has proven especially reliable for the
prevention of damage to non-structural members and
inner equipment (like typically existing in nuclear
plants).
Seismic isolation is obtained by means of an inser-
tion of special devices (the “isolators”) between the
base of the structure and its foundations.
Isolators must have a high flexibility, so as to move
the fundamental periods of the main structure well be-
yond the range associated to the soil motion ampli-
fication (see Fig. 3). This can be easily achieved for
medium or hard soils, whereas more attention is to be
paid for applications on soft soils.
As a result, the soil excitation is filtered and ac-
celerations at the base of the structure are drastically
reduced.
In principle, a structure may be isolated in both
horizontal and vertical directions: at present, however,
seismic isolation is usually limited to horizontal direc-
tions. The main reason is that seismic loads are gen-
erally lower in the vertical direction (due to lower soil
excitation levels and to a reduced amplification across
the structure); also, 3D isolation design is complicated
by the rocking modes of vibration potentially arising
in the isolated structure.
The strong reduction in structural accelerations re-
sults in large rigid-body displacements, which are to
be limited by means of dissipating elements, leading to
significant increases of structural damping (see Fig. 4).
Isolators should also have a high self-centering ca-
pability, i.e. the capability of carrying back the iso-
lated structure to its initial position after each peak of
seismic excitation, a safety feature to face potential
earthquake aftershocks.
Finally, the horizontal stiffness of isolation devices,
which is quite low at large excitations, should be, on
the contrary, high enough at low excitations, as typi-
cally induced by small earthquakes or winds, in order
to avoid troublesome vibrations in case of such rela-
tively frequent events.
The basic principles of seismic isolation have been
successfully integrated in the high damping rubber
bearing (HDRB), a recently developed 2D isolator,
I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 321

Fig. 2. ADS nuclear reactor vessel and main components.

322 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
Fig. 3. Acceleration response spectrum as a function of damping
(from Eurocodes EC8 for ground acceleration 0.8 g and medium
soil).
which has been selected for the base isolation of the
ADS Nuclear Island.
2.2. HDRB main features
The HDRB is a steel-laminated bearing consisting
of alternating layers of rubber and steel plates bonded
by vulcanisation: it is able to support high vertical
loads with negligible deflection, still providing an ef-
ficient isolation with respect to the horizontal seismic
excitation (Marioni, 1998) (see Fig. 5).
This device is very efficient as regards both filtering
and dissipation functions, the main effects of which
are:
Fig. 5. Typical high damping rubber bearing.
Fig. 4. Displacement response spectrum as a function of damping
(from Eurocodes EC8 for ground acceleration 0.8 g and medium
soil).
• the fundamental frequency of the isolated structure
is shifted to the low range (most commonly between
0.3 and 1 Hz), where the seismic motion energy is
generally quite low (Marioni, 1998);
• the structure’s accelerations and displacements in
case of large earthquakes are further reduced by
means of a significant energy dissipation.
The main specific characteristics of the HDRB iso-
lator are:
• a high damping capability due to a large area of the
hysteresis loop (see Fig. 6): the equivalent viscous
damping is usually not less than 10% of the critical
one;
Fig. 6. Typical load/deflection plot of a HDRB.
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
• a high horizontal stiffness at low excitations (corre-
sponding to low shear strain values), so as to min-
imise the effects of frequently occurring events (like
wind loads): the wind control region of shear strain
is 2–5%, as the earthquake region is 50–125%;
• the horizontal stiffness, quite low in the isolator
normal operating range, increases again for shear
strains exceeding 200%, which is useful to prevent
excessive rigid-body displacements of the isolated
structure, for extremely strong earthquakes;
• a very high vertical stiffness, in order to withstand
deadweight and vertical seismic loads, as well as to
prevent rocking movements during seismic excita-
tion;
• a highly proven and good self-centring capability
with a “fail-safe system” as an option, an ultimate
safety feature to withstand vertical loads in case of
failure due to extremely strong earthquakes: this op-
tion is required, unless it can be shown by quali-
fication tests that isolators are able to support the
structure under seismic loads as high as five times
the SSE loads;
• the fixation to the structure, not based on friction
but on positive connections, like recesses or dowels
(type A) or bolt joints (type E), see Fig. 7: in type
A, the rubber does not undergo tensile stresses but
Fig. 7. HDRB with fixation by recess (type A) or by bolts (type E).
323
shear strain may be limited; in type E, the shear
strain is not limited but the rubber compound must
have high mechanical properties to withstand tensile
stresses;
• a mean lifetime of not less than 60 years.
The stiffness and damping characteristics of the
HDRB isolators depend on the rubber compound
modulus, bearing plan dimensions, height and number
of layers. The allowable maximum vertical and hor-
izontal displacements depend on the anchor system
as well.
Three types of HDRB isolators are currently pro-
duced:
(a) the HDS, fabricated from soft rubber compound;
(b) the HDN, fabricated from normal rubber com-
pound;
(c) the HDH, fabricated from hard rubber compound.
The isolator horizontal stiffness k is related to the
rubber G modulus by the equation:
GA
k= (1)
Te
where A is the isolator normal cross section and Te
the isolator total net rubber thickness.
324 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343

Fig. 8. (a) HDS isolators G modulus (MPa) vs. shear strain (%); (b) HDS isolators damping ratio vs. shear strain (%).

On the other hand, the equivalent viscous damping
ξ is defined by the relationship:
Ah
ξ= (2)
(2πkδ2h )
where Ah is the area of the hysteresis loop (see Fig. 6),
k is the isolator horizontal stiffness defined by (1) and
δh is the design horizontal displacement.
G modulus and damping ratio values are given as
functions of shear strain percent in following Figs. 8
and 9, respectively for HDS and HDH isolators, the
two types taken into account in the ADS Nuclear Is-
land application.
These characteristics have been drawn from exper-
imental tests on reduced-scale isolators.
It is shown that the G modulus, nearly constant for
shear strains of 100–200% (about 0.4 and 1.4 N/mm2 ,
for soft and hard compound, respectively) is several
times higher for lower shear strains. Correspondingly,
the equivalent viscous damping changes very little for
shear strains between 20 and 100%, being about 10%
of the critical damping for the HDS and 15% for the
HDH.
Tables 1a and 1b give main dimensions (with sym-
bols from Fig. 7) and main design parameters for
HDRB isolators of type A with soft rubber compound
(HDS) or hard rubber compound (HDH) (Algasism,
1998).
2.3. Isolation design criteria
The isolating system is to be designed to withstand
static and dynamic loads in order to ensure the stabil-
ity of the isolated building for any design load com-
bination.
Isolators should be at least located under load con-
centration zones such as main walls. Also, for an easy
in-service inspection, they should be installed on con-
crete pedestals in a dedicated gap between a lower and
an upper basemat, at an adequate mutual distance.

Fig. 9. (a) HDH isolators G modulus (MPa) vs. shear strain (%); (b) HDH isolators damping ratio vs. shear strain (%).
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 325

Table 1a
Dimensions and properties of HDS.A isolators
HDS.A Vertical load Displacement Horizontal stiffness at Te total rubber thickness (mm)
maximum, Fz (kN) maximum, V (mm) 100% strain, Kh (kN/mm)
D H B Te

HDS.A 300 350 112 0.35 300 177 380 80

HDS.A 400 850 146 0.48 400 210 480 104
HDS.A 500 1750 179 0.61 500 243 580 128
HDS.A 600 2000 218 0.72 600 274 680 156
HDS.A 700 3200 252 0.86 700 326 800 180
HDS.A 800 4800 280 0.99 800 374 900 204
HDS.A 900 7700 280 1.25 900 374 1000 204
HDS.A 1000 9200 280 1.50 1000 398 1140 210
HDS.A 1100 12000 280 1.81 1100 398 1240 210
HDS.A 1200 15000 280 2.15 1200 398 1340 210

Moreover, the best-fit isolator layout should min-
imise the global torsion mode of the supported
structure, so as to get nearly uniform horizontal dis-
placements. This can be achieved by aligning the
stiffness centre of the isolation system as closely as
possible to the projection of the centre of mass of the
isolated structure onto the plane of the isolators.
The criteria currently adopted in the seismic base
isolation design are the following (Ingegneria Sismica,
1997; Contract, 1998):
(a) the differential displacement between top and
bottom of isolators due to seismic load, should
not exceed 3Te , Te being the isolator total rubber
thickness;
(b) the isolator layout eccentricity, i.e., the distance
between the global axis of gravity and the isolator
centre of stiffness should be less than 0.05Dmax ,
Dmax being the maximum horizontal dimension;
(c) no tension load is allowed on any isolator of
above defined type A for any load combination
due to dead-weight, earthquake or accidental load
(verification against the uplift);
(d) the overall mass associated to considered modes
in the spectral analysis for horizontal excitation
should not be less than 90% of the total building
mass.
2.4. HDRB major applications
The HDRB isolators have already been employed
in the aseismic design of several important civil and
industrial buildings and structures. Among the most
impressive applications to date (Marioni, 1998):
(a) the Telecom Centre in Ancona (Italy), see Fig. 10a
and b;

Table 1b
Dimensions and properties of HDH.A isolators
HDH.A Vertical load Displacement Horizontal stiffness at Te total rubber thickness (mm)
maximum, Fz (kN) maximum, V (mm) 100% strain, Kh (kN/mm)
D H B Te

HDH.A 300 1000 112 1.24 300 177 380 80

HDH.A 400 1850 146 1.69 400 210 480 104
HDH.A 500 2900 179 2.15 500 243 580 128
HDH.A 600 4200 218 2.54 600 274 680 156
HDH.A 700 5700 252 2.99 700 326 800 180
HDH.A 800 7500 280 3.45 800 374 900 204
HDH.A 900 9500 280 4.37 900 374 1000 204
HDH.A 1000 11000 280 5.24 1000 398 1140 210
HDH.A 1100 14000 280 6.34 1100 398 1240 210
HDH.A 1200 16000 280 7.54 1200 398 1340 210
326 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343

Fig. 10. (a) Ancona Telecom Centre building; (b) details of the HDRB isolator.
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 327

Fig. 11. (a) Corinth canal bridge under construction; (b) HDRB sketch for Corinth canal bridge.

(b) the Corinth Canal Bridge (Greece), see Fig. 11a (d) the Riace’s Bronzes in Reggio Calabria (Italy), see
and b; Fig. 13a and b;
(c) the chemical plant in Visp (Switzerland), see (e) the bridge over Tagus River in Santarem (Portu-
Fig. 12a and b; gal), see Fig. 14a–c.
328 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343

Fig. 12. (a) Visp chemical plant: base isolated tank; (b) details of the HDRB.

3. Application to ADS Nuclear Island
3.1. Scope of the application and isolator layout
The application of HDRB isolator for the base iso-
lation of the ADS Nuclear Island is essentially aimed
at the maximum possible reduction of the horizontal
seismic excitation, which represents the sizing load
with respect to the structural design of the reactor main
vessel and components.
The general arrangement of the ADS NI buildings
is schematically shown in Fig. 15.
Fig. 16 gives a section view of the assumed isolator
layout below the NI upper basemat.
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 329

Fig. 13. (a) The maquette of a Riace’s Bronze on its antiseismic support during tests; (b) details of the segmented HDRB.
330 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343

Fig. 14. (a) The bridge over Tagus River in Santarem, central part; (b) bridge over Tagus River: piers of an access span; (c) bridge over
Tagus River: disposition of the HDRB on the piers of the main span.

3.2. FEM model
The 3D finite element model of the building struc-
tures was built up by means of ANSYS Computer
Program (Swanson Analysis System Inc., 1995) (see
Figs. 17–19). The auxiliary buildings were represented
through simplified stick models (by means of beam
elements), whereas the reactor building was simulated
by shell elements and the reactor containment wall by
solid brick elements. The main component, the reactor
vessel supported by the containment, was represented
by a simplified beam model reproducing the main hor-
izontal mode of vibration. The interface connections
between the auxiliary buildings and the basemat, as
well as between the building walls and the upper base-
mat were simulated like rigid links, by means of the
node “master-slave” option of ANSYS.
The isolating devices were represented by springs at
267 selected locations at elevation −14.50, below the
upper basemat (see Fig. 20). The springs simulate the
isolator flexibility in both horizontal directions, while
no flexibility was assumed in the vertical direction.
In a simplified approach, the soil/structure interac-
tion was taken into account by means of six springs,
representing the global soil stiffness along each con-
sidered degree of freedom, as evaluated by means
of the method of “soil impedance” recommended by
ASCE Standards (ASCE, 1986). The soil springs free
I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 331

Fig. 15. ADS Nuclear Island buildings general arrangement.

332 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
Fig. 17. ADS Nuclear Island ANSYS 3D finite element model.
ends are rigidly connected to a single massive node
representing the lower basemat: the connection be-
tween lower and upper basemat through the base iso-
lation is simulated by means of master-slave options
between the lower basemat node and the bottom ends
of isolators.
The ANSYS global model of the ADS Nuclear Is-
land with seismic base isolation has a total of 14817
active degrees of freedom.
The building seismic response has been investi-
gated through a modal spectrum analysis: the seismic
excitation, corresponding to the SSE load, was simu-
lated by means of the EUR free-field design response
spectra (Figs. 21 and 22) scaled to a ZPA acceleration
of 0.25 g along each global direction (EUR, 2001).
3.3. Choice of isolators
Two types of isolators were investigated in the dy-
namic analysis of ADS building:
(a) HDS.A900, with Kh = 1.25 kN/mm.
(b) HDH.A800, with Kh = 3.45 kN/mm.
Kh being the isolator horizontal stiffness at 100%
shear strain (Algasism, 1998).
HDS (HDH) isolators are fabricated from a soft
(hard) compound rubber. The choice of HDS.A900
and HDH.A800 is related to the need of keeping the
maximum vertical load on each isolator under the spe-
cific nominal limit, for each load combination taken
into account. In this case, the combined maximum
vertical load is given by the dead load plus the ver-
tical component of the earthquake load (which is not
reduced by the 2D devices here investigated).
From the non-isolated building modal analysis,
the maximum vertical acceleration associated to
the global vertical mode is about 4.33 m/s2 (in the
most pessimistic case of soft soil, with 97.5% of
the overall mass answering at the first vertical fre-
quency of 2.64 Hz). In this case, with a downward
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
Fig. 18. ADS Nuclear Island ANSYS 3D finite element model section along YY.
seismic vertical excitation, the total vertical accel-
eration, to be conservatively applied to the whole
building, is thus 14.14 m/s2 . As the overall building
mass is 106,150 t, the overall vertical load to be sup-
ported by isolators is about 1500 MN (in the worst
case).
With an isolator layout as shown in Fig. 20 and
a uniform load distribution on the 267 bearings, the
average vertical load on each isolator is then about
5620 kN.
Isolators referred to as HDS.A900 and HDH.A800
have maximum allowed vertical loads of 7700 and
7500 kN, respectively (see Tables 1a and 1b). This en-
sures a minimum 30% margin against extra-loads due
to the non-uniform distribution and the moderate ec-
centricity of the isolator overall stiffness with respect
to the global axis of gravity.
For the considered buildings, these isolators should
be equipped with the fail-safe system mentioned in
Section 2.2.
333
3.4. Dynamic response of the isolation system
The dynamic analysis of the NI buildings with base
isolation is based on the following procedure:
(a) calculation by hand of main horizontal isolation
frequency through the equation:
√
(K/M)
fi = (3)
2π
M being the total mass of the isolated building and
K the global horizontal stiffness of the isolating
system;
(b) verification of the expected isolation frequency by
means of a finite element model of the building
and evaluation of the mean isolator horizontal dis-
placement and associated shear strain and efficient
stiffness;
(c) subsequent iterative calculation of isolator dis-
placement and stiffness until convergence is
reached.
334 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343

cent shear strains (εs =100δh /Te ) from maximum and

Fig. 19. ADS Nuclear Island ANSYS 3D finite element model—
structures inside reactor wall.
For both selected types of isolator, the first-approach
theoretical isolation frequency is evaluated by the hor-
izontal stiffness at 100% shear strain:
(a) for isolators HDS.A900, fi ∼
= 0.28 Hz, as K =
Kh N ∼= 334 kN/mm and M ∼ = 106150 t;
(b) for isolators HDH.A800, fi ∼
= 0.47 Hz, as K ∼
= and 9);
921 kN/mm.
The actual dynamic response of the isolated build-
ing is checked by the ANSYS model: modal analysis
results show that the main horizontal frequencies, as
evaluated for the two considered isolation systems, are
in very good agreement with above theoretical values
(see Table 2).
Table 2 reports the average horizontal displacements
at the isolator locations (δh ) and corresponding per-
minimum SRSS horizontal displacements (combined
along X and Y) at isolator top faces as issued by AN-
SYS for a 3D earthquake load combination. It is to
be noted that horizontal displacements of an isolated
building are uniform only in the theoretical case of an
isolator stiffness centre on the vertical projection of
the global centre of mass, in which case the torsion
mode is not excited.
In this case, as, due to isolation, nearly 100% of
the building mass participates to a single mode (in
both X and Y-directions), a first-approach value of
the horizontal displacement due to earthquake may
be obtained from the first mode displacements (by
combining X and Y contributions). For the considered
building, only a minor error is brought about by an
interaction between the first mode along Y and the
torsion mode (see Section 4.1).
As the shear strain is lower than the assumed 100%,
an iterative process is needed to achieve convergence
between the assumed stiffness and the resulting shear
strain (linked by the non-linear relationships of Figs. 8
and 9).
The actual dynamic behaviour of selected isola-
tors is investigated by a simplified by-hand approach
through the following steps:
(a) an effective stiffness (Kh ) is drawn from diagrams
giving the stiffness variation of the considered
isolators with the shear strain percent (Figs. 8
(b) a corrected value of isolation frequency (fi ) is
then evaluated from Kh , by assuming a constant
mass participation to horizontal modes (same “M”
as in (3)), a good approach in cases like this,
with isolation frequencies far from soil/structure
interaction frequencies (not less than 2.1 Hz, even
for very soft soils, according to ASCE evaluation
methods);
(c) a corresponding new value of horizontal dis-
placement (δh ) and of the corresponding average

Table 2
Most significant response parameters for selected isolators
Isolator Te (mm) Kh (kN/mm) fi (Hz) δh (mm) εs (%) Kh (kN/mm)

HDS.A900 204 1.25 0.28/0.30 120.7 59.2 3.45

HDH.A800 204 3.45 0.46/0.49 86.9 42.6 5.40
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 335

Table 3
Actual dynamic behaviour of selected isolators on medium/hard soil
Isolator Kh (kN/mm) fi (Hz) εs (%) Kh∗ (kN/mm) fi∗ (Hz) ε∗s (%)

HDS.A900 3.45 0.47 46.2 ∼4.1 ∼0.51 ∼46

HDH.A800 5.40 0.59 39.4 ∼5.7 ∼0.60 ∼41

shear strain (εs ) may then be estimated from the
equation:
as
δh = 2 (4)
ωi
where ωi = 2πfi is the isolation circular frequency
(rad/s) and as the corresponding spectral acceler-
ation;
(d) subsequent iterations of above steps provide new
values of stiffness, isolation frequency and shear
strain for each considered isolator, until a satisfac-
tory convergence is reached: the final parameters
(Kh∗ , fi∗ and ε∗s ) are shown in following Table 3.
It is observed that above calculations were per-
formed for a building on medium or hard soil, but
main issues may be extrapolated to any soil stiffness.
In particular, the main isolation frequency is not af-
fected by the soil, as, for any soil, the global horizon-
tal stiffness of the isolating devices proves far lower
than the global soil stiffness (ANSALDO, 1999).
The only effect to be taken into account is related
to different free-field spectra associated to different
soils: it is observed that, at frequencies below 0.6 Hz,
EUR spectra for soft soils are higher than those for
medium or hard soils, thus inducing higher shear strain
and lower isolator stiffness. This is shown in Table 4,
which summarises main results of the by-hand esti-
mation of the actual behaviour of selected isolators on
soft soil.
3.5. Verification of the isolated buildings
The ANSYS dynamic analysis carried out on the
3D model of the ADS base-isolated NI has assessed
the adequacy of the isolating system with respect to
the design criteria of Section 2.3, all fulfilled in the
considered application, as:
(a) from the calculated maximum displacements, even
in the case of soft compound isolators on soft soil,
the maximum shear strain is below 100% (dis-
placements less than 3Te );
(b) the eccentricity associated to the assumed isolator
layout is about 1.46 m <3.85 m = 0.05Dmax ;
(c) a simplified approach may be used in this case for
the uplift verification, showing that the eccentric-
ity of the resultant earthquake load in the worst
case (for an upward directed vertical component
of seismic excitation) is well inside the basemat el-
lipsis of inertia; in the most pessimistic case (soft
soil) we have, in fact:
My
ex = = 238690/56028
N
∼
= 3.346 m < 16 Lx min ∼
= 12.83 m
Mx
ey = = 71334/56028
N
∼
= 1.273 m < 16 Ly min ∼
= 6.17 m,
where ex (ey ) are the eccentricities along X (Y),
Mx (My ) the rocking moments around X (Y), N is
the minimum vertical downward load on founda-
tions, Lxmin = 7 m, the minimum basemat length
along X, and Lymin = 37 m, the minimum base-
mat length along Y;
(d) the overall mass associated to the significant
modes retained for the seismic analysis proves
very close to 100% (far more than 90%) of the
total building mass on isolators.

Table 4
Actual dynamic behaviour of selected isolators on soft soil
Isolator Kh (kN/mm) fi (Hz) εs (%) Kh∗ (kN/mm) fi∗ (Hz) ε∗s (%)

HDS.A900 2.40 0.40 77.6 ∼2.4 ∼0.40 ∼77

HDH.A800 4.20 0.52 73.0 ∼4.3 ∼0.53 ∼70
336 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
Fig. 20. Considered layout of isolating devices.
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 337

EUR FRS - ENVELOPE SOIL (SOFT-HARD) EUR FRS - ENVELOPE SOIL (SOFT-HARD)
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION VERTICAL DIRECTION
4,0 4,5

3,5 4,0
Spectral acceleration [g]

Spectral acceleration [g]

3,0 3,5

Damping 2 % 3,0 Damping 2 %

2,5
Damping 5 % 2,5 Damping 5 %
2,0 Damping 10 %
2,0 Damping 10 %
1,5 Damping 40 % Damping 40 %
1,5
1,0
1,0
0,5 0,5
0,0 0,0
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0 0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

Fig. 21. EUR horizontal design response spectra (envelope between Fig. 22. EUR vertical design response spectra.
XX and YY directions).

the most impressive for foundations on hard soil

4. Analysis of seismic isolation main effects (the only type here considered in the case of seismic
isolators).
4.1. Considerations on modal results It is observed that all the results presented hereafter
for the cases with base isolation are those obtained
Table 5 summarises main issues of the ADS Nu- with the initial values for the isolator stiffness (see
clear Island modal analysis in the case of non-isolated Table 2), which have been kept in the ANSYS model as
foundations and for both considered types of isolation issuing isolation frequencies in the target range (about
(HDS or HDH isolators on hard soil). 0.3–0.5 Hz). The actual isolation frequency will be
From the point of view of the modal response, the adjusted through an adequate choice (number, type
most significant effect of the base isolation is rep- and location) of isolators after the final issue of the
resented by the significant frequency shift of main ADS Nuclear Island design.
horizontal modes: the frequency associated to a Nu- Lines 1 and 2 of Table 5 give frequency and mass
clear Island on seismic isolators is far lower than the participation of horizontal vessel modes, very close to
corresponding frequency for classical foundations.
This is true for any type soil, even if the effect is

Fig. 23. YY main mode without isolation (6.92 Hz). Fig. 24. YY main mode with isolation (0.46 Hz).
 338
I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
Table 5
Frequency (Hz) and participating mass (t) of main vibration modes
Dominant Soil–structure interaction Seismic isolators
direction
Hard soil Medium soil Soft soil HDS HDH

Frequency Participating Frequency Participating Frequency Participating Frequency Participating Frequency Participating
mass mass mass mass mass
Vessel XX 3.94 2567 3.89 13031 4.07 2485 4.01 0.05 4.01 0.4
Vessel YY 3.95 2843 4.01 2345 4.11 2900 4.00 0.05 4.00 0.4
Global YY 6.92 61302 3.56 65617 1.26 67952 0.277 79293 0.460 79490
Global XX 8.52 66286 4.79 65094 1.63 79581 0.282 104911 0.468 104897
Torsion 10.80 4193 6.59 170 2.31 28 0.296 25927 0.492 25726
Vertical 16.77 39998 7.94 102868 2.64 103457 16.29 57644 16.29 57624
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 339

ADS - FRS Vessel Supports Elevation -0.5 m.

Basemat on Hard soil - X Direction
5,0

4,5

4,0
Accelerations (g)

3,5
1%
3,0
3%
2,5
5%
2,0 7%
1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 25. XX FRS without isolation.

the expected target value of 4 Hz (to which the vessel
stick model was adjusted). It should be pointed out
that vessel frequencies are far from those associated to
global building modes for any type of foundation, but
for foundations on medium soil. In such case, a signif-
icant dynamic coupling between vessel and connected
reactor building is to be expected, as confirmed by the
increase in the effective mass (about 13,000 t) partic-
ipating to the first vessel mode along X (at 3.89 Hz),
with respect to the vessel mass (2,700 t).
Results also show that the first global modes for
non-isolated foundations are mainly rocking modes,
whereas in the case of seismic isolation they are asso-
ciated to horizontal pure translation movements (see

ADS - FRS Vessel Supports Elevation -0.5 m.

Basemat on Hard soil - Y Direction
5,0
4,5
Accelerations (g)

4,0
3,5 1%
3,0
3%
2,5
2,0 5%
1,5 7%
1,0
0,5
0,0
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0

Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 26. YY FRS without isolation.

340 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343

ADS - FRS Vessel Supports with Isolator HDS A900

Basemat on Hard soil - X Direction
0,50

0,45

0,40

0,35
Accelerations (g)

0,30 1%
3%
0,25
5%
0,20 7%

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0

Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 27. XX FRS with HDS.A900.

ADS - FRS Vessel Supports with Isolator HDS A900

Basemat on Hard soil - Y Direction
0,50
0,45
0,40
Accelerations (g)

0,35
1%
0,30
3%
0,25
5%
0,20
7%
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 28. YY FRS with HDS.A900.

 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343 341

ADS - FRS Vessel Supports with Isolator HDH A800

Basemat on Hard soil - X Direction
0,50

0,45

0,40

0,35
Accelerations (g)

0,30 1%
3%
0,25
5%
0,20
7%
0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 29. XX FRS with HDH.A800.

Figs. 23 and 24). The torsion mode is only signifi- 4.2. Main issues of seismic analysis
cant in the case of basemat on isolators (in this case,
the torsion movement is essentially associated to the The major effect of base isolation on the NI seis-
global mode along Y, due to the higher eccentricity mic response is by far the drastic reduction of floor
along X, see Section 3.5). accelerations.

ADS - FRSVessel Supports withIsolator HDHA800

Basemat on Hard soil - Y Direction
0,50
0,45
0,40
Accelerations (g)

0,35
1%
0,30
3%
0,25
0,20
5%
0,15 7%
0,10
0,05
0,00
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 30. YY FRS with HDH.A800.

342
ADS - FRS Vessel Supports
Basemat on Hard soil - Horizontal X Direction - 5% Damping
1,60
1,40
1,20
Accelerations (g)
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
0,1 1,0
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 31. XX FRS with or without base isolation.
This effect is shown by Figs. 25–30, which give
the floor acceleration response spectra calculated at
the elevation of the main vessel support structure in
the considered cases (non-isolated or isolated founda-
tions, taking into account both selected isolators) for
seismic horizontal excitations and different damping
ratios. Figures show that, in the case of basemat on
seismic isolators, the spectral horizontal accelerations
are strongly reduced (as expected due the low frequen-
cies observed for main building modes) with respect
to corresponding accelerations evaluated in the case
of non-isolated building.
It is observed that, on hard soil, the reduction of
response spectra peak accelerations at the reactor
support level is not far from ten times for HDH isola-
tors and fifteen times for HDS isolators with respect
to the case without base isolation, as synthetically
highlighted by Figs. 31 and 32. This comparison was
performed for foundations on hard soil, but similar
conclusions could be drawn for any type of soil.
On the other hand, as regards the building response
in terms of displacements, the maximum horizontal
displacements evaluated at the foundation level were
about 157 mm for HDS isolators and 105 mm for
HDH isolators (in the case of classical foundations,
corresponding maximum displacements were about
30 mm).
As a concluding remark, for applications like the
ADS Nuclear Island, where the main concern is the
limitation of the seismic excitation at the supports of
critical components, a base isolation is to be strongly
recommended.
I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
ADS - FRS Vessel Supports
Basemat on Hard soil - Horizontal Y Direction - 5% Damping
1,40
1,20
1,00
Accelerations (g)
0,80 no isolation
no isolation
HDH A800
HDH A800 0,60 HDS A900
HDS A900
0,40
0,20
0,00
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0
Frequency (Hz)
10,0 100,0
Fig. 32. YY FRS with or without base isolation.
In this case, the most effective choice appears that
of HDS bearings, as resulting in a lower isolation fre-
quency and then in lower peak accelerations, but the
isolation choice should generally be based on the best
compromise between the reduction of floor acceler-
ations and the amplification of building rigid-body
displacements.
It should be pointed out that this investigation was
based on free-field excitations in accordance with
EUR requirements (EUR, 2001): the envelope design
spectra used in the analysis are generally conservative
for the majority of sites. However, for applications on
buildings on soft soils where more significant long pe-
riod excitations are to be taken into account, the design
of the base isolation needs particular care, in order to
avoid resonance effects. In such special cases, the main
isolation frequency should be further lowered and
higher rigid-body displacements taken into account in
the design of building interfaces, but a reliable base
isolation could still be obtained by an adequate use of
HDRB bearings. Thus, for instance, if base excitation
periods of the order of 3 s are to be considered, an
actual isolation frequency of the order of 0.25 Hz (4 s
period), below the usual range 0.3–0.5 Hz, could prob-
ably be required to ensure moderate floor accelerations
together with acceptable rigid-body displacements.
5. Summary and conclusion
The present investigation of the dynamic response
of the ADS Nuclear Island building has confirmed
that an adequate use of aseismic isolating devices un-
der the main basemat leads to a drastic reduction of
 I. Micheli et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 228 (2004) 319–343
soil/structure interaction effects under a typical severe
earthquake load.
This is essentially due to the fact that a base isola-
tion moves the global horizontal modes into the low
frequency range, thus strongly reducing building ac-
celerations and, in particular, floor response spectra at
the reactor support level, which was the main expected
target of the ADS NI seismic isolation.
The only significant reverse is represented by higher
horizontal displacements induced on the building as
rigid body motions, but, in the considered application,
these displacements are not likely to create any sig-
nificant problems at existing connections with neigh-
bouring buildings.
The design criteria presently recommended for the
local and global verification of the isolation system are
also fulfilled in this case with large safety margins.
The main outcome of this analysis, an isolated nu-
clear island proves the most adequate choice when
the design of main components is governed by the
seismic loads, as happens in the ADS Nuclear Island.
This conclusion is true for foundations on any soil,
even if the maximum benefit of a seismic base iso-
lation is expected for foundations on medium/hard
soils. A special care should be devoted to the design
of base-isolated buildings on soft soil and long-period
free-field excitations, but, even in this case, a signifi-
cant reduction of seismic excitation could be achieved
through an adequate choice of type, number and loca-
tion of isolators.
Acronyms
ADS accelerator driven system
EUR European utility requirements
FRS floor response spectra
HDRB high damping rubber bearing
HDS (HDH) soft (hard) compound HDRB
343
NI nuclear island
SRSS square root of the sum of the squares
SSE safe shutdown earthquake
SSI soil structure interaction
ZPA zero period acceleration
Acknowledgements
Dr. Agostino Marioni, President of ALGA S.p.A.
(Milano, Italy) and Ph.D. Marco Battaini, of ALGA
Technical Department, are gratefully acknowledged
for providing the detailed documentation about HDRB
isolators and their applications.
References
Marioni, A., Jornadas Portuguesas de Engenharia de Estruturas
Lisboa, LNEC, November 25–28, 1998.
Algasism HDRB, 20123 Milano, I. Catalogue High Damping
Rubber Bearing, December 1998.
Swanson Analysis System Inc. ANSYS—Engineering Analysis
System—Revision 5.2, August 31, 1995.
ASCE 4-86 ASCE Standard, September 1986. Seismic Analysis of
Safety Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary on Standard
for Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures.
ANSALDO Document ADS 2 TCLX 0202 Rev.0, October
1999. Calculation Report—NI Buildings—Seismic and Static
Analysis.
Ingegneria Sismica, Anno XIV, N. 1, Gennaio-aprile 1997. Linee
guida per progettazione, esecuzione e collaudo di strutture
isolate dal sisma.
Contract B7-6340/95/001169/MAR/C2 between the European
Atomic Energy Community and ENEA Extension of the
Available Design Guidelines for Seismically Isolated Nuclear
Power Plants to 3D Systems Developed in the Russian
Federation and Rolling Ball-Dissipative Layer System, Final
Report July 1998.
EUR—European Utility Requirements—Revision C, April 2001,
vol. 2. Generic Nuclear Island Requirements.