Evaluation of anchorage performance of the switchboard cabinet under seismic loading condition

Abstract

In this study, the seismic response of the anchorage used for switchboard cabinets at a power plant was presented based on the results of an experiment and numerical simulations. In the experimental study, shaking table tests were performed to investigate the overall structural behavior of switchboard cabinets. The finite element modeling was conducted using the ABAQUS program, and in order to validate the proposed finite element model, the natural frequency, stress, and displacement were compared with the experimental results. A slight difference was found in the results due to the problem cup-like deformation at the anchorage of the bottom, but it showed reasonable agreement when considering the results for all behaviors. Using the proven model, nonlinear dynamic analysis was performed using three types of a period waves. The maximum stress on the anchorage occurred when a long-period wave was applied, and the horizontal maximum displacement of the cabinet was approximately 10 times greater than when an ultra-short-period wave was applied. It is expected that the flexibility of the cabinet stiffness resulted in more structural weakness, especially under a long-period wave, and that is recommended to focus on displacement rather than stress when establishing seismic design guidelines for switchboard cabinets.

A shake table protocol for seismic assessment and qualification of acceleration‐sensitive nonstructural elements

“…To perform an exhaustive assessment, vibration modes, fundamental periods/frequencies, and damping ratios evolution should be associated with the damage process evolution, considering undamaged, partially, and fully damaged conditions (or at least all the DSs reached during the tests Several testing methods were used in the literature to identify the dynamic characteristics of NEs. Random noise excitation tests (Cosenza et al, 2015;Di Sarno et al, 2019;Fiorino et al, 2019;Jun et al, 2020;Lu et al, 2018;Luo et al, 2021;Petrone et al, 2017;Qi et al, 2021) and sine sweep tests (Kim & Shin, 2021;Lee & Jung, 2020;Lin et al, 2014;Son et al, 2020) are among the most used ones, and no studies, to the knowledge of the authors, identified the differences among the different methods in terms of dynamic properties assessment results or supplied motivations for preferring the use of one specific method. Even though the methods defined within the relevant protocols or in the literature can be considered to be relatively reliable, the absence of a preferred method and the lack of standardized definitions might condition the robustness of the estimations, especially considering comparison purposes.…”

“…Dynamic testing also allows the assessment of the dynamic properties of the elements (e.g., dynamic identification). Shake table testing represents state‐of‐the‐art dynamic testing (Bianchi et al., 2021; Filiatrault et al., 2004; Ghith et al., 2019; Jun et al., 2020; Kim & Shin, 2021; Lee & Jung, 2020; Luo et al., 2021; Magliulo et al., 2014; Qi et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2015; T. Zhou et al., 2021).…”

A study on the load characteristics of the anchorage according to the natural frequency change of the electric cabinet in a power plant

“…Before analyzing the seismic motion load characteristics of the anchorage, the natural frequency of the target structure was measured through a shaking table test with reference to the previous study 14 that evaluated the performance of the anchorage of the electric cabinet during the earthquake.…”