Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제52권6호
  • /
  • Pages.1318-1326
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Grouping effect on the seismic response of cabinet facility considering primary-secondary structure interaction

  • Salman, Kashif (Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University) ;
  • Tran, Thanh-Tuan (Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University) ;
  • Kim, Dookie (Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2019.01.27
  • 심사 : 2019.11.20
  • 발행 : 2020.06.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Structural modification in the electrical cabinet is investigated by a proposed procedure that comprises of an experimental, analytical and numerical solution. This research emphasizes the linear dynamic analysis of the cabinet that is studied under the seismic excitation to demonstrate the real behavior of the cabinets in NPP. To this end, an actual electric cabinet is experimentally tested using an impact hammer test which reveals the fundamental parameters of the cabinet. The Frequency-domain decomposition (FDD) method is used to extract the dynamic properties of the cabinet from the experiment which is then used for numerical modeling. To validate the dynamic properties of the cabinet an analytical solution is suggested. The calibrated model is analyzed under the floor response obtained from the Connecticut nuclear power plant structure excited by Tabas 1978 (Mw 7.4) earthquake. Eventually, the grouping effect of the cabinets is proposed which represents the influence on the dynamic modification. This grouping of the cabinets is described more sophisticatedly by the theoretical understating, which results in a significant change in the seismic response. Considering the grouping effects will be helpful in the assessment of the real seismic behavior, design, and performance of cabinets.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. T.T. Tran, A.T. Cao, T.H.X. Nguyen, D. Kim, Fragility assessment for electric cabinet in nuclear power plant using response surface methodology, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (3) (2019) 894-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.12.025
  2. EQE Engineering, Summary of the Seismic Adequacy of Twenty Classes of Equipment Required for the Safe Shutdown of Nuclear Plants, EPRI, San Francisco, California, 1991.
  3. S.G. Cho, D. Kim, S. Chaudhary, A simplified model for nonlinear seismic response analysis of equipment cabinets in nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (8) (2011) 2750-2757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.026
  4. J. Penzien, A.K. Chopra, Earthquake response of appendage on a multi-story building, Proc. of III WCEE 2 (1965).
  5. K.K. Kapur, L.C. Shao, Generation of seismic floor response spectra for equipment design, in: Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, ASCE, 1973 December, p. 29.
  6. S.R. Chaudhuri, R. Villaverde, Effect of building nonlinearity on seismic response of nonstructural components: a parametric study, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (4) (2008) 661-670. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(661)
  7. D. Segal, W.J. Hall, Experimental Seismic Investigation of Appendages in Structures, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1989.
  8. E. Lim, N. Chouw, Prediction of the response of secondary structures under dynamic loading considering primaryesecondary structure interaction, Adv. Struct. Eng. 21 (14) (2018) 2143-2153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433218768563
  9. Y. Chen, T.T. Soong, State-of-the-art-review: seismic response of secondary systems, Eng. Struct. 10 (1988) 218-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(88)90043-0
  10. J. Hur, E. Althoff, H. Sezen, R. Denning, T. Aldemir, Seismic assessment and performance of nonstructural components affected by structural modeling, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (2) (2017) 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.01.004
  11. Y. Bozorgnia, V.V. Bertero, Earthquake Engineering: from Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, CRC press, 2004.
  12. J. Hur, Seismic Performance Evaluation of Switchboard Cabinets Using Nonlinear Numerical Models, Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2012.
  13. S. Rustogi, A. Gupta, Modeling the dynamic behavior of electrical cabinets and control panels: experimental and analytical results, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (3) (2004) 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:3(511)
  14. C. Adam, Dynamics of elastic-plastic shear frames with secondary structures: shake table and numerical studies, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30 (2) (2001) 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9845(200102)30:2<257::AID-EQE7>3.0.CO;2-J
  15. J.M. Llambias, C.J. Sevant, D.J. Shepherd, Non-linear response of electrical cubicles for fragility estimation 21 (22) (1989).
  16. E. Lim, A Method for Generating Simplified Finite Element Models for Electrical Cabinets, Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2016.
  17. S.G. Cho, G. So, M.S. Han, D. Kim, Comparative evaluation of in-cabinet amplification factor for devices mounted in electrical cabinets, in: Proceedings of the KNS 2016 Autumn Meeting, 2016.
  18. J.J. O'sullivan, W. Djordjevic, Guidelines for Development of In-Cabinet Amplified Response Spectra for Electrical Benchboards and Panels. EPRI NP-7146-M, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo alto, CA, 1990.
  19. J.L. Sackman, J.M. Kelly, Rational Design Methods for Light Equipment in Structures Subjected to Ground Motion, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1978.
  20. H. Packard, The Fundamentals of Modal Testing, Application Note 243-3, 1997.
  21. J. Wigaard, C. Hoen, C.R. Fredo, Designing structural damping to avoid reso-nance problems in structures, piping and subsea equipment: risk reduction and fatigue life improvement, in: ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2005 January, pp. 925-932.
  22. A.K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures. Theory and Applications to, Earthquake Engineering, 2017.
  23. MEEN 617 Handout #8 Modal Analysis of MDOF Systems with Proportional Damping, L. SanAndres, 2008.
  24. Siemens Legend LMS TEST, Lab Modal Analysis. https://community.plm.automation.siemens.com, 2017.
  25. T.K. Kundra, Structural dynamic modifications via models, Sadhana 25 (3) (2000) 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703544
  26. N.M.M. Maia, J.M. M e Silva, Theoretical and Experimental Modal Analysis (Mechanical Engineering Research Studies. Engineering Control Series, 9) Hardcover, April 1, 1997.
  27. R. Brincker, L. Zhang, P. Andersen, Modal identification from ambient responses using frequency domain decomposition, in: Proc. Of the 18th International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC), San Antonio, Texas, 2000, February.
  28. A. Gupta, S.K. Rustogi, A.K. Gupta, Ritz vector approach for evaluating incabinet response spectra, Nucl. Eng. Des. 190 (3) (1999) 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(99)00076-X

피인용 문헌

  1. Seismic capacity evaluation of NPP electrical cabinet facility considering grouping effects vol.57, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2020.1724206
  2. Seismic Vulnerability of Cabinet Facility with Tuned Mass Dampers Subjected to High- and Low-Frequency Earthquakes vol.10, pp.14, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10144850
  3. Effect of Frequency Content of Earthquake on the Seismic Response of Interconnected Electrical Equipment vol.1, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/civileng1030012
  4. Seismic capacity evaluation of fire-damaged cabinet facility in a nuclear power plant vol.53, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.09.004
  5. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Model and Seismic Fragility Analysis of NPP Equipment Subjected to High- and Low-Frequency Earthquakes vol.195, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2021.1920796