Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessment of the impact of seismic retrofit on electrical switchboards based on shaking table tests

  • Sang-Moon Lee (Institute for Smart Infrastructure, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Bub-Gyu Jeon (Seismic Research and Test Center, Pusan National University) ;
  • Sung-Wan Kim (Seismic Research and Test Center, Pusan National University) ;
  • Woo-Young Jung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
  • Received : 2025.02.21
  • Accepted : 2025.08.13
  • Published : 2025.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Electrical switchboards are essential in power plants for managing, distributing, and converting high-voltage electricity. However, seismic events can cause structural and functional damage, leading to severe secondary failures in critical infrastructure. Conventional reinforcement methods, such as anchoring and base strengthening, are widely used but often fail to prevent rocking and uplifting, resulting in localized deformations and impact damage. This study assesses the impact of seismic reinforcement on switchboards using shaking table tests. Initial tests revealed that standard anchoring methods were insufficient to prevent structural damage, causing significant stress and deformation around anchoring points. To address this, two alternative reinforcement strategies were examined: (1) increasing the number of connecting bolts between the switchboard and the base channel and (2) reinforcing the switchboard's bottom panel with a welded steel grid. Numerical simulations and additional tests validated their effectiveness. Results showed that increasing the connecting bolts significantly improved structural stiffness, reducing acceleration responses and deformation by up to 20%. However, welded grid reinforcement enhanced localized stiffness but failed to mitigate impact acceleration effectively. The findings emphasize anchoring reinforcement as a practical and cost-effective solution for improving seismic resilience in electrical switchboards, offering valuable insights for optimized seismic retrofitting in power plants.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This present work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2021R1A6A1A03044326 and 2022R1A6A3A01086071).

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017), Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
  2. Barzoki, A. M., Saadantia, M. and Karami, H. (2023), "Numerical analysis of beams with damping subjected to dynamic loading", Earthq. Struct., 24(2), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2023.24.2.091.
  3. Chang, S.E. (2016), "Socioeconomic impacts of infrastructure disruptions", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-66
  4. Cho, S.G. and Salman, K. (2022), "Seismic demand estimation of electrical cabinet in nuclear power plant considering equipmentanchor-interaction", Nucl. Eng. Technol., 54(4), 1382-1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.10.021.
  5. Cook, R.A. and Klingner, R.E. (1989), "Behavior and design of ductile multiple-anchor-to-concrete connections", Report No. FHWA/TX-89+1126-3;FHWA/TX-89+1126-3; The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  6. FEMA 461 (2007), Interim Testing Protocols for Determining the Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  7. FEMA E-74 (2011), Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage - A practical Guide, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  8. Go, C., Kwag, S., Eem, S., Kwak, J. and Oh, J. (2024), "A computationally efficient approach of tuned mass damper design for a nuclear cabinet based on two-step machine learning and optimization methods", Adv. Eng. Softw., 197, 103736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2024.103736.
  9. Hadzhiev, I. (2019), "3D coupled electromagnetic-thermal-fluid analysis of a low voltage switchboard", 2019 II International Conference on High Technology for Sustainable Development (HiTech), Sofia, Bulgaria, October.
  10. Hur, J. (2012), "Seismic performance evaluation of switchboard cabinets using nonlinear numerical models", Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  11. Hur, J., Goodno, B.I. and Craig, J.I. (2012), "Dynamic characteristics of switchboard cabinets subjected to earthquakes using numerical models: A study of evaluating seismic effects on nonstructural components", Structures Congress 2012, Chicago, IL, USA, March.
  12. ICC-ES AC-156 (2010), Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Certification by Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components, Fourth Draft, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USA.
  13. IEC 60068-3-3 (1991), Environmental Testing-Part 3-3: GuidanceSeismic Test Methods for Equipments, International Electronic Commission, Geneva, Switzerland
  14. IEEE Std. 323-2003 (2003), IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, USA
  15. IEEE Std. 344:2004 (2004), IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Station, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
  16. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (2005), IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Design of Substations, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
  17. Jeon, B.K., Kim, S.W., Yoon, D.W., Joo, B.S. and Jung, W.Y. (2021), "Seismic performance evaluation of an electrical cabinet with a friction pendulum system through a three-axis shaking table test", Transac. Korean Soc. Noise Vib. Eng., 31(3), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.5050/KSNVE.2021.31.3.319.
  18. Kang, M.S., Kim, J.H. and Kim, M.H. (2023), "Experimental and numerical study on the vibration characteristics of an electric switchboard with wire rope isolators in naval ships", Ocean Eng., 283, 115172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115172.
  19. KDS 41 17 00 (2019), Seismic Design Code of Buildings (KDS 41 17 00:2019), Korean Design Standard, Seoul, Korea.
  20. Lim, E., Goodno, B.J. and Craig, J.I. (2016), "Development of a method to generate a simplified finite element model for an electrical switchboard cabinet", International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Baltimore, MD, USA, November.
  21. Liu, C., Ma, K., Wei, X., He, G., Shi, W. and Zhou, Y. (2017), "Shaking table test and time-history analysis of high-rise diagrid tube structure", Period. Polytech. Civil Eng., 61(2), 300-312. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.9243.
  22. National Radio Research Agency (NRRA) (2015), Seismic Test Method for Telecommunication Facilities, Nuju-si, Korea.
  23. Park, Y.I., Kang, M.S., Kim, M.H., Choi, J. and Kim, J.H. (2024), "Experimental and numerical study on the shock characteristics of an electric switchboard with wire rope isolators in naval ships", Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M: J. Eng. Maritime Environ., 238(4), 876-884. https://doi.org/10.1177/14750902231222521.
  24. Ridder, G.C. and Djordjevic, W. (1995), "Results of the USI A-46 seismic walkdown program at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (No. CONF-950740-)", Joint ASME/JSME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, July.
  25. Shang, Q., Zuo, H., Zhang, X., Li, Z., Sun, G., Zhang, P., ... and Wang, T. (2024), "Shaking table tests of power distribution cabinets: Physical damage, post-earthquake functionality and seismic response evaluation", Struct., 62, 106208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106208.
  26. Silva, F., Amendola, C., Pitilakis, D. and Silvestri, F. (2023), "Prediction of foundation stiffness and damping ratio under horizontal translation and rocking motion", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 166, 107735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107735.
  27. Smeets, R., Van der Sluis, L., Kapetanovic, M., Peelo, D.F. and Janssen, A. (2015), "Switching in electrical transmission and distribution systems", John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
  28. Song, Y. and Peng, X. (2008), "Spectra analysis of sampling and reconstructing continuous signal using hamming window function", 2008 Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation, Jinan, China, October.
  29. Vu, V.T., Yeon, H., Song, Y., Kim, Y. and Lee, H. (2023), "Seismic response of an electrical switchboard with vibration absorbers during earthquake excitation", J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 37(7), 3347-3355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-023-0602-7.
  30. Yurdakul, M., Yılmaz, F., Artar, M., Can, Ö., Öner, E. and Daloğlu, A.T. (2021), "Investigation of time-history response of a historical masonry minaret under seismic loads", Struct., 30, 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.008.
  31. Zhang, X., Li, Z., Sun, G., Zhang, P., Zuo, H., Shang, Q. and Wang, T. (2024), "Evaluation of seismic response of server cabinets through shaking table tests", Eng. Struct., 301, 117322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117322.