Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324

An advanced seismic analysis of an NPP powerful

turbogenerator on an isolation pedestal
Victor V. Kostarev, Andrei V. Petrenko ∗ , Peter S. Vasilyev
CKTI-Vibroseism Co. Ltd., St. Petersburg, Russia
Received 27 September 2005; received in revised form 27 September 2006; accepted 27 September 2006

Abstract
This paper presents a detailed seismic analysis of a powerful high-speed Russian turbine within a Nuclear Power Plant. Although dozens of
these turbines have worked reliably since the 1970s worldwide, until the last decade, only simplified structural analyses were available due to
the turbines’ complicated overall structure and internal design. The current analysis considers the detailed geometry of the turbine itself and the
vibration and seismic isolation system within the turbine’s pedestal and the full range of operational, accident and seismic loads like high pressure,
outside loads induced by pipelines and so on.
To solve the problem of the turbine seismic qualification, the following steps have been taken. The first step was to create detailed finite
element models of the turbine’s high and low pressure parts and rotor system with bearings. Using such models, corresponding simplified models
were developed to be included into the coupled model of the system: “Building–Vibroisolation Pedestal–Turbine” (BVT). The second step was
the analysis of that coupled system. Soil–structure interaction was considered using actual soil conditions. Three components of time history
acceleration were used to define seismic excitation. As the result of BVT system analysis, a full picture of time history displacements and loads
was determined. At the same time, a problem of rotor gaps was solved. In the final step, determined loads were applied to the detailed models of
the turbine’s parts for seismic qualification of the whole structure.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction appropriates a higher safety class and seismic category with

Generally, a turbine is a part of the secondary side of a two-
loop Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) with a light water reactor of
the PWR or VVER type. Under a normal operation mode, it
does not contain any radioactive flow or materials and usually
does not perform any safety function. Thus, the turbine is not
included in the NPP safe shutdown equipment list. As a unique
and extremely expensive NPP component, turbines should meet
conventional industrial codes’ requirements for seismic protec-
tion to mitigate potential human and component losses under a
design earthquake.
However, in some cases such as at NPP Paks (Hungary) and
some other plants, in accordance with the initial design or as a
result of safety upgrading measures, the turbine was included in
the auxiliary safety heat removal system, providing an additional
source for the reactor’s safe shutdown. In that case, a turbine
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +7 812 3278599; fax: +7 812 3278599.
E-mail addresses: cvs@cvs.spb.su, dr petrenko@mail.ru (A.V. Petrenko).
necessity for in-depth seismic analysis on the upgraded level of
the design earthquake.
In some IAEA member states turbines are also under con-
sideration as a potential source of missile objects that could
damage safety-related systems and components. These objects
may appear after one or multiple brakes of the turbine’s low
pressure side blades due to accident conditions or some external
event impact.
Other topical questions regarding the safety of NPP power-
ful turbines are short-circuits of the turbo-generator rotor and
turbine rotor runaway that could bring to the system essential
dynamic excitation with current probability for rotor’s guillo-
tine break and missile objects origin. Due to their outstanding
potential energy, these modes of turbine failure could initiate
catastrophic consequences for the turbine itself and for plant
safety systems and NPP structures.
All discussed points require careful analysis of extremely
complicated turbo-generator systems with a spring/damper
isolation pedestal from positions of modern finite-element struc-
tural analysis and safety requirements.

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.10.004
1316 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324

This paper deals with a seismic analysis of a high power and

high rotating speed turbine installed at a NPP recently designed
by Russia. A minimum intensity of seismic excitation of 0.1 g
should be used in design of NPP buildings, structures and com-
ponents according to Russian (Gosatomnadzor of Russia, 2002)
and international (IAEA, 1992) codes.
On the one hand, the turbine is one of the most important
and complicated system for manufacturing, testing, maintenance
and operation. It consists of a large number of internal ele-
ments connecting to each other. On the other hand, a turbine
has a huge mass and lies on a pedestal with a length compa-
rable to the size of its building and can influence the whole
building behavior during an earthquake. As a result, it is neces-
sary to analyze the complete system “Building–Vibroisolation
Pedestal–Turbine” (BVT). Until recently only simplified struc-
tural analyses of the separate turbine parts were available due to
the complicated overall structure and internals of this class of Fig. 1. Analysis flowchart.
turbine.
The scope of the present work includes seismic analysis of
marked out: “white noise” excitation, excitation with one or a
a complete BVT system as well as the detailed analyses of the
number of prevalent frequencies, excitation with strong ground
parts of the turbine itself.
deflections, etc. So we are forced to use some stochastic time
For these reasons, a detailed spatial model of a turbine hall
history accelerations as input ground motion. The choice of such
building was first developed. Most simplified models of turbine
input data is declared by international and national codes. The
and vibroisolation were incorporated into the model. Seismic
accuracy of the regular static analysis of a structure is expected
analysis of such model considers three variations of soil and
to be about 1–5% due to the modeling and computational errors
three components of seismic excitation on a free-soil surface.
and material and load variations. But it is absolutely impossible
Approach of soil impedance was applied in accordance with
to find a seismic response of a structure with the same degree
ASCE (1998). As the result of the analysis, design seismic
of confidence. The uncertainties of soil layers complicate the
excitation on the base slab was determined.
obtaining of reliable results.
Second, for the main turbine parts (high-pressure cham-
In our case, seismic excitation was defined by three compo-
ber, low-pressure chamber, condenser and rotor with bearings),
nents of time history acceleration on a free ground surface. The
detailed spatial models were developed. Then the simplified
average soil conditions were calculated using average values of
models of these turbine parts were also created to be included
velocities of compression and shear seismic waves (Birbraer,
into the model of BVT system.
1998). Two additional variations of soil were included in the
Third, dynamic analysis of the coupled BVT model under
analysis to take into account uncertainties of soil properties
design seismic excitation was done. As a result, a full range of
(ASCE, 1998). As a result, we had to use three models of the
time-history relative displacements and loads of turbine parts
soil–structure system.
was correctly determined, as well as a solution to a problem of
The detailed spatial model of the turbine hall was devel-
rotor gaps.
oped (see Fig. 2). The building may be functionally divided
Finally, seismic analyses of turbine parts using detailed mod-
els were carried out under all operational and seismic loads
determined in the analysis of the BVT system (see Fig. 1).

2. Seismic input excitation

The importance and potential threat of earthquakes is

accepted worldwide. The international and national codes state
the necessity of considering seismic excitation as a design load.
On the one hand, an earthquake usually induces sufficient
dynamic inertial forces. All parts of the structure are subjected
to it due to the kinematical excitation of the ground. Moreover,
intensive oscillations of structures are also induced, which may
lead to the possibility of collisions of whole structures and their
parts. The dynamic analysis of structures should be generally
performed to take into account all effects of a seismic excitation.
On the other hand, the main feature of any earthquake is its
probabilistic nature. In addition, several types of earthquakes are Fig. 2. Model of turbine hall.
 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324 1317

3. Development of compatible detailed and simplified

models of the turbine’s parts and vibroisolation pedestal

The detailed spatial models were developed for all main tur-
bine parts. At the same time, the analysis of dynamic properties
(inertia, eigenvalues and stiffness) of these models allowed us
to create corresponding simplified models to be included in the
building model and correct their characteristics.
The high-pressure chamber of a turbine is a massive steel
casting device with high pressure inside. It has an approximately
symmetrical structure of about two planes. The first one is ver-
tical and goes through the axis of the turbine rotor. The second
one is normal to the axis of the turbine rotor. The high-pressure
chamber has 16 nozzles. Four inlet nozzles supply the device
Fig. 3. Most simplified models of the turbine and vibroisolation system. with high-pressure dry steam. The other 12 nozzles are for sepa-
ration and outlet of steam. With the help of CAD-CAE technique,
a detailed model of this device was developed. It used finite ele-
into four parts: turbine section, power supply section, oil sup- ments of SOLID type in general. The simplified model was also
ply section and generator section. That is why the building created in accordance with the detailed one (see Figs. 5 and 6).
constructively consists of cast reinforced concrete parts as The considered turbine has three identical low-pressure
well as a concrete skeleton with metal frame roof. Because chambers supported on the foundation slabs. Each chamber
these parts are essentially different in their stiffness and iner- is weld construction made of sheet steel with massive flanges
tia properties, the building is not symmetrical and regular. and diaphragms with blades. It has a middle part with double
Further, some kinds of twisting or torsion of the build- walls and outlet parts. The pressure of the steam drops from
ing may be expected. Therefore, only the detailed model of
the building can describe deliberately its behavior under an
earthquake.
At this stage of the analysis the extremely simplified mod-
els of equipment were coupled to the model of the building.
It was done only for equipment with mass which is compara-
tive to the building’s mass (>1%) (ASCE, 1998): turbine with
vibroisolation system, deaerator, etc. (see Fig. 3).
Direct linear time history analysis was carried out with con-
sideration of three samples of soil to develop broaden envelope
response spectra for the building base mat (see Fig. 4). Three
components of time history acceleration were synthesized to
be compatible with these spectra under the requirements of US
NRC (1989). This allowed us to exclude consideration of the
variation of soil properties and lead to one variant of further
analysis.

Fig. 5. Detailed model of the turbine high-pressure chamber.

Fig. 4. Seismic broaden envelope spectra for building base mat (1: synthesized-
Y; 2: synthesized-X; 3: synthesized-Z; 4: horizontal X&Y-ground spectrum; 5:
Z-ground spectrum) (damping 5%). Fig. 6. Simplified model of the turbine high-pressure chamber.
1318 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324

Fig. 9. Detailed model of the condenser.

Fig. 7. Detailed model of the turbine low-pressure chamber.
chamber has about a half million degrees of freedom (DOF) as
well as the model of lower pressure chamber (see Figs. 7 and 8).
overpressure up to practically a total vacuum during the move-
Three identical condensers also are the parts of the turbine.
ment through the low-pressure chamber. It also has an almost
Each of them is based on the four spring supports. Upper flanges
symmetrical structure of about two planes: normal to the axis
of connection nozzle of the condensers are welded to outlet
of the turbine and vertical through that axis. The low-pressure
nozzles of the corresponding low-pressure chamber. There is
chamber has two inlet and four outlet nozzles. There are a few
a spatial frame inside the condenser to support it against outer
pressure stages provided with rotor and diaphragms’ blades.
atmospheric pressure and the inner vacuum. A detailed model
A detailed model of the low-pressure chamber was created
of the condenser was made generally of SHELL and BEAM
generally with the help of SHELL elements. It has eigenvalues
elements and had eigenvalues 3.43 and 4.47 Hz for the main
of 9.45 and 14.17 Hz corresponded to the two main mode
mode shapes. The appropriate simplified model had frequencies
shapes. Using that model, the simplified one was also made
of 3.54 and 4.36 Hz for the same modes (see Figs. 9 and 10).
with the eigenvalues close to the frequencies found above (9.40
The evaluation of these eigenvalues was fulfilled with the mod-
and 15.35 Hz). The detailed dynamic model of the high-pressure

Fig. 8. Simplified model of the turbine low-pressure chamber. Fig. 10. Simplified model of the condenser.
 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324
Fig. 11. Model of the rotor (A: high pressure part; B–D: low pressure part; E: generator rotor; F: exciter rotor; G: thrust bearing).
els based on the spring supports and constrained on the edges of
connection nozzles.
The turbine rotor lies on the 11 journal-bearings placed in the
supports’ cases on the cross fundament beams outside of high-
pressure and low-pressure chambers. Stiffness of the rotor was
modeled with the help of BEAM elements with suitable cross-
sections (see Fig. 11). At the same time, the elastic modulus
varies from section to section depending on temperature. Mass
and inertia of the rotor and coupled features were described using
concentrated masses and inertial elements (MASS elements).
To avoid the longitudinal oscillations, the rotor is supported
by thrust bearing which is the most loaded part of this subsystem.
Moreover, this bearing has essentially non-linear stiffness under
static load as well as under a dynamic one (see Fig. 12).
The supports’ cases and coupled mass of underlying pedestal
beams were modeled with SHELL elements. These supports
were connected to the rotor with the non-linear SPRING ele-
ments which had stiffness of oil layer of the bearings.
The vibroisolation pedestal includes a massive reinforced
concrete frame and vibroisolation system with elastic and
Fig. 12. Thrust bearing reaction vs. rotor displacement.
Fig. 13. Model of vibroisolation pedestal.
1319
viscous-elastic members of GERB GmbH (Germany). The
vibroisolation is placed between horizontal concrete beams of
buildings and the frame of the pedestal. The model of the
vibroisolation pedestal includes BEAM and SHELL elements
to describe the frame and SPRING elements with concentrated
damping for vibroisolation (see Fig. 13). Namely viscous-elastic
members were modeled by two parallel Maxwell’s series of
elastic spring and ideal viscous damper (Kostarev et al., 1994).
To consider dynamic properties, the eigenvalues and mode
shapes were determined for the coupled “Vibroisolation
Pedestal–Turbine” (VPT) system with assumption of rigid sup-
porting structures. The linearized stiffness of thrust bearing was
used for it. It should be noted that bending mode shapes are
excited in the case of non-uniform distribution mass, stiffness
or damping in that system along the rotor axis (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it may lead to rising of seismic inertial loads to the
support system of the low-pressure chambers. Moreover, the
same effect can be caused by non-uniform stiffness of the under-
lying building beams which are the base of the vibroisolation
pedestal.
The main mode shapes of the VPT system correspond to the
oscillations along the rotor axis (X-axis), across it in the hori-
zontal plane (Y-axis) and in the vertical direction (Z-axis). The
eigenvalues of these shapes are 1.95 Hz (for X-axis oscillation),
2.05 Hz (for Y-axis oscillation) and 3.14 Hz (for Z-axis oscilla-
tion). Usually an engineer uses the simple oscillator model (mass
with stiffness) for the rough estimation. In our case the oscilla-
tion model of the VPT system has eigenvalues of 2.71 Hz (for
X-axis and Y-axis oscillations) and 3.70 Hz for (Z-axis oscil-
lation). These values are essentially different from the values
obtained above. Therefore, the dynamic properties of the VPT
system should be taken into account.
4. Determination of pipelines seismic loads
The main steam pipelines connected to the turbine are sym-
metrical about vertical plane crossed through the rotor axis. A
symmetrical half of the model of pipelines is shown in Fig. 15.
1320 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324

Fig. 14. “Vibroisolation Pedestal–Turbine” system. Mode shape no. 10 (3.18 Hz).

The analysis of these pipelines subjected to the operational

and seismic loads was performed. The response spectra method
including multi-supports excitation was applied for seismic
qualification of that system. The software dPipe, developed by
CKTI-Vibroseism Ltd., was used for determination of deforma-
tion and stresses, temperature and seismic displacements of the
pipelines’ compensators, operational and seismic loads to the
turbine nozzles.

5. The seismic analysis of the BVT system

The preliminary modal analysis of the whole BVT system

determined eigenvalues and mode shapes under assumption of
linear stiffness of the thrust bearing (see Figs. 16–18). The modes
responsible for oscillation of “vibroisolation pedestal–turbine”
system itself were separated.
Fig. 15. Main steam pipelines connected to the turbine.

Fig. 16. Mode shape no. 1 of BVT system. Oscillation along the rotor axis (1.30 Hz).
 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324 1321

Fig. 17. Mode shape no. 2 of BVT system. Oscillation across the rotor axis (1.67 Hz).

Fig. 18. Mode shape no. 3 of BVT system. Oscillation in vertical direction (2.98 Hz).

Table 1
Differences in mode frequencies and seismic spectral accelerations for different models of VPT system
Type of the model Direction of oscillations/seismic load

Frequency of mode shape (Hz) Spectral acceleration (m/s2 )

X Y Z X Y Z

VPT incorporated in the building model 1.30 1.67 2.98 0.85 0.99 1.26
VPT on rigid base 1.95 2.05 3.14 1.19 1.23 1.43
Simple oscillator 2.71 2.71 3.70 1.58 1.63 1.99
1322 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324
Fig. 19. Relative rotor displacements in low-pressure chamber vs. time. Axial
direction.
Fig. 20. Relative rotor displacements in low-pressure chamber vs. time. Radial
direction.
The eigenvalues of these modes are significantly lower than
the values observed for that system above. They equal to 1.30 Hz
(for X-axis oscillation), 1.65 Hz (for Y-axis oscillation) and
2.98 Hz (for Z-axis oscillation). It means that the total stiffness
of the vibroisolation system and pedestal is comparable to the
stiffness of the underlying building supports. The spectral accel-
erations for the considered models are shown in Table 1. They
represent seismic loads acting on the turbine. The detailed model
values are sufficiently lower than other corresponding values.
Therefore, the complex approach with the consideration of the
BVT system is absolutely suitable and justified. It leads to the
Fig. 21. Effective stresses for the high-pressure chamber.
best-estimated seismic responses and allows finding the opti-
mal solution to defend against an earthquake and other external
events.
Direct integration of the whole BVT system was carried out
taking into account non-linearity of thrust bearing. The system
was subjected to a three-component time-history acceleration
applied to the base-mat slab. Rayleigh damping was used for
the structural elements of building and equipment. The concen-
trated damping was applied to model the viscous elements of
the vibroisolation system.
The following results of the analysis were found:
1. The entire range of inertial and reaction loads on the parts of
the turbine was calculated.
2. The stress and strain fields of the vibroisolation pedestal were
estimated.
3. The load condition of capacity of the vibroisolation system
was analyzed.
4. The entire range of relative displacements between the tur-
bine rotor and fixed parts was determined.
The time history of relative displacements of the rotor about
the low-pressure chamber are shown below (see Figs. 19 and 20).
The analysis of the maximal absolute values of these displace-
ments leads to conclusions about capacity of the turbine under
the earthquake.
6. Analysis of the turbine parts using detailed models
The loads obtained by seismic analysis of the whole BVT sys-
tem were used in the analysis of each part of the turbine based on
detailed three-dimensional models. The results of the particular
 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324
Fig. 22. Effective stresses for the low-pressure chamber.
analysis of the high-pressure chamber, low-pressure chamber
and the fragment of the support under seismic and operational
loads are shown in Figs. 21–23.
Three following steps were done to perform such analysis:
1. Static analysis of the devices under operational loads (dead-
load and pipelines load).
2. Series of the static analyses under maximal seismic reactions
of connected equipment and pipelines.
Fig. 23. Effective stresses for support element.
1323
3. Response spectra calculation to find deformation, stresses
and reactions due to the inertial seismic loads.
The results of these three steps were combined to evaluate
the summarized values.
It should be underlined that the application of the response
spectra method (RSM) for the huge models constitutes the sep-
arate problem. The method was developed for the simplified
models of structures with a few degrees of freedom in the mid-
dle of 20th century. Then, only models with a limited number of
springs and masses were available for the seismic analysis. First,
the in-structure response spectra were developed from the accel-
eration time history computed with the help of a stick model of
the building. Second, such spectra were applied to the very rough
and simplified models of the equipment inside the building. But
now, simplified models of buildings and equipment have been
replaced by extremely detailed spatial models with hundreds of
thousands or millions of DOF. So the implementation of RSM
needs overall verification. It has been done in a number of works.
First, the use of detailed spatial models of a building (like the
model of the turbine hall mentioned above) allows for more accu-
rate descriptions of its behavior. For example, coupled motion of
slabs and walls can be observed during an earthquake. An ana-
lyst can observe all six components of motion in the exact place
of the equipment installation with the help of such a detailed
model. But only maximal modal responses of the equipment on
each of the three translational components of motion are used
in RSM instead of their time history. The time moments when
these maximums happened are lost. Usually, two rules of com-
bining of three seismic responses on each global direction of
motion (X, Y and Z) are used in RSM. They are “square root
of sum of squares” (SRSS) and Newmark’s “100-40-40” rule.
Both of them are based on the assumption of uncorrelated com-
ponents of in-structure motion. Actually, such an assumption is
1324 V.V. Kostarev et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1315–1324
Table 2
Relative error in determination of maximal effective stresses based on the Rosen-
blueth’s “Double Sum” equation for low-pressure chamber
Combination rule of modal responses Error (%)
Maximal Minimal
Rosenblueth’s “Double Sum” equation 0.0 0.0
“SRSS” −4.4 −30.1
“Ten Percent” 8.3 −16.7
“Grouping” 8.0 −16.7
“Double Sum” −0.2 −16.6
“CQC” −1.3 −18.4
Gupta’s rule 0.1 −3.2
often not suitable for in-structure components of motion. For
example, the work (Petrenko and Birbraer, 2006) demonstrates
it with the help of detailed spatial models of NPP reactor build-
ings. The analysis of time history components of in-structure
accelerations can be done on the base of detailed models. As a
result, the decision about implementation of SRSS/Newmark’s
rules or, for example, the absolute summation rule can be done.
All considerations presented above demonstrate the advantages
of the detailed models of buildings to get the seismic load for
equipment accurately.
Next, the models of equipment are also extremely detailed
now. The work (Petrenko, 2005) shows the reliability of the
application of RSM using comprehensive methods for summa-
tion of modal results (for example, Gupta’s method) and the
static correction method to avoid the “missing mass” effect.
The comparison of different methods’ results on the base of
Rosenblueth’s “Double Sum” equation are shown in Table 2 for
low-pressure chamber. The maximal effective stresses were cal-
culated for various zones of the low-pressure chamber with the
help of Rosenblueth’s “Double Sum” equation and the general
rules of RSM. The average, maximal and minimal relative errors
of the rules about Rosenblueth’s equation were found over the
zones.
All the methods considered in the table are recognized by
international and national codes. These methods are the approx-
imation of Rosenblueth’s “Double Sum” equation and cannot be
more accurate than it. But this equation is also the approximation
and its accuracy usually is about 20% of time history integration
results (Petrenko and Birbraer, 2004). Therefore, the accuracy
RSM cannot be better than 20% due to the assumptions laid in
the base of the equation. In that case we can use safety factors to
obtain conservative (overestimated) results. The uncertainties of
the seismic input are increased significantly with uncertainties
of seismic calculation methods.
7. Conclusions
Average
The approach of seismic and other external events qualifi-
0.0
−13.3
cation of the powerful NPP’s turbines was developed. It was
−5.0 performed on the base of the turbine hall’s system for an NPP
−5.0 being constructed at the present time.
−9.3 The analysis of coupled “Building–Vibroisolation
−10.3 Pedestal–Turbine” system proves the appropriateness and
−1.7
efficiency of such an approach. The approach allows investi-
gating regular and extreme conditions of a turbine’s operation,
considering interactions of the rotor-support system, the
turbine’s chambers, and the foundation. With this approach, the
following effects could be considered:
• distribution of operational vibration over the system,
• transmission of vibration from turbine supports to the soil,
• isolation properties of different types of a turbine’s pedestals,
• short circuit mode of generator and its influence on a system,
• blade losses, and
• seismic and other extreme loads.
As a result, an optimization of turbine design could be achieved
with a structure of lesser mass with a high overall dynamic
stiffness of the system.
References
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1998. ASCE 4-98 STANDARD. Seismic
Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary.
Birbraer, A., 1998. Seismic Analysis of Structures. Nauka, St-Petersburg.
Gosatomnadzor of Russia, 2002. NP-031-01 Norms for Seismic-Resistant
Design of Nuclear Plants.
IAEA, 1992. IAEA safety series. No 50-SG-D15. Seismic Design and Qualifi-
cation for Nuclear Power Plants. A Safety Guide, Vienna.
Kostarev, V., Berkovski, A., Kireev, O., Vasilyev, P., 1994. Application of math-
ematical model for high viscous damper to dynamic analysis of NPP. In:
Proceedings of the 10th ECEE, Vienna, pp. 1981–1986.
Petrenko, A., 2005. Dynamics of NPP Structures and Equipment under Extreme
External Events. Abstract of Ph.D. Dissertation. St-Petersburg.
Petrenko, A., Birbraer, A., 2006. Verification of the assumption of uncorrelated
motion components in seismic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1st ECEES,
Geneva, pp. 1–10, Paper # 1258.
Petrenko, A., Birbraer, A., 2004. Comparison of linear spectral theory methods
in using of detailed tridimensional mathematical models. Earthquake Eng.
Safety Struct. # 6, 27–31.
US NRC, 1989. NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan. Sections 3.7.1 Seismic
Design Parameters, 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis.