Selecting the Computation Model Boundaries in Performing Combined Experimental and Numerical Confirmation of NPP Branched Pipework Seismic Stability

Authors

  • Алексей [Aleksey] Владимирович [V.] Щугорев [Shchugorev]
  • Павел [Pavel] Станиславович [S.] Казновский [Kaznovsky]
  • Константин [Konstantin] Геннадьевич [G.] Касьянов [Kasyanov]
  • Алексей [Aleksey] Алексеевич [A.] Мухрыгин [Mukhrygin]
  • Сергей [Sergey] Иванович [I.] Рясный [Ryasny]

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24160/1993-6982-2018-4-28-35

Keywords:

seismic stability, dynamic characteristics, natural frequencies, vibration decrements, combined calculation and experimental method

Abstract

Unavoidable deviations from the initial design solutions that are made in the course of installation work during NPP construction generate the need to perform combined numerical and experimental confirmation of plant equipment seismic stability with determining its natural dynamic characteristics. The most labor-consuming stage of activities aimed at performing combined experimental and numerical confirmation of NPP equipment seismic stability includes seismic stability numerical analysis with verifying the computation model against the experimentally determined values of equipment natural frequencies. A way in which the effort taken to carry out the calculation can be decreased by reducing and simplifying the computation model with subsequently adjusting it using the experimentally obtained natural frequencies is demonstrated. Simplification of the computation model is achieved by excluding, with the necessary substantiation, some of pipeline sectors with replacing their effect on the remaining portion by elastic constraints, the stiffness of which is refined based on the experimental values of the equipment natural damped vibration frequencies. A sodium vapor trap jointly with the adjacent extended pipeline segments (the modeling of which is a very labor consuming task) is considered. It is advisable to limit the reduced computation model at the sliding support location points, because this will make it possible to minimize the number of elastic constraints modeling the effect of truncated fragments. The experimentally obtained frequencies are compared with their calculated values. In the considered example, it is found that there is a mismatch between the experimental and calculated values of the lowest frequencies, whereas the higher frequencies are found to be in good agreement with each other, which is attributed to a local nature of disturbances applied in the tests. In the course of simplifying the computation model, the pipeline parts behind the sliding supports were truncated. The effect of the truncated parts was replaced by elastic constrains the stiffness of which was selected proceeding from the criterion of coincidence between the experimental and calculated values of the lowest frequencies. Seismic stability calculations were carried out for the full and simplified computation models. The mechanical stresses arising in the trap filter supporting frame are calculated. The stress values obtained using the simplified model were found to be higher than those obtained using the full model. The maximal stresses estimated from the full and reduced models differ from each other by no more than 8%.

Author Biographies

Алексей [Aleksey] Владимирович [V.] Щугорев [Shchugorev]

Science degree:

Ph.D. (Techn.)

Workplace

Robotics, Mechatronics and Machines Dynamic and Strengt Dept., NRU MPEI

Occupation

Assistant

Павел [Pavel] Станиславович [S.] Казновский [Kaznovsky]

Science degree:

Ph.D. (Techn.)

Workplace

Seismic Safety Dept., JSC «Atomtechenergo»

Occupation

Head of Dept.

Константин [Konstantin] Геннадьевич [G.] Касьянов [Kasyanov]

Science degree:

Ph.D. (Techn.)

Workplace

Seismic Safety Dept., JSC «Atomtechenergo»

Occupation

Leading Specialist

Алексей [Aleksey] Алексеевич [A.] Мухрыгин [Mukhrygin]

Workplace

Seismic Safety Dept., JSC «Atomtechenergo»

Occupation

Engineer

Сергей [Sergey] Иванович [I.] Рясный [Ryasny]

Science degree:

Dr.Sci. (Techn.),

Workplace

Nuclear Power Plants Dept., NRU MPEI

Occupation

Professor

References

1. Казновский П.С., Казновский А.П., Сааков Э.С., Рясный С.И. Подтверждение сейсмостойкости оборудования АЭС после монтажа // Электрические станции. 2012. № 12. С. 2—6.

2. НП-064—17. Учет внешних воздействий природного и техногенного происхождения на объекты использования атомной энергии.

3. МТ 1.2.2.04.0069—2012. Методика подтверждения динамических характеристик систем и элементов энергоблоков АЭС, важных для безопасности.

4. Казновский П.С. и др. Экспериментально-расчетное подтверждение сейсмостойкости разветвленных трубопроводных систем АЭС // Электрические станции. 2016. № 12. С. 32—35.

5. НП-031-01. Нормы проектирования сейсмостойких атомных станций.

6. Бирбраер А.Н. Расчет конструкций на сейсмостойкость. СПб.: Наука, 1998.

7. Прочность. Устойчивость. Колебания / под общ. ред. И.А. Биргера, Я.Г. Пановко. М.: Машиностроение, 1968.

8. Fundamental Safety Principles. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2006. No. SF 1.

9. Seismic Design and Qualification For Nuclear Power Plants. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2003. No. NS-G-1.6.

10. Evaluation of Seismic Safety for Existing Nuclear Installations. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2009. No. NS-G-2.13.

11. Earthquake Experience and Seismic Qualification by Indirect Methods in Nuclear Installations. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2003.
---
Для цитирования: Щугорев А.В., Казновский П.С., Касьянов К.Г., Мухрыгин А.А., Рясный С.И. Выбор границ расчетной схемы при экспериментально-расчетном подтверждении сейсмостойкости разветвленных трубопроводов атомных электростанций // Вестник МЭИ. 2018. № 4. С. 28—35. DOI: 10.24160/1993-6982-2018-4-28-35.
#
1. Kaznovskiy P.S., Kaznovskiy A.P., Saakov E.S.,Ryasnyy S.I. Podtverzhdenie Seysmostoykosti Oborudovaniya AES Posle Montazha. Elektricheskie Stantsii. 2012;2:2—6. (in Russian).

2. NP-064—17. Uchet Vneshnih Vozdeystviy Prirodnogo i Tekhnogennogo Proiskhozhdeniya na Ob′ekty Ispol'zovaniya Atomnoy Energii. (in Russian).

3. MT 1.2.2.04.0069—2012. Metodika Podtverzhdeniya Dinamicheskih Harakteristik Sistem i Elementov Energoblokov AES, Vazhnyh dlya Bezopasnosti. (in Russian).

4. Kaznovskiy P.S. i dr. Eksperimental'no-raschetnoe Podtverzhdenie Seysmostoykosti Razvetvlennyh Truboprovodnyh Sistem AES. Elektricheskie Stantsii. 2016;12:32—35. (in Russian).

5. NP-031-01. Normy Proektirovaniya Seysmostoykih Atomnyh Stantsiy. (in Russian).

6. Birbraer A.N. Raschet Konstruktsiy na Seysmostoykost'. SPb.: Nauka, 1998. (in Russian).

7. Prochnost'. Ustoychivost'. Kolebaniya / pod obshch. red. I.A. Birgera, Ya.G. Panovko. M.: Mashinostroenie, 1968. (in Russian).

8. Fundamental Safety Principles. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2006;SF 1.

9. Seismic Design and Qualification For Nuclear Power Plants. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2003;NS-G-1.6.

10. Evaluation of Seismic Safety for Existing Nuclear Installations. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2009;NS-G-2.13.

11. Earthquake Experience and Seismic Qualification by Indirect Methods in Nuclear Installations. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2003.
---
For citation: Shchugorev А.V., Kaznovsky P.S., Kasyanov K.G., Mukhrygin А.А., Ryasny S.I. Selecting the Computation Model
Boundaries in Performing Combined Experimental and Numerical Confirmation of NPP Branched Pipework Seismic Stability.
MPEI Vestnik. 2018;4:28—35. (in Russian). DOI: 10.24160/1993-6982-2018-4-28-35.

Published

2018-08-01

Issue

Section

Power Engineering, Metallurgic and Chemical Machinery (05.04.00)