Evaluation of dynamic parameters of nuclear reactor protection shell

Boldyrev G.G.
Professor of the Penza State University of Architecture and Construction, director for research
and innovation of the NPP Geotek LLC, Penza, g- boldyrev@geoteck.ru
Zhivaev A.A.
Engineer of the NPP Geotek LLC, PHD, Penza, 4shm@mail.ru
Key words: nuclear reactor, dynamic monitoring system, measurements vibro-accelerations,
operation modal analysis, identification of frequencies, modal assurance criterion

The paper presents results of nuclear reactor protective shell dynamic parameters evaluation
for Novovoronezhskaya Nuclear Power Station (NPS). The data arrived from a dynamic
monitoring system. The system includes a six-channel seismograph and one- and threecomponent RefTek accelerometers (Fig.1). The dynamic system includes a computer for
collecting the measured data. The computer contains an input-output Ethernet interface to
communicate with a seismic register of the monitoring system. The computer runs RNC2Server
and RNC2Client for configuring and checkout the measurement process.

Fig. 1. Scheme placement of acceleration sensors

In order to determine the dynamic parameters of the Protective Shell the Operation Modal
Analysis (OMA) was applied that requires no additional dynamic action on the structure. Instead,
it just requires responses at the structure points as input data.
The measurements yielded the values of vibro-accelerations at Protective Shell points, located
around the polar crane cantilever. In order to determine natural vibrations modes, the frequencies
and damping coefficients an operations modal analysis was conducted with the help of
ARTeMIS Extractor software.
Identification of frequencies by FDD (frequency domain decomposition, fig.2, tabl.1), EFDD
(enhanced frequency domain decomposition), SSI UPC (stochastic subspace identification

non-weighted principal component), SSI PC (stochastic subspace identification - principal

component), SSI CVA (stochastic subspace identification - canonical variation analysis) there
were obtained 1,666 to 4, 395 Hz natural frequencies. FDD and SSI CVA vibration modes were
compared, using (modal assurance criterion) of correlation coefficients (Fig.3). The
correlation rate between natural vibration frequencies, obtained by different methods (from time
and frequency domains), is high i.e., over 0.9. The identified frequencies are close to each other,
however, it is not so for damping coefficients.

Fig. 2. Results of identification of frequencies by FDD method

Tabl.1. Own frequencies of fluctuations received by the FDD method
Mode
FDD Mode 1
FDD Mode 2
FDD Mode 3

Frequency [Hz]
1.666
1.685
4.395

Fig. 3. Results of MAC coefficient calculation

Notably, SSI CVA application yields better results, because it requires no calculations of the
frequency spectrum. It is recommended to assume current values of natural frequencies and

damping ratios of the protective shell as the current ones for further dynamic monitoring of the
reactor protective shell. The current values of natural frequencies and damping ratios are
recommended to be equal to dynamic parameters, obtained by SSI CVA method. These values of
dynamic parameters are recommended as initial ones for further monitoring of the reactor
protective shell.