Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety Research Paper

Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 277-285, May 31, 2020, ISSN 1229-3431(Print) / ISSN 2287-3341(Online) https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2020.26.3.277

Performance Evaluation of Seismic Stopper using Structural Analysis and

AC156 Test Method

Hyun-su Ryu*†
* Professor, School of Industrial Engineering and Naval Architecture, Changwon National University, Changwon, 51140, Korea

Abstract : Recently, studies have been actively conducted on seismic design and improvement of the seismic performance of bridges, buildings, factories,
and plants. In particular, heavy items that are being manufactured or waiting to be shipped from factories (such as generators, engines, and boilers) must
be equipped with seismic stoppers to prevent them from moving or falling during an earthquake. Seismic stoppers should be suitably determined by the
size and weight of these heavy items; however, they have no general design standard. In this study, structural analyses and seismic tests were conducted
to evaluate the performance of newly designed seismic stoppers. Structural analysis was performed on three stopper models to estimate the external load
at which the yield stress of the material was not exceeded. Based on the analysis results, a seismic test of the stopper was carried out in accordance
with the AC156 test method. Finally, product specifications for all three seismic stopper models were determined and their static/dynamic load
performance was evaluated.

Key Words : Seismic stopper, Seismic performance, Structural analysis, Structural safety, AC156 test method

11. Introduction Cook method and the static system analysis method based on the
seismic design criteria of fire-fighting facilities. Extensive studies
Recently, studies have been actively conducted on seismic to improve the seismic performance of plants are being conducted
design and improvement of the seismic performance of bridges, on various elements such as cranes, storage tanks, valves, and
buildings, factories, and plants. In the case of bridges, studies on manifolds. Lee et al. (2011) analyzed the natural frequency and
seismic reinforcement methods using ductile reinforcement vibration phenomena through modal analysis of polar cranes
materials are being actively performed. Cho et al. (2017), through installed in nuclear power plants and evaluated their seismic safety
dynamic tests on columns reinforced with PolyUrea, confirmed based on the analysis results. They also evaluated the seismic
that their seismic performance is improved and proposed a new performance of a liquid storage tank through sloshing analysis. A
method for seismic reinforcement. Studies on the seismic design seismic analysis study was carried out to evaluate whether butterfly
and performance of buildings are mainly conducted for the valves for nuclear power plants were structurally safe under
establishment of design criteria, application of new materials and earthquake loads (Han et al., 2012). Lee and Kwak (2019) assessed
performance evaluation. The seismic design standards for the seismic strength of offshore subsea manifolds through the
domestic and Japanese building facilities have been compared, response spectrum analysis (RSA) and time history analysis (THA).
and a study on the application of seismic designs has been Further, a number of studies have been conducted regarding the
conducted (Jeon and Jang, 2005). Kim et al. (2015) verified the application of stoppers, which is one of the methods for improving
performance improvement effect in seismic members made of high the seismic performance. Studies on the stopper have been
strength steel through numerical analysis of two-dimensional and conducted in various fields. An ultimate strength assessment for
three-dimensional steel structural models. Additionally, to evaluate foundations of bow chain stoppers (Chen, 2010), the design of a
the seismic performance the dynamic response characteristics of floating slab system equipped with stoppers (Park et al., 2011), and
riser pipes installed in a building was analyzed using the AC156 a structural analysis of the damper stoppers of a lock-up clutch

shake table test method (Jeon et al., 2017). Lee et al. (2017) (Oh et al., 2014) are representative examples. Research and
improved the seismic design method of pipes by comparing the developments related to seismic stoppers include mechanical
stopper development, development of the double-stage yield
†[email protected], 055-213-3682

- 277 -
 Hyun-su Ryu

buckling restrained brace (DYB), and a study on an active

mounting system. Dechant et al. (2017) proposed a new concept
for low-frequency broadband with two mechanical stoppers, and
Sun et al. (2018) experimentally studied the DYB, which is a
reliable and practical alternatives to the conventional framing
systems, to enhance the earthquake resistance of structures. Hong
(2018) modeled an active mounting system for vibration reduction
of the plate structure and confirmed the effective vibration
reduction through simulations and experiments. Meanwhile, heavy
Fig. 1. Example of seismic stopper installation.
items that are being manufactured or waiting to be shipped from
the factory (such as generators, engines, and boilers) must be
equipped with seismic stoppers to prevent them from moving or
falling during an earthquake. Seismic stoppers should be suitably
determined by the size and weight of these heavy items; however,
there is no general design standard for them. In this study,
structural analyses and seismic tests were conducted to evaluate the
(a) BTST-1000 (b) BTST-2200 (c) BTST-5600
performance of newly designed seismic stoppers. The structural
Fig. 2. Seismic stopper configuration.
analysis was performed on three stopper models to estimate the
external load with which the yield stress of the material was not
Table 1. Types and dimensions of seismic stoppers
exceeded. Based on the analysis results, a seismic test of the
stopper was carried out in accordance with the AC156 test method. Height Length Width Thickness (mm)
Type
(mm) (mm) (mm) T1 T2
Finally, product specifications for all three seismic stopper models
were determined and their static/dynamic load performance was BTST-1000 225 200 176 10 10
evaluated. BTST-2200 225 300 206 10 12
BTST-5600 225 300 206 10 12
2. Seismic stopper models

3. Structural analysis of seismic stopper

Seismic stoppers are installed with the vibration-proof system
of heavy machines to prevent movement and falling of the
3.1 Purpose of structural analysis
equipment due to seismic loads as shown in Fig. 1. The seismic
In this study, a series of structural analyses were performed to
stopper covered in this study consists of bracket, stopper, shear
pre-estimate the static and dynamic test loads of the proposed
bolt and assembly bolts as shown in Fig. 2, and the dimensions
seismic stopper model. Static analyses were performed to calculate
are listed in Table 1. In this study, three seismic stopper types
the maximum allowable load applicable to each seismic stopper
were proposed so that the user could select the appropriate
model using a commercial finite-element analysis software
seismic stopper type according to the weight of the machine. The
(ABAQUS). The maximum allowable load was divided into two
bracket and stopper are made of SS400 carbon steel plate. The cases, horizontal direction and vertical direction. Based on the
bottom surface of the bracket of the seismic stopper is bolted to structural analysis results, the maximum allowable load was
the pad and the vertical surface of the bracket prevents the determined as the maximum external load with which the yield
machine from moving horizontally. The stopper is bolted to the stress of the material was not exceeded.
vertical face of the bracket and serves to limit the vertical
movement of the machine. In addition, the stopper is designed so 3.2 Finite elements model
that its position can be adjusted according to the height of the To verify the efficiency of analysis time, a finite element model
vibration-proof foundation. of type BTST-5600 was created as shown in Fig. 3, and the

- 278 -
 Performance Evaluation of Seismic Stopper using Structural Analysis and AC156 Test Method

preliminary structural analysis was performed. Bracket, stoppers 3.3 Boundary and external load conditions
and bolts were generated by creating a part-mesh for each part, The boundary conditions for the structural analysis were applied
and the whole seismic stopper model was created through assembly considering the symmetry of the model and the coupling state of
methods with contact and fixed conditions. As a result, the analysis the base and fixing bolts, as shown in Fig. 5.
time was of approximately 150 min, and the solution did not
converge for some of the analysis cases owing to the tight mesh
size.

(a) Symmetry (b) Base fixed (c) Fixing bolt

Fig. 5. Boundary conditions (BTST-5600).

In addition, to consider the fastening state of the bolts, bracket,

and stopper, the contact conditions of each part were applied as
Fig. 3. Finite element model for preliminary analysis. shown in Fig. 6. These boundary conditions were also applied to
the BTST-1000 and BTST-2200 models.
To solve this problem, a left and right symmetry model was
created to significantly reduce the number of finite elements and
secure the efficiency of analysis time, as shown in Fig. 4. The
symmetric model reduced the number of elements by up to 80 %
and reduced the analysis time to approximately 40 min. The
material properties were taken from the internal test data provided
by the stopper manufacturer, and the values listed in Table 2 were
applied to the finite element model.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) BTST-1000 (b) BTST-2200 (c) BTST-5600 (d) (e) (f)

Fig. 4. Finite element symmetric models. Fig. 6. Contact conditions (BTST-5600): (a) Base & fixing bolt,
(b) base & bracket, (c) bracket & fixing bolt, (d) bracket
Table 2. Material properties (SS400)
& fixing bolthead, (e) bracket & assembly bolt, (f)
Property Value Unit stopper & assembly bolt.
Young’s modulus 210 GPa
Yield stress 215 MPa The load applied to the structural analysis was divided into the
Tensile strength 400 ~ 510 MPa case of vertical pressure acting on the stopper and that of
Density 7.86 × 10 -6
kg/mm 3 horizontal pressure acting on the bracket, as shown in Fig. 7. The
Poisson’s ratio 0.26 - area under load was set considering the area where the seismic test

- 279 -
 Hyun-su Ryu

equipment can apply an external force to the stopper and bracket.

Table 3 presents the load range and area applied to the structural
analysis for each seismic stopper type.

Fig. 9. Analysis results for horizontal pressure.

(a) Vertical pressure (b) Horizontal pressure

In the case of vertical loads, the load areas were the same for
Fig. 7. External load conditions (BTST-5600). all three stopper types. As shown in Fig. 8, the larger the stiffness
of the bracket was, the greater the increase in the allowable load.
Table 3. Applied loads and area In the case of horizontal loads, the allowable pressures of
Vertical Horizontal BTST-1000 and BTST-2200 were calculated in a similar way. It
Stopper type Pressure Area Pressure Area can be observed that the allowable load of BTST-2200 is 43 %
(MPa) (mm2) (MPa) (mm2) larger when the pressure is converted into external force because
BTST-1000 0.5-3.2 6000 0.25-2.0 15000 its pressure area is 50 % larger than that of BTST-1000. In
BTST-2200 1.0-3.6 6000 1.0-1.9 22500 addition, as shown in Fig. 9, the allowable pressure of BTST-5600
was calculated to be 2.2 times larger than that of the other two
BTST-5600 1.3-3.7 6000 1.5-3.8 22500
stopper types. It can be observed that, unlike the case of the
vertical load, when the horizontal load is applied, the reinforcement
3.4 Structural analysis results
of the bracket can sufficiently support the horizontal load. Table 4
The structural analysis was performed within the load ranges
presents the allowable load and the corresponding maximum stress
listed in Table 3. The analysis proceeded by increasing the load
value for each stopper type.
gradually, and the load at which the maximum stress did not
exceed the allowable stress of the material was determined as the
Table 4. Allowable load and maximum stress
maximum allowable load of the seismic stopper. Figs. 8 and 9
show the analysis results of the maximum stress according to the Vertical Horizontal
applied load for each stopper type. Stopper type Load Max. stress Load Max. stress
(kN) (MPa) (kN) (MPa)
BTST-1000 18.0 213.5 21.0 214.7
BTST-2200 19.2 214.2 29.9 213.9
BTST-5600 20.4 213.9 69.1 214.2

In the case of BTST-1000, the maximum stress occurs at the

fastening area of the bracket and fixing bolt when the vertical load
is applied, and the maximum stress occurs at this area even when
the horizontal load is applied as shown in Fig. 10. However, when
the vertical load is applied, it can be observed that a considerable
level of stress is distributed in the vertical member of the stopper
Fig. 8. Analysis results for vertical pressure. as shown in Fig. 10(a).

- 280 -
 Performance Evaluation of Seismic Stopper using Structural Analysis and AC156 Test Method

Fig. 12 shows analysis results of BTST-5600. When the vertical

load was applied, the maximum stress occurred in the lower part
of the stopper's vertical plate as shown in Fig. 12(a). In this case,
the vertical load is not transmitted to the lower part of the bracket
owing to the reinforcement attached to the bracket. Moreover,
because most of the vertical load acts on the vertical plate of the
stopper, it can be seen that the stress is concentrated. In the case
of horizontal load, as shown in Fig. 12(b), most of the load is
transmitted through the reinforcement to the bottom of the bracket,
(a) Analysis results with vertical load
and the maximum stress occurs near the bracket's fixing hole.

(b) Analysis results with horizontal load

Fig. 10. Structural analysis results of BTST-1000.

In the case of BTST-2200, as shown in Fig. 11, the stress (a) Analysis results with vertical load
distribution and shape of deformation are similar to those
calculated for BTST-1000.

(b) Analysis results with horizontal load

Fig. 12. Structural analysis results of BTST-5600.
(a) Analysis results with vertical load

The above structural analysis results were used to prepare the

static test conditions of the seismic stopper.

4. Seismic test of stopper

4.1 Static test of seismic stopper

Based on the structural analysis results, static tests (Hwang et
(b) Analysis results with horizontal load al., 1997) were performed as shown in Fig. 13 considering the test

Fig. 11. Structural analysis results of BTST-2200. load for each seismic stopper type. After the seismic stopper was

- 281 -
 Hyun-su Ryu

bolted to the test bed, the displacement of the bracket was

measured by linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) while
applying a static horizontal load to the vertical surface of the
bracket using a hydraulic actuator. In the case of the vertical load,
the displacement occurring in the horizontal plate of the bracket
was measured while applying a load to the horizontal surface of
the stopper.

Fig. 15. Static test results with vertical load.

Table 5. Static performance of seismic stoppers

Vertical Horizontal
Stopper type Load displacement Load displacement
(kgf) (mm) (kgf) (mm)
BTST-1000 1800 3 2100 3
BTST-2200 1900 3 3000 3
BTST-5600 2000 3 7000 3
Fig. 13. Configuration of static test.
4.2 Dynamic test of seismic stopper
The static test proceeded up to the allowable load presented in In this study, the seismic test of stoppers was carried out in
Table 4, and after releasing the load, the dimensions of the seismic accordance with the AC156 test method (Kim and Jeong, 2017) to
stopper were measured to confirm that plastic deformation did not evaluate their dynamic load performance. The test was carried out
occur. The static test results for the horizontal and vertical loads using the shaking table of the Seismic Simulation Test Center
are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. (Busan, Korea). Table 6 lists the specifications of the shaking table
As the load increases, the displacement increases almost linearly, and Fig. 16 shows the configuration of the dynamic test.
and the displacement of BTST-5600 is the smallest under the same
load. Based on the static test results, the static performance of the
Table 6. Specification of shaking table
seismic stopper was derived as presented in Table 5.
Items Specification
Control degrees of freedom 6 DOF (X, Y, X, RX, RY, RZ)
Max. loading 30000 kg
Table size 4.0 m × 4.0 m
Max. displacement H = ±300 mm , V = ±150 mm
Max. velocity H = 1.5 m/s , V = 1.0 m/s
Max. acceleration H = ±1.5 g , V = ±1.0 g
Frequency range 0.1-60 Hz
Excitation mechanism Electro-hydraulic servo
Feedback data acquisition 32 channels
Fig. 14. Static test results with horizontal load.

- 282 -
 Performance Evaluation of Seismic Stopper using Structural Analysis and AC156 Test Method

As a result of the resonant frequency search test, the resonance

frequencies of each stopper were determined as presented in
Table 8.

Table 8. Results of resonant frequency search test

Resonance frequency (Hz)

Stopper
type Longitudinal, X Lateral, Y Vertical
(Side-to-side) (Front-to-back) (Z)
BTST-1000 4.50 4.00 6.00
Fig. 16. Configuration of dynamic test.
BTST-2200 3.50 2.75 5.00

Table 7 includes the shaking table test parameter according to BTST-5600 3.25 2.50 4.50
the AC156 criteria. The shaking table was excited using the values
of these parameters to simulate an artificial earthquake.
Fig. 17 shows the acceleration time history and test response
spectrum as the results of the multi-frequency seismic simulation
Table 7. Shaking table test parameter
test for BTST-5600. Fig. 18 shows the result of visual inspections
Horizontal Vertical for the four seismic stoppers.
Test SDS
z/h AFLX-H ARIG-H AFLX-V ARIG-V
criteria (m/s2)
(m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2)
ICC-ES
9.81 1.00 15.69 11.77 6.57 2.65
AC156

The procedure for the shaking table test (Kim and Jeong, 2017)
is as follows:
(A) Inspection before test (a) Acceleration time history-X (b) Response spectrum-X
(1) Visual inspection
(B) Resonant frequency search test
(1) Excitation: Low-level amplitude (0.98 m/s2 peak input)
single-axis sinusoidal sweeping from 1.0 to 50.0 Hz
(2) Direction and sequence: Longitudinal, lateral, and
vertical, independently, not simultaneously
(3) Analysis method: Transfer function estimation using
(c) Acceleration time history-Y (d) Response spectrum-Y
input and output accelerations
(C) Multi-frequency seismic simulation test
(1) Excitation: Artificial earthquake generated according to
the required response spectrum (RRS)
(2) Direction and sequence: Longitudinal, lateral, and
vertical, simultaneously
(3) Tested response spectrum (TRS) and cross-correlation
verification of excitation motion (e) Acceleration time history-Z (f) Response spectrum-Z
(D) Inspection after test Fig. 17. Acceleration time history and TRS of BTST-5600.
(1) Visual inspection

- 283 -
 Hyun-su Ryu

5. Conclusions

In this study, structural analysis and seismic tests were

performed to evaluate the performance of the newly designed
seismic stoppers. The major results obtained are as follows:

(1) To increase the efficiency of analysis time, symmetrical finite

element models of seismic stoppers were proposed, the
number of elements was reduced by 80 %, and the analysis
time was reduced to approximately 40 min.
(2) Effective contact conditions and fixed boundary conditions
for structural analysis of the seismic stoppers were proposed
and the maximum load with which the allowable stress of
the material was not exceeded was calculated for each
stopper model through a series of structural analyses.
(3) Based on the structural analysis results, static load tests were
performed for each seismic stopper model and the structural
analysis method was verified. In addition, the static load
performance of the seismic stopper was determined based on
the static test results.
(4) The resonant frequency of each stopper model was derived
Fig. 18. Visual inspection of BTST-5600. by performing the dynamic performance test of the seismic
stopper in accordance with the AC156 test procedure, and it
As a result of verifying TRS and time history of the measured was confirmed through visual inspection that there were no
acceleration values in the X, Y, and Z directions, as shown in Fig. major structural failures of the seismic stoppers.
17, it was confirmed that the intended artificial earthquake (5) Finally, product specifications for all the newly designed
phenomenon was well simulated. This means that a valid test has three seismic stopper models were determined and the load
been conducted. In addition, as a result of the visual inspection, as performance was evaluated.
shown in Fig. 18, no major structural failure was observed in the (6) The structure analysis method and performance evaluation
installed stoppers. Moreover, major structural failures were not test method of the seismic stopper proposed in this study
observed in the visual inspection of the BTST-1000 and could be used in the future as an effective tool in the stage
BTST-2200 models. Based on the above test results, the dynamic of change or verification of a new stopper design. In
load performance of the seismic stoppers was determined as listed addition, further research on the development of a dynamic
in Table 9. analysis method that can simulate the seismic stopper
dynamic test should be conducted.
Table 9. Dynamic performance of seismic stoppers
Acknowledgements
Dynamic load Design spectral response
Stopper type
(kgf) acceleration, z/h=1 (m/s2)
This research was supported by Changwon National University
BTST-1000 2000 4.90
in 2019~2020.
BTST-1000 1000 9.80
BTST-2200 2200 4.90
References
BTST-2200 1100 9.80
BTST-5600 5600 4.90 [1] Chen, S. G.(2010), Ultimate Strength Assessment for
BTST-5600 2800 9.80 Foundation of Bow Chain stopper, M.S. Thesis, Ulsan

- 284 -
 Performance Evaluation of Seismic Stopper using Structural Analysis and AC156 Test Method

University, Ulsan, Korea. Structural Engineering Institute of Korea, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.
[2] Cho, C. M., D. S. Lee, T. K. Kim, and J. H. Kim(2017), 7-16.
Pseudo Dynamic Test Study on Seismic Performance [12] Lee, J. O., H. K. Kim, and S. B. Cho(2017), A Study on
Evaluation of RC Columns Retrofitted by PolyUrea, Journal Performance-based Seismic Design Method of Fire
of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. Extinguishing Pipe System, Journal of Fire Science and
289-301. engineering, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 86-94.
[3] Dechant, E., F. Fedulov, D. V. Chashin, L. Y. Fetisov, Y. K. [13] Lee, W. H., J. R. Cho, M. S. Roh, and J. H. Ryu(2011),
Fetisov, and M. Shamonin(2017), Low-frequency, broadband Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Equipment Related to
vibration energy harvester using coupled oscillators and Design, Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical
frequency up-conversion by mechanical stoppers, Journal of Engineers-A, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 317-323.
Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 26, pp. 1-11. [14] Oh, M. S., S. H. Nam, and B. G. Lee(2014), Structure
[4] Han, S. U., J. T. Ahn, K. C. Lee, and S. H. Han(2012), Analysis for Damper stopper of Lock-up Clutch, Journal of
Theoretical Seismic Analysis of Butterfly Valve for Nuclear the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, Vol. 15,
Power Plant, Transactions of the Korean Society of No. 4, pp. 1865-1870.
Mechanical Engineers-A, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 1009-1015. [15] Park, S. J., C. N. Ma, M. G. Park, and D. H. Lee(2011),
[5] Hong, D. W.(2018), Modeling & Analysis of Plate Structures Stopper equipped with a Low Vibration Floating Slab System
with Active Mounting System for Vibration Reduction Design, Proceedings of the Korean Society for Railway,
Control, M.S. Thesis, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Hoengseong, Korea, May 2011, pp. 753-756.
Korea. [16] Sun, J., P. Pan, and H. Wang(2018), Development and
[6] Hwang, C. H., C. Y. Park, S. R. Hah, and C. W. Kim(1997), experimental validation of an assembled steel double-stage
Static Structural Test and Analysis of Basic Trainer, Journal yield buckling restrained brace, Journal of Constructional
of The Korean Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Steel Research, Vol. 145, pp. 330-340.
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 123-130.
[7] Jeon, B. G., Y. S. Jeong, S. W. Kim, M. U. Gim, and J. H.
Cheung(2017), Shake Table Tests for Seismic Performance Received : 2020. 03. 24.
Evaluation of Fire Protection Riser Pipes, Proceedings of the Revised : 2020. 05. 01.
Architectural institute of Korea, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. Accepted : 2020. 05. 28.
1293-1294.
[8] Jeon, J. H. and C. I. Jang(2005), Seismic Design Standards
and Application Examples of Domestic Building Facilities,
The magazine of the Society of Air-conditioning and
Refrigerating Engineers of Korea, Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 9-14.
[9] Kim, J. B. and J. H. Jeong(2017), Introduction to Seismic
Simulation Test Center and Experimental Cases, Journal of
Computational Structural Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.
5-10.
[10] Kim, M. J., T. U. Ha, and S. H. Cho(2015), Examination of
Seismic Performance for Structure with Seismic Members
made by High Strength Steel, Journal of Korean Society of
Steel Construction, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 281-288.
[11] Lee, E. H. and S. Y. Kwak(2019), Seismic Access of
Offshore Subsea Manifold using RSA and THA Seismic
Analysis Results for Simplified Model, Journal of Computational

- 285 -