scholarly journals Seismic Stability of St. Stephen Hydropower Plant, South Carolina

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Ebeling ◽  
Robert L. Hall ◽  
Ralph W. Strom ◽  
Donald E. Yule ◽  
Mostafiz Chowdhury
2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Yang ◽  
Juntao Chen ◽  
Ming Xiao

Based on the characteristics of the dynamic interaction between an underground powerhouse concrete structure and its surrounding rock in a hydropower plant, an algorithm of dynamic contact force was proposed. This algorithm enables the simulation of three states of contact surface under dynamic loads, namely, cohesive contact, sliding contact, and separation. It is suitable for the numerical analysis of the dynamic response of the large and complex contact system consisting of underground powerhouse concrete structure and the surrounding rock. This algorithm and a 3D plastic-damage model were implemented in a dynamic computing platform, SUCED, to analyze the dynamic characteristics of the underground powerhouse structure of Yingxiuwan Hydropower Plant. By comparing the numerical results and postearthquake investigations, it was concluded that the amplitude and duration of seismic waves were the external factors causing seismic damage of the underground powerhouse structure, and the spatial variations in structural properties were the internal factors. The existence of rock mass surrounding the underground powerhouse was vital to the seismic stability of the structure. This work provides the theoretical basis for the anti-seismic design of underground powerhouse structures.


2012 ◽  
Vol 594-597 ◽  
pp. 1753-1761
Author(s):  
Xian Lun Leng ◽  
Jia Jin Liu ◽  
Cui Zhen ◽  
Sheng Qian

A hydropower plant is usually the major electricity supplier in the region, the failure of underground powerhouse in an earthquake may cause not only the damage to itself, but also secondary disasters to the region in a way of an electricity outage. Seismic stability of these underground complexes is required to be seriously addressed. The underground cavern complex of the Baihetan hydropower plant in Yunnan Province, China, is currently the world's largest underground rock cavern group under construction. Aseismic issues of the underground cavern complex are discussed in this paper. On the basis of this research, seismic variables of the Baihetan project are firstly determined for Design Basis Earthquake and Safety Evaluation Earthquake. The artificial seismic motions for the dynamic analyses are simulated. Two alternative scheme of layout plans of the underground cavern complex are studied, with full 3-D elasto-plastic dynamic response analyses based on the parameters given by the cyclic dynamic loading tests with medium strain rate. The seismic response of seismic displacement and failure zones of each scheme are studied, respectively. A performance verification of the supporting measures during earthquake is also discussed. The results indicate that in spite a wider powerhouse cavern, the scheme "A" which involves a gallery-shaped surge chamber is more stabilized during an earthquake than the scheme "B" whom with barrel-shaped surge chambers. The underground cavern complex with scheme "B" is relatively stable under Design Basis Earthquake and Safety Evaluation Earthquake, despite a minor damage of the surrounding rock. And the implementation of the proposed support system may further guaranteed a safe state of the underground cavern complex in earthquake events.


2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-65
Author(s):  
T. D. Abakanov ◽  
A. B. Begalinov ◽  
A. T. Abakanov

Author(s):  
J. T. Ellzey ◽  
D. Borunda ◽  
B. P. Stewart

Genetically alcohol deficient deer mice (ADHN/ADHN) (obtained from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center, Univ. of South Carolina) lack hepatic cytosolic alcohol dehydrogenase. In order to determine if these deer mice would provide a model system for an ultrastructural study of the effects of ethanol on hepatocyte organelles, 75 micrographs of ADH+ adult male deer mice (n=5) were compared with 75 micrographs of ADH− adult male deer mice (n=5). A morphometric analysis of mitochondrial and peroxisomal parameters was undertaken.The livers were perfused with 0.1M HEPES buffer followed by 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 2% sucrose in 0.1M HEPES buffer (4C), removed, weighed and fixed by immersion in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M HEPES buffer, pH 7.4, followed by a 3,3’ diaminobenzidine (DAB) incubation, postfixation with 2% OsO4, en bloc staining with 1% uranyl acetate in 0.025M maleate-NaOH buffer, dehydrated, embedded in Poly/Bed 812-BDMA epon resin, sectioned and poststained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Photographs were taken on a Zeiss EM-10 transmission electron microscope, scanned with a Howtek personal color scanner, analyzed with OPTIMAS 4.02 software on a Gateway2000 4DX2-66V personal computer and stored in Excel 4.0.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document