Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An efficient numerical modeling approach for coupled electrical cabinets in nuclear power plants

  • Sudeep Das Turja (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University College of Engineering) ;
  • Md. Rajibul Islam (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University College of Engineering) ;
  • Dong Van Nguyen (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University College of Engineering) ;
  • Dookie Kim (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University College of Engineering)
  • Received : 2023.11.29
  • Accepted : 2024.03.31
  • Published : 2024.09.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Seismic quantification of nonstructural components like electrical cabinets is essential to ensure the uninterrupted operation of nuclear facilities during earthquake events. This process requires experimental tests, which can be expensive, time-consuming, and limited by safety concerns and precision. As an alternative to that, numerical simulations should be done in such a way that they are capable of capturing the global dynamic behavior with minimum computational efforts. However, in the case of complex interconnected cabinets, the simplification of numerical models often poses difficulties in illustrating the real-time behavior of combined cabinet systems. On the other hand, detailed three-dimensional (3D) numerical models require lengthy time and sophisticated computational setup, indicating their expensive computational efforts. To resolve this issue, a simplified and efficient 3D modeling approach has been proposed in this study. The accuracy of the results from the new model showed an excellent match with that obtained from the responses of the experimental test. After the validation and observation of the numerical efficiency, a practical application is implemented by considering the impacts of earthquake frequency contents on the behavior of cabinet systems. From the outcomes, it is evident that this proposed modeling methodology has the potential to replace the complex combined nuclear cabinet models for earthquake evaluation.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (No. RS-2023-00241517).

References

  1. M.R. Khan, W.W.H. Chen, T.Y. Wang, Seismic Qualification of Multiple Interconnected Safety-Related Cabinets in a High Seismic Zone, 1993.
  2. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), NUREG-0705, Identification of New Unresolved Safety Issues Relating to Nuclear Power Plant Stations, 1981.
  3. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), NUREG-1030, Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Nuclear Power Plants, 1987. Unresolved safety issue A-46.
  4. Sung Gook Cho, Dookie Kim, Sandeep 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.
  5. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Seismic Design and Qualification for Nuclear Power Plants, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004.
  6. L. Baccarini, M. Capretta, M. Casirati, A. Castaldi, Seismic Qualification Tests of Electric Equipment for Caorso Nuclear Plant: Comments on Adopted Test Procedure and Results, 1975.
  7. P. Ibanez, R. Keowen, H. Minkowski, B. Kacyra, N. Chauhan, Situ Testing for Seismic Evaluation of Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1977.
  8. Mahmood Hosseini, Meran Hatami, Identification of the Dynamic Characteristics of Substation Components by Ambient and Free Vibration Tests, 2001.
  9. Min Kyu Kim, In Kil Choi, A Failure Mode Evaluation of a 480V MCC in Nuclear Power Plants at the Seismic Events, 2009.
  10. T. Katona, H. Kennerknecht, F.O. Henkel, Earthquake Design of Switchgear Cabinents of the VVER-440/213 at Paks, 1995.
  11. E.G. Fischer, S.A. Shariff, B.M. Bharteey, Simplified seismic computer analysis of multi-cabinet, modular control centers based upon static load and resonant vibration tests, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. 7 (1982) 2032-2040, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1982.317417.
  12. E.G. Fischer, J.M. Sucevic, T.P. Fischer, Class 1E seismic qualification by test and analysis of generic multi-cabinet electrical equipment, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. 9 (1982) 3061-3067, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1982.317550.
  13. B.Y. Lee, W.J. Kim, J.Y. Shon, H.M. Shin, S. Kwon, S.H. Kim, S.B. Lee, Dynamic analysis of a cabinet of a reactor protection system, Proc. IME C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 221 (9) (2007) 1047-1056, https://doi.org/10.1243/09544062JMES543.
  14. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Guidelines for development of in-cabinet seismic demand for devices mounted in electrical cabinets, Epri J. (1995).
  15. Abdul Latif, Kashif Salman, Dookie Kim, Seismic response of electrical cabinets considering primary-secondary structure interaction with contact nonlinearity of anchors, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 59 (6) (2022) 757-767, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2021.2007812.
  16. Kashif Salman, Thanh-Tuan Tran, Dookie Kim, Grouping effect on the seismic response of cabinet facility considering primary-secondary structure interaction, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (6) (2020) 1318-1326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.11.024.
  17. Sudhir Rustogi, Abhinav 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.
  18. Md Kamrul Hasan Ikbal, Dong Van Nguyen, Seokchul Kim, Dookie Kim, Seismic evaluation of different types of electrical cabinets in nuclear power plants considering coupling effects: experimental and numerical study, Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2023.06.024.
  19. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Design of Substations, 2005.
  20. Abhinav Gupta, S.K. Rustogi, Ajaya 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.
  21. S. Moaveni, Finite element analysis theory and application with ANSYS, 3/e, Pearson Education India, 2011.
  22. ANSYS Mechanical User's Guide, Release 19.2, SAS IP, Inc.
  23. IEEE 344, IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, vol. 344, 2004.
  24. Rune Brincker, Lingmi Zhang, Palle Andersen, Modal identification from ambient responses using frequency domain decomposition, Proc. Int. Modal Anal. Conf. 1 (2000) 625-630.
  25. Chandresh Shah, Mesh discretization error and criteria for accuracy of finite element solutions, in: Ansys Users Conference, vol. 12, 2002.
  26. Dynamics of civil structures, in: Shamim Pakzad (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Imac, a Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics 2018, Springer, 2018 vol. 2.
  27. Tahmina Tasnim Nahar, Md Motiur Rahman, Dookie Kim, Effective safety assessment of aged concrete gravity dam based on the reliability index in a seismically induced site, Appl. Sci. 11 (5) (2021) 1987, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11051987.
  28. Irmela Zentner, Max Gundel, Nicolas Bonfils, Fragility analysis methods: review of existing approaches and application, Nucl. Eng. Des. 323 (2017) 245-258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.12.021.
  29. Qiujin Ma, Oh-Sung Kwon, Tae-Hyun Kwon, Young-Sun Choun, Influence of frequency content of ground motions on seismic fragility of equipment in nuclear power plant, Eng. Struct. 224 (2020) 111220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111220.
  30. Young-Sun Choun, In-Kil Choi, Jeong-Moon Seo, Improvement of the seismic safety of existing nuclear power plants by an increase of the component seismic capacity: a case study, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (6) (2008) 1410-1420, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.10.008.
  31. In Kil Choi, S. Eem, High frequency earthquake ground motion research-selection of equipment for seismic fragility test, in: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, 2017, pp. 18-19.
  32. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Seismic screening of components sensitive to high-frequency vibratory motions, in: NSAC. Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, 2007.
  33. T.J. Zhu, A.C. Heidebrecht, W.K. Tso, Effect of peak ground acceleration to velocity ratio on ductility demand of inelastic systems, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 16 (1) (1988) 63-79, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290160106.
  34. W.K. Tso, T.J. Zhu, A.C. Heidebrecht, Engineering implication of ground motion A/ V ratio, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 11 (3) (1992) 133-144, https://doi.org/10.1016/0267-7261(92)90027-B.
  35. Dong Van Nguyen, Dookie Kim, Duy Nguyen Duan, Nonlinear seismic soil-structure interaction analysis of nuclear reactor building considering the effect of earthquake frequency content, in: Structures, vol. 26, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 901-914, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.05.013.
  36. PEER, Strong Ground Motion Database, 2010.
  37. Maryam Behrangfar, Mohsen Gerami, Mehrsa Mirzahosseini, The effect of the ground motion frequency content on seismic performance and fragility curve of special concentric braced frames, in: Structures, vol. 57, Elsevier, 2023 105250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105250.