The responses of a cabinet for a reactor protection system under seismic loadings are analysed by using the finite-element method, and its dynamic characteristics are evaluated. Analysed modes are compared with the measured data from a resonance search test. The structural safety of the cabinet is evaluated considering the required response spectrums of the operation-base and safe-shutdown earthquakes. The transient response of the cabinet is analysed by utilizing the measured acceleration of the vibration table representing the seismic motion of the ground. Time histories of accelerations at the locations of major internal parts are extracted. The transient responses are compared with those from the seismic test and the results were found to closely represent the system.
Regulatory Guide 1.222. Development of floor design response spectra for seismic design of floor-supported equipment or components. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978.
6.
Regulatory Guide 1.100. Seismic qualification of electric and mechanical equipment for nuclear power plants. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1988.
7.
ANSI/IEEE STD 344-1987. IEEE recommended practice for seismic qualification of class 1E equipment for nuclear power generating stations. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 1987.
8.
CampbellR. D.HardyG. S.RavindraM. K.JohnsonJ. J.HoyA. J.Seismic re-evaluation of nuclear facilities worldwide: Overview and status. Nucl. Eng. Des., 1998, 182, 17–34.
9.
CampbellR. D.ShortS.RavindraM. K.HardyG. S.JohnsonJ. J.Seismic re-evaluation and upgrading of nuclear power facilities outside the US using US developed methodologies. Nucl. Eng. Des., 1998, 181, 115–129.
ChristianJ. T.Generating seismic design power spectral density functions. Earthq. Spectra, 1989, 5(2), 351–368.
12.
SIMQKE.A program for artificial motion generation. User's manual and documentation, 1976 (Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA).
13.
StoykovickM.Criteria for seismic analysis of nuclear plant structures and substructures. Nucl. Eng. Des., 1974, 27(1), 106–120.
14.
SinhaJ. K.MoorthyR.I.K.Combined experimental and analytical method for a realistis seismic qualification of equipment. Nucl. Eng. Des., 2000, 195, 331–338.
15.
SinhaJ. K.FriswellM. I.Model updating: A tool for reliable modeling, design modification and diagnosis. Shock Vibr. Dig., 2002, 34, 13–35.
16.
SinhaJ. K.FriswellM. I.The use of model updating for reliable finite element modeling and fault diagnosis of structural components used in nuclear plants. Nucl. Eng. Des., 2003, 223, 11–23.
17.
SinhaJ. K.RaoA. R.MoorthyR. I. K.Significance of analytical modelling for interpretation of experimental modal data: A case study. Nucl. Eng. Des., 2003, 220, 91–97.
18.
SinhaJ. K.RaoA. R.SinhaR. K.Realistic seismic qualification using the updated finite element model for in-core components of reactors. Nucl. Eng. Des., 2006, 236, 232–237.
SigristJ.-F.BrocD.LainéC.Dynamic analysis of a nuclear reactor with fluid-structure interaction, part I: Seismic loading, fluid added mass and added stiffness effects. Nucl. Eng. Des., 2006, 236, 2431–2443.
21.
ZhengmingZ.ShuyanH.MingX.Seismic analysis of liquid storage container in nuclear reactors. Nucl. Eng. Des., 2007, 237, 1325–1331.
