Received: 30 November 2021 Revised: 1 March 2022 Accepted: 4 March 2022

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.3642

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Validation of a numerical model of a seismically isolated,

cylindrical, fluid-filled vessel

Faizan Ul Haq Mir Kaivalya M. Lal Andrew S. Whittaker

Michael C. Constantinou

Department of Civil, Structural, and

Environmental Engineering, University at
Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
Correspondence
Faizan Ul Haq Mir, Department of Civil,
Structural, and Environmental
Engineering, University at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.
Email: faizanul@buffalo.edu
Abstract
Numerical models capable of generating robust estimates of isolation-system
and fluid-structure responses for multidirectional, high-intensity shaking will
be required for analysis, design, and risk assessment of seismically isolated
advanced reactors. None of the few studies to date on base-isolated, fluid-filled
vessels have generated datasets suitable for formal validation of numerical mod-
els. Earthquake-simulator experiments on a fluid-filled, cylindrical vessel, base
isolated using four single concave friction pendulum bearings (SFP isolators)
were performed. The dataset was used to validate a numerical model for high
intensity, multidirectional seismic inputs. Fluid and isolation-system responses
obtained from analysis of the numerical model were in excellent agreement with
experimental results. The numerical models and outcomes from the experiments
are broadly applicable to base-isolated, fluid-filled vessels, regardless of industry
sector.

KEYWORDS
base isolation, fluid structure interaction, friction pendulum bearings, LS-DYNA, storage tanks

1 INTRODUCTION

Seismic base isolation is a mature technology with demonstrated effectiveness in improving the seismic performance of
civil structures, including buildings and bridges. Although the technology has been applied to more than 10,000 structures
worldwide,1 its application to nuclear power plants has been limited to the Cruas plant in France and the Koeberg plant
in South Africa. Recent studies have shown that application of building-level or equipment-level seismic base isolation
can substantially reduce the overnight capital cost of advanced nuclear reactors and enable deployment of standardized
designs at sites of varying seismic hazard.2–4 The technology is being considered for use in a number of advanced reactors
being developed in the United States at the time of this writing.
The design of base-isolated reactors will rely on analysis using robust numerical models that can predict the behavior
of the base-isolation system and the isolated structure (and its components) for high intensity, multidirectional seismic
inputs. The most important piece of safety-class equipment in a nuclear power plant is the heat source that comprises a
reactor vessel, its internals (e.g., fuel package), and a coolant, which is a liquid in many cases. A numerical model of a
base-isolated reactor vessel should be capable of capturing the interactions of the contained fluid with the vessel and the
internals (also referred as fluid-structure interaction or FSI) in addition to the isolation-system responses, and must be
verified and validated.

Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 2022;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eqe © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1
2 MIR et al.

TA B L E 1 Verification and validation studies for seismic FSI analysis of advanced reactors
Verification Validation
Fluid-filled cylindrical vessel Yu and Whittaker5 Mir et al.6 ; Yu et al.7
Base-isolated, fluid-filled, cylindrical vessel – Presented here
Submerged components in a fluid-filled, cylindrical vessel Yu and Whittaker8 Underway9

Table 1 is a matrix of verification and validation studies required to implement these numerical models for advanced
nuclear reactors. The entries identify peer-reviewed, journal articles published to date and the role of this paper, namely,
validation of a numerical model of a fluid-filled, base-isolated vessel.
Many published studies, mostly numerical, deal with base isolation of fluid-filled containers, albeit with a focus on
civil applications (e.g., water tanks, natural gas storage tanks, or similar). The fluid is modeled using simple mechanical
analogs (e.g., Housner10 and Malhotra et al.11 ) in most of these numerical studies. Examples are: Wang et al.,12 Shrimali
and Jangid,13 Christovasilis and Whittaker,14 Saha et al.,15 and Castellano and Marcolin.16 The mechanical analogs used
in those studies are well established and accepted in design practice,17 but their application is limited to vessels with
simple geometries (e.g., cylinders) and small amplitude, unidirectional seismic inputs. Many advanced reactor vessels
have complex geometries, and the use of such mechanical analogs may not be appropriate for design and risk assessment
calculations. In such cases, explicit modeling of the contained fluid may be important. A few numerical studies (e.g.,
Gregoriou et al.18 and Butenweg et al.19 ) involve explicit modeling of the fluid in a base-isolated container, but the isolation
systems are not modeled explicitly in those studies. Gregoriou et al.18 idealizes a lead-rubber base isolation system using
nonlinear springs and dampers, whereas Butenweg et al.19 utilizes linear springs and dampers. None of the prior studies
validate numerical tools wherein nonlinear models for the isolation system and fluid-structure interaction are used. The
only prior experimental studies with base-isolated, liquid-filled containers are by Chalhoub and Kelly20 and Calugaru and
Mahin.21 Chalhoub and Kelly20 tested a water-filled cylindrical vessel mounted on the base of a steel frame building that
was isolated using elastomeric bearings and Calugaru and Mahin21 tested a water-filled cylindrical vessel isolated using
Triple Friction pendulum bearings. The former study included a comparison of experimental results for fluid responses
with analytical predictions and the latter included a validation study for fluid responses utilizing a simple mechanical
analog to model the contained fluid. However, the outcomes of these two important experimental studies cannot be used
for formal validation of numerical tools because of a lack of exhaustive curated digital data on isolation-system and fluid
response and use of unidirectional inputs in the physical tests of Chalhoub and Kelly.20
The following sections describe earthquake-simulator experiments of a base-isolated, water-filled cylindrical vessel
whose geometry loosely represents a 1/10th length-scale model of a prototype reactor vessel. Four single concave friction
pendulum (SFP) bearings were used to seismically isolate the vessel at its base. A description of the characterization tests
of the SFP bearings and the seismic inputs used for testing is presented followed by a discussion on the isolation-system
responses and numerical modeling in LS-DYNA.22 The integrated numerical study in LS-DYNA, which includes explicit
modeling of the contained fluid and the nonlinear isolators, is unique to this study.
All data generated in this study will be curated and made available on DesignSafe23 in 2022. The data will enable devel-
opment of validated numerical models in other software platforms for seismic analysis of base-isolated reactor vessels
in particular, and fluid-filled vessels in general. Adjustments to the contained fluid and isolator mechanical properties
(e.g., lead-rubber bearings, coil-spring-based bearings) in the numerical model would greatly expand the utility of this
validation exercise.

2 TEST SPECIMEN AND INSTRUMENTATION

The cylindrical steel vessel used for testing had a height of 2 m, outer diameter of 1.52 m, and a wall thickness of 7.9 mm
(the same cylindrical vessel was tested under fixed-base conditions per Mir et al.6 and Yu et al.7 ). The base of the vessel
was a 95 mm thick steel plate with plan dimensions of 2 m × 2 m. A 76.2 mm wide, 25.4 mm thick steel flange was welded
to the top of the vessel for attaching wave-height measuring instruments. Four SFP bearings were installed under the base
of the vessel as shown in Figure 1. A water fill level of 80% was used for testing. Figure 1A and B present the geometry of
the test specimen and the Cartesian and cylindrical coordinate systems adopted for the study. Figure 1C is a photograph
of the specimen during assembly. Figure 1D is a photograph of the isolation interface.
MIR et al. 3

Flange
dlc = 1.53 m

A A

dlc = 1.53 m
z Vessel r
θ
Base
SFP isolator
Load cell

Earthquake East
simulator
platform
(A) (B)

Vessel

SFP isolator
Load cell
Earthquake
simulator platform

(C) (D)

FIGURE 1 Test specimen: (A) elevation and (B) Section A-A (C) during assembly, and (D) isolation interface

The vessel was instrumented with twelve pressure gages for recording hydrodynamic pressure on its wall as shown in
Figure 2A. Three-directional acceleration responses were recorded at the center of the earthquake-simulator platform,
atop the four load cells, above the four SFP bearings (on the base plate of the vessel), and at four locations near the top of
the vessel. The locations of the tri-axial accelerometers are indicated by green solid triangles in Figure 2. Four vertically
oriented accelerometers were installed on the earthquake-simulator platform as shown in Figure 2E for recording rock-
ing accelerations of the simulator about the two horizontal axes. A similar arrangement of four accelerometers was also
installed on the base of the vessel (in addition to the accelerometers above the SFP bearings; see Figure 2C). The loca-
tions of these vertically oriented accelerometers are marked by solid blue triangles in Figure 2. Horizontal displacements
of the isolators along the x and y axes were measured using eight string potentiometers: four installed above the load
cells and four above the bearings. The locations of string potentiometers are indicated by solid yellow circles in Figure 2.
Base reactions (shear forces and axial force) were measured using four load cells (LNE, LNW, LSE, and LSW in Figure 2D)
installed under the SFP bearings. Wave heights were measured at two points on the water surface using bespoke float-and-
Temposonic-based sensors that are described in Mir et al.24 These transducers are identified as TE and TW in Figure 2A,
and were located at (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧) = (0.67, 0, 1.6) and (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧) = (0.67, 𝜋, 1.6), respectively, where 𝑟 and 𝑧 are in units of m. A
data acquisition rate of 1000 samples per second was used in the experiments.

3 SFP BEARINGS: DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERIZATION

Four single concave Friction Pendulum (SFP) bearings were installed beneath the vessel. An SFP bearing consists of a
sliding surface (concave plate), a housing plate, and a slider that is coated with a PTFE-type composite. Figure 3 presents
the internal construction and geometric properties of the SFP bearings used in this study. The bearings have a sliding
period of 1.38 s (frequency of 0.72 Hz) and a displacement capacity of approximately 9 cm. The bearings are identified
4 MIR et al.

PN3 AN3X (Y,Z)

Y Y
TW TE AW3X (Y,Z)
PW3 Z X PE3 Z X AE3X (Y,Z)
Section B-B
Section A-A

PS3 AS3X (Y,Z)

TW TE

A A AW3X (Y,Z) AE3X (Y,Z)

AS3X (Y,Z)

PW3 PS3 PE3 B B

1524
PW2 PS2 PE2

914
C C
PW1
PS1 Z PE1 ASW1X (Y,Z)
Z ASE1X (Y,Z)
ABSZ SPSE1X
Y X Y X ASE0X (Y,Z)
305 ASW0X (Y,Z) D
D SPSE0X
E ATBLX (Y,Z) E
12 pressure gages ATBLWZ ATBLWZ

(A) (B)

1219
SPNW1Y SPNW1Y SPNW0Y SPNW0Y
ANW1X (Y,Z) ABNZ ANW0X (Y,Z) ANE0X (Y,Z)
ANE1X (Y,Z)

LNW LNE
Y SPNW1X Y SPNW0X ATBLEZ

1219
ABWZ Z X ABEZ Z X ATBLEZ ATBLEZ
ATBLX (Y,Z)
Section C-C Section D-D

SPSE1X LSW LSE SPSE0X ATBLEZ

ASW1X (Y,Z) ABSZ ASE1X (Y,Z) ASW0X (Y,Z) ASE0X (Y,Z) Y

Section E-E Z X

(C) (D) (E)

F I G U R E 2 Instrumentation: (A) pressure gages and wave-height transducers; (B) accelerometers and string potentiometers, elevation
and Section B-B; (C) accelerometers and string potentiometers, base plate; (D) accelerometers, string potentiometers, and load cells; and (E)
accelerometers, earthquake simulator; pressure gage names begin with “P,” accelerometer names with “A,” and string potentiometer names
with “SP,” dimensions in mm

3.8 cm dia slider

Radius = 47.3 cm
PTFE-type 0.6 cm
composite
Sliding surface 6.4 cm
(concave plate)
4.4 cm 1.2 cm
Housing plate
Slider
23 cm

(A) (B)

FIGURE 3 SFP bearings used in experiments: (A) internal construction and (B) geometry

hereafter as SFP1, SFP2, SFP3, and SFP4, and were installed above loadcells LSE, LNW, LNE, and LSW, per Figure 2D,
respectively.

3.1 Characterization of horizontal force-displacement behavior

The idealized horizontal force-displacement behavior of an SFP bearing, shown in Figure 4, is characterized by the radius
of curvature of the sliding surface (𝑅) and the coefficient of friction at the sliding surface (𝜇). The characteristic strength
(𝑄) and the post elastic stiffness (𝐾𝑝𝑒 ) are related to these parameters and the imposed instantaneous axial load (𝑊) on
MIR et al. 5

Horizontal force

Q = µW
Kpe = W
R

Displacement

FIGURE 4 Idealized horizontal force-displacement behavior of an SFP bearing

TA B L E 2 Summary of characterization tests, axial load = 20 kN

Friction coefficient, Friction coefficient, Rate parameter Axial stiffness
Bearing min (%) max (%) (sec/cm) (× 105 kN/m)
SFP1 3.7 12.5 0.39 1.08
SFP2 2.3 7.5 0.67 0.96
SFP3 2.6 10.5 0.35 1.07
SFP4 2.4 10.1 0.35 1.20

the bearing as indicated in Figure 4. The radius of curvature (𝑅) is a known geometric property of the SFP bearing (equal
to 47.3 cm here). The characterization tests, summarized here, were thus aimed at determining the coefficient of friction
(𝜇), which is a function of the axial load on the bearing, the temperature of the sliding surface, and the sliding velocity. A
constant axial load of 20 kN was used throughout the bearing characterization test program (this load is slightly greater
than the axial load per bearing in the earthquake-simulator tests described in this paper, i.e., 17.2 kN). The temperature
dependence of 𝜇 was ignored. The relationship of 𝜇 with sliding velocity (𝑉) is described by25 :

𝜇 = 𝜇max − (𝜇max − 𝜇min )𝑒−𝑎𝑉 (1)

where 𝜇min and 𝜇max are the coefficients of friction at near-zero sliding velocity and high sliding velocity, respectively, and
𝑎 is a rate parameter.
The coefficients of friction at different sliding velocities were determined using a bearing testing machine (BTM) per
the procedure outlined in Constantinou et al.25 A detailed description of the working and instrumentation of the BTM
is available in Warn and Whittaker.26 Each SFP bearing was tested at a constant axial load for a suite of horizontal dis-
placement histories having different maximum velocities and displacements. The test results enabled determination of
𝜇min , 𝜇max , and 𝑎 for each bearing. Values are summarized in Table 2. The average values of 𝜇min , 𝜇max , and 𝑎 for the four
bearings are 2.8%, 10.2%, and 0.44 s/cm, respectively. The variability in the estimated parameters for the four bearings here
is typical for friction pendulum bearings at model or prototype scales (see Sarlis et al.27 and McVitty and Constantinou28 ).

3.2 Characterization of vertical force-displacement behavior

The representative force-displacement behavior of an SFP bearing under axial compressive (vertical) load is shown in
Figure 5. The axial stiffness is small at low axial loads. The behavior at a particular axial load is characterized by the slope
of the load-displacement curve at that load. Tests for characterization of vertical stiffness were carried out using an MTS
tension-compression machine. Figure 6A shows the setup used for testing. Linear potentiometers at the four corners of a
bearing were used to record the relative movement of the concave and housing plates. The tension-compression machine
has an inbuilt load and displacement sensor. A total of six channels of data were recorded. The average of the displacements
recorded by the four linear potentiometers and the actuator’s displacement transducer was used as the measure of the axial
displacement in the bearing.a The loading history shown in Figure 6B was used for testing. A preload of 5 kN was applied
before start of data acquisition, followed by a ramp up to a load of 20 kN in 10 sec and 2.75 cycles of ±8.9 kN at 0.1 Hz.
Figure 6C presents the axial load vs displacement plot for one of the four bearings (SFP3). Table 2 presents axial (vertical)
stiffness results for the four bearings. The average stiffness of the bearings is 1.07 × 105 kN/m at an axial load of 20 kN. The
average stiffness of the bearings is approximately 3% of the axial stiffness of a cylindrical steel column with diameter equal
6 MIR et al.

Axial compressive force

Axial displacement

FIGURE 5 Representative behavior of an SFP isolator in compression

40

Loading
frame
30

Axial force (kN)

20

10

SFP Linear Slope = 1.07x10^5 kN/m

bearing potentiometer 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Axial displacement (mm)
Tension-
compression
machine

(A) (B) (C)

F I G U R E 6 Characterization of vertical stiffness of SFP bearings: (A) test setup, schematic; (B) loading history; and (C) SFP3,
Slop = 1.07 × 105 kN/m

to the slider diameter (3.8 cm) and height equal to that of the bearing (6.4 cm). (The size of the slider and the housing
plate cavity in the bearings used here is small compared to bearings used in practice. Machining small-sized sliders and
housing plate cavities to tight tolerances required for achieving a high axial stiffness at small axial loads is challenging.
An axial stiffness of 10% of the cylindrical steel column is more reasonable for prototype sliders.)

4 SEISMIC INPUTS

The earthquake-simulator
√ inputs used in the tests were derived from recorded ground motions by compressing the time
scale by a factor of 10 per the approximate length scale of the vessel. Table 3 presents information on the seismic inputs.
Motion #1 is a large amplitude (peak amplitude = 0.8 g), unidirectional input; motion #2 is a small amplitude, (peak ampli-
tude = 0.12 g) three-directional input; and motions 3 and 4 are large amplitude, three-directional inputs. The amplitudes
of the accelerations in the three directions were selected to avoid overflow of the contained water due to sloshing and to
avoid exceeding the displacement capacities of the earthquake-simulator’s actuators. The ratios of the peak accelerations
in the orthogonal directions for the three-directional inputs are those of the recorded motions.

TA B L E 3 Earthquake-simulator inputs used for testing

Peak accel. (g)
No. Motion Event Station x y z
1 ECE 1D El Centro earthquake, 1940 El Centro Array #9 0.8 – –
2 CCE 3D Chi-Chi earthquake, 1999 TCU052 0.1 0.12 0.05
3 ECE 3D El Centro earthquake, 1940 El Centro Array #9 0.8 0.6 0.5
4 KCE 3D Kern County earthquake, 1952 Taft Lincoln School, 21 0.8 0.88 0.56
MIR et al. 7

5 ISOLATION-SYSTEM BEHAVIOR

Response spectra for the acceleration time series recorded above and below the bearings for motion #3 are presented in
Figure 7.b (all of the time series data presented in this paper is filtered using a 0.05–50 Hz bandpass filter). Although there
were no rocking inputs for the tests herein, rocking accelerations of the earthquake-simulator platform (about the two
horizontal axes) were observed, in addition to translational accelerations, due to compliance in the horizontal and vertical
actuators of the earthquake simulator (see Figure 7D and E). A reduction in spectral acceleration above the isolation
interface is observed in the case of horizontal components for frequencies less than 30 Hz. There is amplification in the
horizontal spectra near a frequency of 30 Hz (see Figure 7A and B) due to the flexibility of the bearings in the axial
(vertical) direction and the vertical component of the motion. Spectral accelerations in the vertical direction above the
isolation interface are amplified around 30 Hz (see Figure 7C). Rocking accelerations above the isolation interface are
also amplified around this frequency (see Figure 7D and E). These observations hold true for motions #1 and #4, but not
for the small amplitude motion #2, for which the horizontal acceleration spectra above and below the isolation system
are virtually identical due to the near-zero isolator displacements.
The average axial stiffness of the SFP bearings at an axial load of 20 kN is 1.07 × 105 kN/m, as presented in Table 2. As
noted previously, the axial load per bearing in the earthquake-simulator experiments described here is less than 20 kN:
17.2 kNc . Since axial stiffness is a function of axial load, a vertical stiffness of 0.9 × 105 kN/m was used instead of the
test value of 1.07 × 105 N/m at 20 kN (16% reduction) for the numerical analyses presented in the next section because it
corresponds to vertical and rocking modes (about x or y axes) of the vessel at 32.5 Hz and 31.5 Hz, respectively, as verified
using a numerical model built in SAP2000.29 These frequencies are similar to those observed in the earthquake-simulator
experiments.d
A normalized force-displacement loop from the test with a unidirectional earthquake-simulator input (motion #1 in
Table 3) is presented in Figure 8. The normalized force is computed as the total shear force along the x direction normal-
ized by the total instantaneous axial load on the bearings. An idealized force-displacement loop considering a maximum
displacement equal to that observed in the test is also plotted to enable a comparison. A fast friction value of 12% is used
for constructing the idealized loop (and for the numerical analyses presented later). This value is greater than the average
value of 10.2% reported in Table 2. One of the reasons for the greater obtained value of friction is that the tests reported in
this paper were conducted after another set of experiments30 involving more than 30 earthquake motions using the same
bearings, which led to wear in the slider surface and a more uniform bearing (i.e., greater contact area) of the slider on
the concave plate. A larger contact area implies a reduction in contact pressure. Also, as noted previously, the axial load
in the tests described here is 13% smaller than the load at which the friction values were characterized – again implying

F I G U R E 7 Acceleration spectra below and above the isolation interface, motion #3 in Table 3: (A) x direction; (B) y direction; (C) z
direction; (D) rocking about x; and (E) rocking about y
8 MIR et al.

FIGURE 8 Normalized force-displacement loop, x, motion

#1 in Table 3

a reduction in contact pressure. An increase in the coefficient of friction with a reduction in contact pressure is well-
documented.25
The force-displacement loop in Figure 8 shows spikes in normalized force (or friction coefficient), which is a departure
from the idealized behavior. A possible reason for this behavior is that the base of the tank, which has concave plates
attached to it, rotates with respect to the horizontal plane in which the housing plates lie. Fenz and Constantinou31 presents
a detailed discussion on the effect of such rotations on the force-displacement behavior of an SFP bearing (see Section 2.5.5
in Fenz and Constantinou31 ). A rotational displacement of 𝜏 radians leads to an upward or downward shift (depending
on the sign of 𝜏) of 𝜏 in the normalized force-displacement loop. Accordingly, a rotational displacement of 1◦ can lead to
a vertical shift of 0.02 in the normalized force-displacement loop.

6 NUMERICAL MODELLING IN LS-DYNA

This section addresses the numerical modeling of the isolated, fluid-filled vessel in LS-DYNA.22 Key input parameters
used to model the base-isolated vessel are described. Numerical results for responses of the isolation system and fluid in
the vessel are calculated by response-history analyses and compared with experimental data.
The Arbitrary Lagrangian and Eulerian (ALE) solver in LS-DYNA was used for the numerical analysis. An approach
similar to that presented in Mir et al.6 was used here to model the vessel and the contained fluid. The base and wall of
the vessel were modeled using 3082 and 4048 Lagrangian, four-node, shell elements, respectively, and an elastic material
with properties of carbon steel. The fluid (water) domain and the space above the free surface (to accommodate sloshing
motion) were modeled using 70356 and 22716 Eulerian, eight-node, solid elements, respectively. These elements do not
deform but rather serve as a grid through which fluid can move. The material properties of the fluid domain were assigned
using the *MAT (material) and *EOS (equation of state) cards in LS-DYNA. Water was assigned a density of 1000 kg/m3 ,
a dynamic viscosity of 10−3 Ns/m2 , and a bulk modulus of 2.2 GPa. The space above the free surface was assigned void
properties using the *INITIAL_VOID card. The sizes of the elements were optimized, resulting in smaller fluid-element
sizes above and below the free surface and adjacent to the vessel wall. Solid elements in the fluid domain (including the
void space) shared nodes with the shell elements in the base and wall of the vessel at their interfaces. Accordingly, the
element sizes in the vessel wall were smaller near the free surface and those in the base were smaller near the vessel wall.
The smallest elements were four-node, shell elements located close to the vessel wall in the base, and had dimensions of
50.5 mm × 12.7 mm (these elements governed the analysis time step). The vertical movement of the free surface (sloshing)
under seismic inputs was tracked by defining massless nodes, referred to as tracers, on the free surface of water using the
*DATABASE_TRACER card. A detailed discussion on tracers is presented in Yu and Whittaker.32 The SFP bearings were
modeled using vertically oriented, two-node beam elements. The lower ends of the four beam elements were connected
to a rigid plate representing the plane of the upper ends of the load cells (see Figure 1A). The rigid plate was assigned a
negligible mass (0.2 kg). Accelerations recorded at the top of load cells (below the bearings) in the experiment were input
to this rigid plate using the *BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_RIGID keyword.e Translational accelerations along
the three orthogonal axes and rocking accelerations about the two horizontal axes recorded in experiments were used as
inputs to the model. Figure 9 presents the numerical model in LS-DYNA. The rigid plate used to input accelerations is
shown in light brown; isolators are shown in red; the vessel wall, flange, and base are shown in gray; and water is shown in
MIR et al. 9

F I G U R E 9 Numerical model in LS-DYNA: (A)

elevation and (B) isometric view

blue. The void space, modeled above the water domain, is not shown in the figure. In the experiments, the concave plates
of the SFP isolators were connected to the 95 mm thick base of the vessel via 0.41 m × 0.41 m × 0.025 m adapter plates
made of carbon steel. The locations of these adaptor plates are indicated in green in Figure 9B. The area of the vessel base
in contact with the adapter plates was assigned a rigid material property and mass density same as carbon steel.
The bearings were modeled using two-node beam elements with *MAT_SEISMIC_ISOLATOR property assigned to
them. Beam element formulation 6 (ELFORM = 6 in *SECTION_BEAM), suitable for modeling discrete beams, was used.
The volume of the discrete beam was defined in *SECTION_BEAM keyword. The volume specified here is used for the
calculation of mass of the discrete beam per the density defined in *MAT_SEISMIC_ISOLATOR keyword (discussed in
Table 4 below). The total mass of the beam is distributed equally to the two nodes of the beam. A definition of a reasonable
value of mass for the discrete beam is important to avoid unnecessarily small calculation time steps (resulting in large run
times) in explicit analysis. A total beam mass of 80 kg was defined for analysis here such that 40 kg was lumped on the
top node of each beam element representing a bearing (this mass approximately represents one adapter plate and one
concave plate). The *SECTION_BEAM keyword also has an input field for definition of the mass moment of inertia of the

TA B L E 4 Key inputs for definition of *MAT_SEISMIC_ISOLATOR card in LS-DYNA for modeling SFP bearings
Input field Description
RO Mass density used with the volume input in *SECTION_BEAM to calculate the mass of the discrete beam. A
volume of 80 m3 was specified in *SECTION_BEAM and RO here was assigned a value of 1 kg/m3 resulting
in a net mass of 80 kg.
DISPY Yield displacement of the seismic isolator. A value of 0.3 mm was used here based on the slope of the elastic
region of the (experimental) force-displacement loop for motion #1. For simulations involving large isolator
displacements, a greater value of 1 mm is reasonable.
STIFFV Vertical stiffness of the isolator. For the sliding bearings, the behavior in compression is linear elastic and no
tensile force can be resisted. A value of 0.9 kN/m was used here per the discussion in the previous section.
ITYPE Equal to 0 for sliding bearings ( = 1 for elastomeric bearings).
PRELOAD Vertical pre-load on the bearings. A zero pre-load was assigned to the bearings. Gravity was applied before
application of seismic inputs as discussed earlier in this section.
FMAX Maximum friction coefficient; set to 0.12 per the discussion in the previous section.
DELF Difference between the maximum and static friction coefficient. A value of 0.087 was used consistent with
FMAX above and the ratio of fast and slow friction coefficients per Table 2.
AFRIC Rate parameter used to characterize the velocity dependence of the friction coefficient. A value of 44 sec/m was
used per Table 2.
DAMP Fraction of critical damping for free vertical vibration of the isolator, based on the mass of the isolator
(including any attached masses) and its vertical stiffness. A parametric study of this input parameter
revealed that leaving this value as default (= 0) leads to a stable response in the vertical direction.
(DAMP = 0 does not mean that that there is no damping in the vertical direction. Instead, it activates the
default algorithm that may occasionally increase DAMP if vertical oscillations become significant and affect
numerical stability. Specification of a value, for example DAMP = 0.05, was found to cause instabilities.)
RADX, RADY Radii of the sliding surface in the two directions. A value of 47.3 cm was used for both directions per Figure 3.
RADB, STIFFL, DFAIL Radius of the bearing’s retaining ring, stiffness (for lateral contact) against the retaining ring, and the lateral
displacement at which the isolator fails. Large values were assigned to these input fields since these values
are of no significance for the analyses described here.
10 MIR et al.

discrete beam (INER in *SECTION_BEAM keyword). Since the isolator element has no rotational stiffness, this input has
no effect on the solution. However, some LS-DYNA solvers (e.g., R 12.0, which was used for this study) require definition
of a nonzero INER value to maintain reasonably large analysis time steps. A value of 0.4 kg-m2 was used here. (Greater
values can also be used. In the numerical model described here, the analysis time step was not governed by the isolator
element for INER = 0.4 kg-m2 .) The key inputs required for definition of *MAT_SEISMIC_ISOLATOR property are listed
in Table 4.
An acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 was applied in the negative z direction in the model to simulate gravity. This acceleration
was applied as a ramp from 0 to 9.81 m/s2 in the initial 0.05 s of analysis (followed by a constant gravitational acceleration
of 9.81 m/s2 thereafter). Acceleration inputs to the model were applied after the initial 0.1 s of analysis. This ensured proper
initialization of hydrostatic pressure and isolator axial load in the model before the application of acceleration inputs.
Experimentally measured and numerically predicted isolator displacements, acceleration response spectra, and reac-
tions for the four input motions of Table 3 are presented in Figure 10 through Figure 13. Isolator displacements are neg-
ligible (< 3 mm) for motion #2 (see Figure 11F and G). Peak vertical accelerations greater than 1 g are observed above
the isolation system in motion #3 and motion #4 (see Figures 12C and 13C), which leads to zero instantaneous axial load
on the bearings (see Figures 12j and 13J). A normalized force-displacement loop is presented only for motion #1. There is
an excellent agreement between experimental results and numerical predictions of isolation-system responses. An aver-
age absolute error of 6% is observed in maximum absolute isolator displacements, shear forces in the two horizontal

F I G U R E 1 0 Comparison of numerical and experimental results, isolation system responses, motion #1 in Table 3: (A) acceleration
spectra, x; (B) acceleration spectra, rocking about y; (C) acceleration spectra, z; (D) isolator displacement, x; (E) shear force, x; and (F)
normalized force-displacement loop, x; acceleration spectra for 5% damping
MIR et al. 11

F I G U R E 1 1 Comparison of numerical and experimental results, isolation system responses, motion #2 in Table 3: (A) acceleration
spectra, x; (B) acceleration spectra, y; (C) acceleration spectra, z; (D) acceleration spectra, rocking about x; (E) acceleration spectra, rocking
about y; (F) isolator displacement, x; (G) isolator displacement, y; (H) shear force, x; (I) shear force, y; and (J) normal force; acceleration
spectra for 5% damping

directions, and normal forces. (Table 5 presents the maximum absolute values of key numerical and experimental results
and their percentage differences for the four motions.) Experimental and numerical fluid responses (hydrodynamic pres-
sure at PE1 wave height at TE) for the four motions are presented in Figure 14. The numerically predicted and experi-
mentally measured time series of fluid responses are in good agreement. The average absolute error in pressure and wave
height responses is 12%.
The average absolute errors are less than 7% (range: 0%–15%) for maximum isolation-system responses (isolator displace-
ments, shear forces, and normal force) and less than 13% (range: 3%–20%) for maximum fluid responses (hydrodynamic
pressure near the base and sloshing wave height). The error threshold for validation of a numerical model is problem-
12 MIR et al.

F I G U R E 1 2 Comparison of numerical and experimental results, isolation system responses, motion #3 in Table 3: (A) acceleration
spectra, x; (B) acceleration spectra, y; (C) acceleration spectra, z; (D) acceleration spectra, rocking about x; (E) acceleration spectra, rocking
about y; (F) isolator displacement, x; (G) isolator displacement, y; (H) shear force, x; (I) shear force, y; and (J) normal force; acceleration
spectra for 5% damping

and response-specific. For example, simulating wave height responses using the ALE model is challenging for a number
of reasons as explained in Yu et al.7 : differences are due to hard-to-record, chaotic free surface behavior in experiments;
and numerical errors associated with wave simulation and methods for extracting wave height data from the numerical
model, and boundary effects near the vessel wall. Similarly, accurate simulation of the vertical response of the isolation
system is challenging at small axial loads and large amplitude vertical inputs for reasons explained in footnote d. Inaccu-
rate simulation of the vertical response (vertical acceleration above the isolation system) can lead to inaccuracies in the
simulated hydrodynamic pressure. A numerical model predicting maximum isolation-system and fluid responses within
±15% and ±20% of corresponding experimental results, respectively, is considered to be validated. These thresholds might
MIR et al. 13

F I G U R E 1 3 Comparison of numerical and experimental results, isolation system responses, motion #4 in Table 3: (A) acceleration
spectra, x; (B) acceleration spectra, y; (C) acceleration spectra, z; (D) acceleration spectra, rocking about x; (E) acceleration spectra, rocking
about y; (F) isolator displacement, x; (G) isolator displacement, y; (H) shear force, x; (I) shear force, y; and (J) normal force; acceleration
spectra for 5% damping

be considered too stringent and could be adjusted, depending on the problem at hand and the analyst’s judgment; see
Doulgerakis et al.33 and Ipek et al.34 for more information on error thresholds in validation exercises. Ipek et al.34 describes
a validation study using data from earthquake simulator tests of a model of a base-isolated, 6-story building. The study
reports differences between numerically predicted and experimentally measured peak responses (e.g., story drift, isolator
displacement, and floor accelerations) of about 25% on average, but notes that peak differences greater than 50% were
observed in some cases.
A seismic isolation system tends to filter out high-frequency content of an input motion and thus the sloshing response
tends to be dominated by the first sloshing mode (see wave height histories presented in Figure 14). More complex
14 MIR et al.

TA B L E 5 Maximum absolute isolation-system and fluid responses† , and percentage differences

Motion #1 (ECE 1D) Motion #2 (CCE 3D) Motion #3 (ECE 3D) Motion #4 (KCE 3D)
Response (or location) Model Exp. Diff., % Model Exp. Diff., % Model Exp. Diff., % Model Exp. Diff., %
Isolator displ., x, cm 2.2 2.1 5 0 0 – 2.0 2.1 −5 1.8 1.9 −5
Isolator displ., y, cm – – – 0 0 – 2.6 2.9 −10 1.9 1.8 6
Shear force, x, kN 12.9 15.2 −15 7.8 7.8 0 17.9 19.4 −8 17.2 18.2 −5
Shear force, y, kN – – – 8.3 8.5 −2 25.3 27.6 −8 22.4 23.8 −6
Normal force, kN 82.9 80.0 4 80.3 76.9 4 171.0 166.6 3 154.0 181.9 −15
Hydrodynamic pressure 4.8 4.0 20 2.8 2.9 −3 22.3 25.5 −13 20.2 23.8 −15
at PE1, kN/m2
Hydrodynamic pressure – – – 2.8 2.9 −3 24.4 28.0 −13 21.8 25.7 −15
at PN1, kN/m2
Wave height at TE, cm 7.5 9.0 −17 8.2 7.6 8 6.1 6.4 −5 7.6 7.2 6
Wave height at TW, cm 6.6 8.3 −20 7.4 8.8 −16 6.4 7.5 −15 9.1 10.4 −13
†
Results rounded to one decimal digit.

sloshing responses were obtained in Mir et al.6 where the vessel was tested in a fixed-base condition for similar inputs.
The results from that study could be used to validate a numerical model of a fluid-filled vessel for more complex fluid
responses.

7 CLOSING REMARKS

Robust numerical models capable of simulating isolation system and fluid-structure responses for multidirectional, high-
intensity shaking will be required for analysis, design, and risk assessment of seismically isolated advanced reactors.
Earthquake-simulator experiments on a fluid-filled, base-supported cylindrical vessel, seismically isolated using four sin-
gle concave friction pendulum bearings (SFP isolators), were performed with the aim of generating data that could aid
in the validation of such numerical tools. The base-supported cylindrical vessel represents a prototype vessel at approxi-
mately 1/10th length scale.
A summary of the tests performed to characterize the force-displacement behavior of the SFP isolators was provided.
The SFP isolators have a sliding radius of 47.3 cm, which corresponds to a sliding period of 1.38 s. A fast friction coefficient
of 12% was back-calculated from the earthquake-simulator experiments. The average vertical stiffness of the bearings was
3% of the stiffness of a cylindrical steel column with diameter equal to the slider diameter and height equal to that of the
bearing (column stiffness), evaluated at an axial load of 20 kN. The use of seismic isolation significantly reduced horizontal
accelerations above the isolation interface except near 30 Hz, which is the frequency of the vertical mode of the isolation
system for the test specimen. Vertical and rocking accelerations were also amplified near 30 Hz.
A numerical study was presented wherein the fluid-filled vessel is modeled using the Arbitrary Lagrangian and Eulerian
(ALE) approach and the SFP isolators are modeled using two-noded beam elements with MAT_SEISMIC_ISOLATOR
property in LS-DYNA. Numerical predictions of isolation-system and fluid responses for multidirectional inputs, with
peak accelerations between 0.1 g and (greater than) 0.88 g, were in excellent agreement with experimental results.
Isolation-system responses were predicted with a greater accuracy than fluid responses: the average differences between
predicted and measured peak values of isolation system responses (isolator displacements and forces) were less than 7%
(range: 0%–15%); the average differences in predicted and measured peak values of fluid responses (hydrodynamic pres-
sure near base and wave height) were less than 13% (range: 3%–20%). The differences between the simulated and measured
responses are small and so the numerical model described herein is considered validated for calculating seismic response
estimates for systems involving fluids, isolators and multidimensional inputs. On the basis of the simulations and exper-
iments described herein, threshold differences for isolation-system and fluid responses are proposed as ±15% and ±20%,
respectively.
The geometry of the tested specimen is simpler than that of a prototype reactor vessel and the properties of coolants
proposed for advanced reactors are different than those of water.35 The generated data is not intended to be extrap-
olated for design of a reactor vessel. However, these experiments provide a first-of-a-kind curated dataset that could
MIR et al. 15

F I G U R E 1 4 Numerical and experimental fluid responses, pressure at PE1 and wave height at TE: (A) motion #1; (B) motion #2; (C)
motion #3; and (D) motion #4

be used to characterize a solver’s capabilities and limitations when constructing numerical models of a base-isolated
prototype vessel in a finite element package. An analyst may choose to construct a numerical model similar to that
described in this paper and validate the model in a particular solver before modifying the geometry, boundary con-
ditions, and mechanical properties to represent the prototype. If the properties of an advanced reactor coolant can
be accurately characterized using the variables used to define water, the numerical simulations could be extended to
that coolant. Such a two-step modeling approach would help characterize the effect of various input parameters in the
used solver and improve confidence in the generated response estimates for a prototype. However, such an approach
does not eliminate the need to optimize a prototype numerical model for mesh size and time step (in case of implicit
solvers).
16 MIR et al.

NOTES
a
Ideally, the axial displacement should be measured close to and around the slider. The small size (height) of the bearings here makes such a
measurement challenging. The instrumentation layout used here provides, at best, an approximate estimate of vertical displacement of the
slider assembly. The estimated stiffness from the characterization tests described here correlates well with the rocking and vertical modes
observed in earthquake simulator tests as described in the next section.
b
The peak accelerations in the three orthogonal directions recorded below the isolation system for motion #3 (and other motions too) are
greater than the corresponding peak values listed in Table 3; see the spectra in Figure 7. These differences are associated with challenges in
controlling the earthquake simulator at high frequencies.
c
The characterization tests described earlier were conducted prior to another set of experiments (Mir et al.30 ) wherein the axial load per bearing
was 20 kN.
d
The numerical analyses presented in the next section use the finite element package LS-DYNA22 . It is not possible to perform an (implicit)
Eigen value analysis with the current isolator models in LS-DYNA and so the commercial finite element code SAP200029 was used instead.
The mass of the fluid was lumped on the wall and base of the vessel for such an analysis and the SFP isolators were modeled using the friction
isolator property in SAP2000. An axial stiffness of 0.9 × 105 kN/m in the isolators resulted in vertical and rocking modes at frequencies similar
to those observed in the earthquake-simulator experiments. The use of a linear spring in the axial direction (active only in compression) for
numerical analyses is an approximation because at small axial loads, as is the case here, the axial stiffness changes appreciably with a change
in axial load due to vertical acceleration inputs.
e
A 0.05 Hz – 50 Hz bandpass filter was used on these inputs, as noted in the previous section.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
The information, data, or work presented herein was funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-
E), U.S. Department of Energy, under Award Number DE-AR0000978. The views and opinions of the authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the US Government or any agency thereof. Earthquake Protections Sys-
tems contributed the seismic isolators used in the testing program. The authors thank the technical staff in the Structural
Engineering and Earthquake Simulation Laboratory at the University at Buffalo for their assistance in fabricating and
instrumenting the test article and executing the experiments.

D A T A AVA I L A B I L I T Y S T A T E M E N T
The experimental data supporting the findings of this study will be made available on DesignSafe23 in 2022. For informa-
tion required to execute the finite element model including all keywords, model geometry, and acceleration inputs, please
refer to the Electronic Supplements to the online edition of this paper.

REFERENCES
1. Lal KM, Parsi SS, Whittaker AS. Cost basis for utilizing seismic isolation for nuclear power plant design. Electric Power Research Institute;
2020. Report 03002018345.
2. Yu C-C, Bolisetti C, Coleman JL, Kosbab B, Whittaker AS. Using seismic isolation to reduce risk and capital cost of safety-related nuclear
structures. Nucl Eng Des. 2018;326:268-284.
3. Lal KM, Parsi SS, Kosbab BD, Ingersoll ED, Charkas H, Whittaker AS. Towards standardized nuclear reactors: seismic isolation and the
cost impact of the earthquake load case. Nucl Eng Des. 2021;386:111487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2021.111487.
4. Parsi SS, Lal KM, Kosbab BD, Ingersoll ED, Shirvan K, Whittaker AS. Seismic isolation: a pathway to standardized advanced nuclear
reactors. Nucl Eng Des. 2021;387:111445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2021.111445.
5. Yu C-C, Whittaker AS. A process to verify numerical models for seismic fluid-structure interaction in advanced reactor vessels. Nucl Eng
Des. 2022;387:111580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2021.111580
6. Mir FUH, Yu C-C, Whittaker AS. Experimental and numerical studies of seismic fluid-structure interaction in a base-supported cylindrical
vessel. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2020;50(5):1395-1413.
7. Yu C-C, Mir FUH, Whittaker AS. Validation of numerical models for seismic fluid-structure-interaction analysis of nuclear, safety-related
equipment. Nucl Eng Des. 2021;379:111179.
8. Yu C-C, Whittaker AS. Verification of numerical models for seismic fluid-structure interaction analysis of internal components in liquid-
filled advanced reactors. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2021;50(6):1692-1712.
9. Mir FUH, Yu C-C, Whittaker AS, Validation of numerical models for seismic analysis of submerged components in advanced reactors.
Proceedings, 2021 International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis (PSA2021). Columbus, OH; 2021.
10. Housner GW. The dynamic behavior of water tanks. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1963;53(2):381-387.
11. Malhotra PK, Wenk T, Wieland M. Simple procedure for seismic analysis of liquid-storage tanks. Struct Eng Int. 2000;10(3):197-201.
12. Wang YP, Teng MC, Chung KW. Seismic isolation of rigid cylindrical tanks using friction pendulum bearings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn.
2001;30(7):1083-1099.
13. Shrimali M, Jangid R. Seismic response of liquid storage tanks isolated by sliding bearings. Eng Struct. 2002;24(7):909-921.
MIR et al. 17

14. Christovasilis IP, Whittaker AS. Seismic analysis of conventional and isolated LNG tanks using mechanical analogs. Earthquake Spectra.
2008;24(3):599-616.
15. Saha SK, Matsagar VA, Jain AK. Comparison of base-isolated liquid storage tank models under bi-directional earthquakes. Natural Science.
2013;5(8):27-37.
16. Castellano M, Marcolin L, Seismic isolation of an ammonia tank in Turkey through pendulum isolators. Proceedings, 16th World Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering (16WCEE 2017). Santiago, Chile; 2017.
17. CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), 2008.
18. Gregoriou VP, Tsinopoulos SV, Karabalis DL, Base isolated LNG tanks: seismic analyses and comparison studies. Proceedings, First Euro-
pean Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland; 2006.
19. Butenweg C, Rosin J, Kubalski T, Seismic response of conventional and base-isolated liquid storage tanks. Proceedings, 50SE-EEE 1963–
2013 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Skopje, Macedonia; 2013.
20. Chalhoub MS, Kelly JM. Theoretical and experimental studies of cylindrical water tanks in base isolated structures. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California at Berkeley; 1988. Report UCB/EERC-88/07.
21. Calugaru V, Mahin SA, Experimental and analytical studies of fixed base and seismically isolated liquid storage tanks. Proceedings, Inter-
national Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering. San Francisco, CA; 2009.
22. LSTC. LS-DYNA user’s manual – Version R 11.0. Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2017.
23. Rathje EM, Dawson C, Padgett JE, et al. DesignSafe: new cyberinfrastructure for natural hazards engineering. Nat Hazard Rev.
2017;18(3):06017001.
24. Mir FUH, Yu C-C, Cohen M, Bardet P, Coleman J, Whittaker AS, Dataset generation for validation of fluid-structure interaction models.
Proceedings, 25th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT-25). Charlotte, NC; 2019.
25. Constantinou MC, Whittaker AS, Kalpakidis Y, Fenz DM, Warn GP. Performance of seismic isolation hardware under service and seismic
loading. The State University of New York at Buffalo; 2007. Report MCEER-07-0012.
26. Warn GP, Whittaker AS. A study of the coupled horizontal-vertical behavior of elastomeric and lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings. The
State University of New York at Buffalo; 2006. Report MCEER-06-0011.
27. Sarlis AA, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM. Shake table testing of triple friction pendulum isolators under extreme conditions. The State
University of New York at Buffalo; 2013. Report MCEER-13-0011.
28. McVitty WJ, Constantinou MC. Property modification factors for seismic isolators: design guidance for buildings. The State University of
New York at Buffalo; 2015. Report MCEER 15-0005.
29. CSI. CSI analysis reference manual. Computer and Structures, Inc., 2019.
30. Mir FUH, Lal KM, Kosbab BD, et al. Earthquake simulator experiments of a seismically isolated generation IV reactor model. Proceedings,
12th United States National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Salt Lake City, UT. 2022.
31. Fenz DM, Constantinou MC. Mechanical behavior of multi-spherical sliding bearings. The State University of New York at Buffalo; 2008.
Report MCEER-08-0007.
32. Yu C-C, Whittaker AS. Analytical and numerical studies of fluid-structure interaction in liquid-filled vessels. The State University of New
York at Buffalo; 2020. Report MCEER-20-0003.
33. Doulgerakis N, Tehrani PK, Talebinejad I, Kosbab BD, Cohen M, Whittaker AS. Software verification and validation guidance for nonlinear
seismic analysis. United States Department of Energy; 2021. Report developed under DOE grant number DE-NE0008857.
34. Ipek C, Wolff ED, Constantinou MC. Accuracy of analytical models to predict primary and secondary system response in seismically
isolated buildings. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 2021;50:106944.
35. Sobolev V. Database of thermophysical properties of liquid metal coolants for GEN-IV. SCK-CEN-BLG-1069. Belgian Nuclear Research Cen-
tre; 2011.

S U P P O RT I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the publisher’s website.

How to cite this article: Mir FUH, Lal KM, Whittaker AS, Constantinou MC. Validation of a numerical model
of a seismically isolated, cylindrical, fluid-filled vessel. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 2022;1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3642