You are on page 1of 16

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Evaluation of power substation equipment seismic vulnerability by


multivariate fragility analysis: A case study on a 420 kV circuit breaker

crossmark

Seyed Alireza Zareeia, , Mahmood Hosseinib, Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtianyb


a
b

Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad university, Tehran, Iran
Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O

A BS T RAC T

Keywords:
Multivariate fragility analysis
Fragility surface
Multi-parameter seismic hazard maps
Power substation
Circuit breaker

Recent earthquakes have shown that Electrical Power Substations apparatuses are seismically vulnerable. This
causes to disrupt the power supply in many cases, and therefore their seismic evaluation with high reliability is
signicantly important. Using fragility curves is a common practice for assessing seismic vulnerability. In
general, fragility curves are based on only one intensity measure (IM), such as peak ground acceleration (PGA).
This study has attempted to propose multivariate fragility analysis. One of the major advantages of this
developed multivariate fragility analysis is to more reliably determine the seismic vulnerability of a region. A
420 kV circuit breaker (CB) was modeled and analyzed by using nite element technique. The results show that
by adding another IM as peak ground velocity (PGV) the dispersion of the created data decreases to a great
extent and therefore, the developed fragility surfaces helps conducting the seismic risk evaluation of electric
power system components with higher level of reliability. Based on the obtained numerical results it can be
expressed that for moderate damage state the fragility values are not much dependent on the PGV variation,
while for severe damage state the dependence of fragility values on PGV is noticeable, particularly for PGA
values in range of 0.10.7 g.

1. Introduction
Inspired by lessons from the past earthquakes, it is clear that the
existence of electricity during and after seismic events has a substantial
eect on rescue and relief operations, resulting in saving lives in
emergencies. Major losses resulting from vulnerability of electric power
system subjected to earthquake include: a) direct loss which comprises
the costs of repairing damaged parts of the electric system; and b)
indirect loss due to service interruption of other lifelines, particularly
those notably dependent on electric power such as water supply
systems [18,21,28,29,31]. Among the electric power network's elements, power substations are more vulnerable and play a vital role in
stability, controllability, and serviceability of electric power system
[10,11,25,26].
The studies conducted by the researchers about seismic vulnerability of the electrical apparatuses can be classied into three main
sections: the studies conducted on physical damages of either one or
several special equipment in the past earthquakes, the studies conducted through experimental and analytical methods, and the studies
dealt with evaluating the power substation's equipment vulnerabilities

by means of numerical and probability based methods such as fragility


curves.
Vulnerability of power substations may be due to the following
reasons [19,20,22,23].

Using brittle materials (porcelain) to support electrical wires and


buses,
Improper mass distribution along the equipment height,
Heavy elevated masses,
Inadequate anchorage,
Insucient lateral stiness of supporting equipment,
Low redundancy of structures and networks as a whole,
Interaction between adjacent devices and structures and their
dierent parts,
Aging of the equipment, and
Lack of seismic design of equipment and the structures

The dynamic behavior of power substation apparatuses were


studied by some other researchers. In 2015, Alessandri et al. introduced a novel wire rope base isolation system protect high voltage (HV)

Abbreviations: CB, Circuit Breaker; PGA, Peak Ground Acceleration; PGV, Peak Ground Velocity; DS, Disconnect Switches; CT, Current Transformer; CVT, Capacitor Voltage
Transformers; LA, Lighting Arrestor; PTR, Power Transformer; THA, Time History Analysis

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Alirezazareei89@gmail.com (S.A. Zareei).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.09.026
Received 28 March 2016; Received in revised form 21 September 2016; Accepted 22 September 2016
0267-7261/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

porcelain circuit breakers (CBs) during earthquakes. At the beginning,


experimental tests were performed to assess the mechanical properties
of the porcelain column (strength and elastic modulus). A series of
time-history analyses were performed and demonstrated the eectiveness of this isolation system in both serviceability and ultimate limit
conditions. The displacements obtained were compatible with the
electrical insulation requirements and a reduction in the bending
moment by 80% was observed. The new wire rope base isolating
system seems particularly suitable when the elongation of the period is
generated by a rocking eect rather than horizontal shear deformations
[36].
In a companion paper the experimental characterization of the
previously discussed base-isolation system was addressed. The comparison between experimental and numerical results showed a consistency for all response quantities (displacements, moments, and
deformations), while the maximum values were systematically underestimated about 20%. The results also illustrated that the wire rope
base isolation system reduces approximately of 75% the maximum
stress level in the porcelain column, which highly increases the safety
level of this apparatus against earthquakes [37].
Mosalam and Gnay (2013) proposed a real-time hybrid simulation
system (RTHS) for cost-eective and time ecient dynamic testing of
high voltage disconnecting switches (DS). In the developed RTHS
system, a single insulator post used in the 245 kV vertical-break DS was
tested as the experimental substructure on the smart shaking table and
a single degree of freedom system representing the support structure
was employed as the analytical substructure. The test results of RTHS
system were also compared with those from a conventional shaking
table test [38]. In another companion research the results of a
parametric study consisting RTHS tests were presented. The purpose
of the parametric study was to evaluate the eect of support structure
damping and stiness on the response of DSes with two dierent
insulator materials, namely porcelain and polymer insulator posts [39].
One of the common methods for assessing seismic vulnerability of
power substation equipment is using fragility curves. There are several
studies in which fragility curves have been developed for electrical
equipment [4,8,12,24]. In 1999, Anagnos assessed the performance of
twelve power substations equipment in California using fragility
curves. Using the peak ground acceleration (PGA) as the input
ground-motion parameter, she compared failure probabilities with
opinion-based fragility curves for a few selected equipment classes.
Her study also showed that most of the damage in power substations
has resulted from CBs and DSes [5].
Regarding to the experimental analysis, Paolacci and Giannini [9]
investigated the seismic vulnerability of 380 kV vertical DS. They
performed numerical analyses to obtain fragility curves on the equipment, and evaluated the inuence of signicant parameters on the
probability of its failure. Their results showed that the equipment was
quite vulnerable to an extremely intense earthquake (i.e., for a spectral
acceleration of 1g; corresponding to a PGA value of about 0.35 g) [9].
Generally, a substation comprises many components such as power
transformers (PTRs), CBs, DSes, current transformers (CTs), and etc.
Inevitably, all the equipment must function safely and the entire
substation must qualify for performance and normal serviceability.
But in the case of severe earthquake events, some equipment are more
critical and the overall performance of substation depends on their
functionality. Zareei [27] has evaluated the seismic vulnerability of
power substation equipment. It was tried to nd the critical components in a power substation by analytical hierarchy process. According
to that study, after PTRs on which the whole performance of substation
greatly depends, CBs have a considerable eect on the substation
performance [27]. Considering the important role of CBs in a power
substation, it is necessary to evaluate their seismic vulnerability more
reliably. Inside the CB's porcelains, there is gas or oil, or in some cases,
the porcelain is vacuumed. Thus, existence of even ne cracks will
annihilate its insulation capability and then its performance will be

h
Selecting Enough
Nu
umber of Recorrds
ng the
ng and Clusterin
Sortin
ds
Selected
Record
S
Computer
Creating tthe Stucture's C
An Appropriatte Sofware
Model by A
Analyses and
History A
Perfoming Time
T
he Required Ressponse Values
Calculating th
heir
nsidering Approopriate Damagee Indices and Th
Con
Damages Statess
Thresholds
Based on Defined D
T
Probability Disttribution
Obtaining the Probabiltty Density and P
Functoins
of the Calculated Reesponse Valuess
F
agility Curves
Plotting the Fra
as IM
Based on PGA
P

Illusttrating the Fraggility Surfaces


d PGV as IMs
Baseed on PGA and

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the required process for seismic fragility assessment.

aected [2,3]. In this study, seismic evaluation of a 420 kV CB in terms


of fragility curves has been conducted using analytical method, based
on a set of time history analysis (THA). Then, observing the high
dispersion of the data obtained from THA calculations, an attempt has
been made to decrease the dispersion by developing two-variable
fragility functions. For this purpose two hazard intensity measures
(IMs), including PGA and peak ground velocity (PGV), instead of PGA
alone, have been employed. Details of the study are presented in the
following sections.
2. The process of developing seismic fragility functions
Fig. 1 shows a owchart of the required process for developing the
seismic fragility functions for a structural system.
2.1. Single-variable fragility function (fragility curves)
By denition, seismic fragility curves are natural logarithmic
functions which give the probability of exceedance of a specic
response of the structure from a specic performance level for dierent
values of a specic IM of the earthquake. Some types of fragility curves
have been discussed in previous researches [1,14,3335] which
include:

Empirical fragility curves,


Fragility curves developed based on engineering judgment, and
Analytic fragility curves.

In the present study, analytical fragility functions are developed by


using THA. Several methods have been developed to calculate analytical fragility curves such as: conventional incremental dynamic
analysis (IDA), multiple strip analysis (MSA), and endurance time
method (ET). Incremental dynamic analysis involves scaling each
ground motion in a suite until it causes collapse of the structure. It
requires many structural analyses to be performed with increasing IM
levels, in order to nally observe a collapse. Also, the large-IM results
are less practically relevant, as the fragility function values at large IM
levels are of less interest than values at small IM levels. Finally, it is
questionable whether scaling typical moderate-IM ground motions up
to extreme IM levels is an accurate way to represent shaking associated
with real occurrences of such large IM levels. MSA produces more
ecient fragility estimates than other methods for a given number of
structural analyses and evaluates structural seismic responses in
dierent IM levels [6]. In this section MSA process is described:
Probability of exceedance of a specic structural response versus a
specic IM values have often a log-normal distribution [6,16], mathematically expressed as:
80

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

ln( x )
P (EIM =X )=

such as PGV, which is nowadays an available parameter in the seismic


hazard maps, may improve decrease the amount of dispersion of the
created data, and accordingly increase the reliability level of the
developed fragility function.
In recent studies two-variable fragility functions (fragility surfaces)
were developed for a few types of structures such as concrete frames
and masonry buildings [17,30,32]. In this paper the eciency of using
two-variable fragility functions for one of the lifeline's equipment, CB,
is evaluated. Various pairs of parameters, such as PGA-PGV, PGV(PGA/PGV), etc., are compared in terms of their ability to reliably
predict the failure probability of the system. The results demonstrated
that among considered pairs of IMs, (PGA-PGV) is more ecient and
can assess the fragility value with a high rate of reliability. The
preference of (PGA-PGV) based fragility function is due to the better
sorting and clustering of earthquake records, and also by virtue of its
applicability in seismic risk assessment, notably in seismic hazard
maps of a region.

(1)

where P (EIM = x ) is the probability that a ground-motion with IM = x


will cause exceedance of the structural response from the specied
performance level, is the median of fragility function, and is the
standard deviation. The method used here for tting the fragility
functions is the Multiple Stripes Analysis developed by Baker (2014),
which estimates fragility function accurately with minimal number of
analysis cases [6]. The ndings from the structural analysis provide a
fraction of the ground motions at each IM level responsible for
collapse. The probability of observing zj exceedance out of nj ground
motions with IM=xj is given by the binomial distribution:
z

P (zj exceedances in nj ground motions)=(nj /zj ) pj j (1pj )nj zj

(2)

where pj is the probability that a ground motion with IM=xj will cause
exceedance. To predict pj, the related fragility function is identied and
maximum likelihood approach will identify the fragility function that
gives the highest probability of having observed the exceedance data
that was obtained from structural analysis. After analyzing at multiple
IM levels, product of the binomial probabilities at each IM level to get
the likelihood for the entire data set is calculated by Eq. (3)

3. Introducing the 420 kV CB of the case study


Various types of CBs have been used in power substations. The
common types of CBs are shown in Fig. 2. To assess the seismic
vulnerability of a CB, each specied type must be modeled separately,
because of their various structural properties and dierent geometries.

m
z

Likelihood= (nj / zj ) pj j (1pj )nj zj

(3)

j =1

3.1. Features of the CB used in this study

where m is the number of IM levels and is the product over all levels.
By substituting Eq. (1)
m

Likelihood=
j =1

ln ( ) nj zj
ln ( )

(nj / zj )
1


xj

Zj

The CB used in this research is triple pole 420 kV one (shown in


Fig. 2c). It comprises porcelain units and joints. The equipment height
is 4.9 m. The supporting structure can be of the latticed (made from
angles and xed with bracing) or moment frame type. In this model,
the CB is assumed to be supported by a moment frame structure. This
structure is made of two major channel sections such as columns along
with some gusset plates for doubling the channel sections (Fig. 3). The
connections are moment-resistant and two base plates are placed at
two-ended points of the supporting structures. The structure height is
2.4 m from the base and the total height with the apparatus mounted is
7.3 m to the highest point.
Porcelain is a common materials used for insulating in CBs. The
porcelain material is high strength with a minimum bending stress of
110 MPa (according to the IEC60672-3 standard). The joints are made
of cast iron connecting the porcelain parts. The steel material used in
frame is ST52 with Fy=360 MPa . These types of systems could be
modeled using some techniques. As the closer is the model to its real
representation, the higher will be the reliability of the ndings; threedimensional nite element modeling has been performed, as shown in
Fig. 4.
All the parts are of a solid element providing more precise results.
Producing more accurate results, the structure mesh (among dierent
techniques of meshing elements) is more ecient, and for optimized
modeling and analysis, especially in susceptible regions, a ner mesh is
used. It is supposed that high strength mortar provides an eective
bonding between the porcelain and the ange so tie constraints are
dened as a contact condition in conjunction with anges. There is a
base plate at the bottom of the structure xing it to the foundation,
whereas the interaction of the soil and foundation can be developed in
future studies. Generally, CBs are subjected to a number of mechanical
loads: dead load which is self-weight, ice load, forces caused by
operation, current switching and forces induced by harsh environmental conditions such as wind and earthquake [15]. As discussed
before, low lateral resistance is one of the main reasons of these kinds
of equipment's high vulnerability.
Damping is also anther parameters that must be considered in the
analysis. The damping of such equipments is very low and rarely
increases 2%, so according to IEEE recommendations the damping
ratio is assumed to be 2% [7].

xj

(4)

The appropriate tting technique for this type of data is to use the
method to maximize the logarithm of this likelihood. Estimated
fragility function parameters are obtained by the following equation:

ln( xj )
ln( xj )
m

{, }=argmax ln(nj / zj )+zj ln


+(
n

z
)ln
j
j

,


j =1

(5)

2.2. Two-variable fragility functions (fragility surfaces)


It is obvious that response of a structure to an earthquake depends
on several factors, rather than a single parameter of the seismic
excitations such as PGA, while in the common practice for developing
fragility functions only a single IM is used. The aecting factors
include: a) the dynamic characteristics of the structural system, such
as the fundamental natural period of vibration, which is not necessarily
the same for all structures of same category, and b) characteristics of
the seismic excitation, such as PGA, frequency content, and duration,
which their estimation (for developing a seismic hazard map of a
region) is generally subject to great uncertainties. In fact, the responses
of a structure to a set of earthquake records, all having the same IM
values, may have a large variation range, due to other aecting factors
which their contribution is not taken into account for creating the
required data for development of a fragility function. Apparently, the
more dispersion of the created data, the less will be the reliability of the
developed fragility function. Therefore, taking into account as many
aecting factors as possible will lead to more and more reliable fragility
function, which will be of course a multivariate function. Clearly,
contributing all the aecting factors is practically impossible, not only
because of the mathematical complexity, but also due to unavailability
of all aecting seismic parameters in the form of seismic hazard maps
of a region. Nevertheless, adding to the problem at least one more IM,
81

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

Fig. 2. Common types of CBs used in conventional power substations.

3.2. Input characteristics


To perform the THA for obtaining the required data for developing
the fragility functions 154, three-component original acceleration
records have been considered as the input base motion excitations to
be applied to the bottom base plate. It was preferred to use the real
record without scaling to keep all the characteristics of the input
motions. Accelerograms have been selected from the Pacic
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) from the link
http://peer.berekeley.edu/smcat/. The records were chosen from
soil type B. The response spectra of all the records were obtained.
Almost all the records are compatible with the frequency content of the
IEEE 2005 required response spectrum (RRS). Appendix A shows the
list of selected records with their related specications and also their
response spectra. To obtain more reliable results and because of the
cantilevered insulators, the eect of vertical component was also
considered in the analysis. The PGV values of the selected records
were between 10 and 60 cm/s. In other words, in a specic PGV level,
there have been various accelerograms with dierent PGA values.
3.3. THA of the modeled CB
To evaluate the seismic vulnerability of the system by THA at the
beginning, modal frequencies of the system have been calculated
through Modal Analysis (See Table 1).
As frequencies higher than 33 Hz are not observed in earthquake
excitations, the rst nine modes of system, given in Table 1, are more
important, and the eect of the modes with frequencies over this value
are negligible, to determine the fragility values according to the THA,
the physical failure modes must be studied. Some physical failure
modes of CBs due to earthquake are: cracking of the ceramic insulator
causing deterioration of the insulation properties, breaking the ceramic
units, rendering the whole system unstable and supporting structural
damage, which is rare. Among these failure modes, breaking of ceramic
insulators is more critical due to their brittleness and lack of ductility.
In this research, after inspecting the maximum bending stress in
dierent parts of the model, the most vulnerable location was
identied, that is the bottom of the porcelain segment connecting the
structure to the ange. It should be noted that in some of the previous

Fig. 3. Overall view of the considered 420 kV CB and supporting structure.

82

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

Fig. 4. Finite Element model of the considered 420 kV CB and related constraints.

Table 1
Modal frequencies of the modeled CB.
Mode number
Frequency (Hz)

1
1.566

2
2.063

3
4.845

4
6.952

5
9.152

83

6
9.825

7
17.801

8
24.552

9
32.091

10
34.597

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

Fig. 7. Bending stress time histories subjected to three selected ground motions all with
PGA=0.3 g, PGV=20 cm/s.

Fig. 8. Bending stress time histories subjected to three selected ground motions all with
PGA=0.3 g, PGV=30 cm/s.

Fig. 5. Bending stress contours showing the maximum bending stress in one of the
elements due to a three-directional base ground motion excitation.

studies, the vulnerability of such points for these types of equipment


was proved [13,24]. Fig. 5. shows the bending stress contours according to a set of ground motion excitations.
Several failure states may occur in power substation equipment
such as: current interruption, rubber washer laceration or gasket
cracking, cracking the porcelain section, oil leakage or other failure
modes. For circuit breakers the most probable failure mode is the
fracture of porcelain segment in high stressed locations which can be
dened as: a) glaze defect, scratches and scraping in the glazing or ne
cracks which are not visible at rst but gradually can annihilate the
insulation properties, b) major cracks or scattering, large chips broken
out from the ange surface. Porcelain failure has been dened in the
dierent versions of IEEE standard. According to latest version, the
maximum allowable stress in a porcelain section is as much as 50% of
the ultimate stress. In the 1985 version of IEEE standard, the allowable
stress varies from 25% to 50%. In this study, two states of damage have
been considered, one for moderate damage (equal to 25% of the
ultimate stress), and another one for severe damage (equal to 50%) [7].

Fig. 9. Maximum bending stress values due to ground motions having various PGV
levels and the same PGA=0.1 g.

Fig. 10. Maximum bending stress values due to ground motions having various PGV
levels and the same PGA=0.2 g.

4. Results and discussion


Bending stress time histories are very dierent due to various
characteristics of records, even those with similar value of the main
input parameter. For instance Figs. 68., show bending stress time
histories in one of the elements locating at the bottom of porcelain

Fig. 11. Maximum bending stress values due to ground motions having various PGV
levels and the same PGA=0.3 g.

Fig. 6. Bending stress time histories subjected to three of selected ground motions all
with PGA=0.3 g, and PGV=10 cm/s.

Fig. 12. Maximum bending stress values due to ground motions having various PGV
levels and the same PGA=0.4 g.

84

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

Table 2
Fragility Coefficients (, ) for Moderate and Severe Damage States.
PGV (cm/s)
Damage state

10
Severe
0.49

Moderate
0.15

20
Severe
0.32

Moderate
0.12

30
Severe
0.26

Moderate
0.08

40
Severe
0.23

Moderate
0.11

50
Severe
0.25

Moderate
0.09

60
Severe
0.23

Moderate
0.08

0.20

0.91

0.47

0.76

0.23

0.66

0.25

0.12

0.41

0.13

0.3

0.18

Fig. 13. CB's fragility curves developed based on the records with PGV=10 cm/s, (a), and PGV=20 cm/s, (b).

Fig. 14. CB's fragility curves developed based on the records with PGV=30 cm/s, (a), and PGV=40 cm/s, (b).

Fig. 15. CB's fragility curves developed based on the records with PGV=50 cm/s, (a), and PGV=60 cm/s, (b).

The results again show that, maximum stress values obtained from
records with the same PGA value have a high variation, while adding
PGV value as another input parameter, causes comparatively lower
dispersion in most of its own clusters. Also a relatively ascending trend
in stress values is almost obvious in most of the records as the PGVs
increases.
Based on the data obtained from THA parameters (, ) previously
discussed in part 2.1, have been calculated as shown in Table 2 for
moderate and severe damage levels.

portion subjected to three dierent acceleration records all with the


same value of PGA=0.3g, and PGV values between 1030 cm/s.
The above gures show uncertain evaluation of stress values due to
considering PGA as the single input parameters or IM. The eect of
considering PGV as a complementary input data for assessing fragility
values are more clearly in Figs. 912. Each gure shows maximum
bending stress occurring at the bottom of porcelain portion subjected
to dierent accelerograms with the same value of PGA, but various PGV
levels.

85

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

Where PGA=0.2 g, the failure probability might be between 030%.


Therefore, without considering each and every level of PGVs in the
input records, the results will not be reliable enough. For PGA=0.3 g,
the eect of considering one input parameter is more susceptible, such
that the failure probability will vary from 1% to 80%. By comparison of
Figs. 17 and 18., it is also obvious that the dispersion of fragility values
due to dierent levels of PGV is higher in severe damage state rather
than moderate state. This also emphasizes the importance of considering fragility surfaces (rather than the curves) for more reliable seismic
vulnerability assessment. The results also show that this type of CB is
safe enough for earthquakes with PGA0.2 g and is highly vulnerable
for PGA0.5 g.
In the process of combining fragility values to surfaces, Biharmonic
V4 function was used. The R-square index value of the tted surface is
1(the approved accuracy of the results). Figs. 19 and 20, show fragility
surfaces for severe and moderate state.
Fragility surfaces (shown in Figs. 19 and 20) also clearly display the
probability of failure depending on the PGV level. According to the
gures it will be able to estimate the failure probability with every set of
input data (PGA, PGV) and the code provided here (by neural network)
is also capable of calculating the failure probability with a great number
of sets, which can be useful for seismic vulnerability and risk assessment projects of an area.

Fig. 16. Comparing developed fragility curves of this study with those of previous
studies.

5. Conclusions
Considering the important role of power substations during and
after earthquakes, seismic vulnerability of a type of circuit breakers, as
one of the key elements in power substations, was evaluated, and its
two-variable fragility functions (fragility surfaces) for two damage
states of moderate and severe were developed. For this purpose 3D
nite element modeling and time-history analysis of a type of triplepole 420 kV circuit breaker were performed by using three-component
original accelerograms of ground motion. Based on the conducted
numerical analyses it can be concluded that:

Fig. 17. Comparing fragility curves produced from records with various PGV levels
(Moderate Damage State).

Fig. 18. Comparing Fragility Curves Produced From Records with Various PGV Levels
(Severe Damage State).

The fragility curves for each specic PGV level are shown in
Figs. 1315.
A fragility curve considering all PGV levels altogether, was compared with the previous studies; results are shown in Fig. 16.
Variation of failure probability due to dierent PGV levels is
relatively evident in moderate state (See Fig. 17); PGAs0.1 g, the
dispersion is low and will increase for PGAs up to 0.3 g. At higher
values of PGAs, the variability is low for the sake of high vulnerability.
Failure probability in severe damage state is more susceptible to
PGV levels, i.e. the dispersion is small in low PGAs and with an increase
in the PGA to a specic level (0.7 g), it would be larger and as the
system is highly vulnerable at PGA levels greater than 0.7 g, severe
damage failure is nearly inevitable at all PGV levels (See Fig. 18).

Among various possible failure modes, breaking of ceramic insulators is more critical due to their brittleness and lack of ductility.
The most vulnerable part of circuit breaker is the bottom of
porcelain segment, connecting the structure to the ange.
The dispersion of fragility values for dierent levels of PGV is higher
in severe damage state than moderate damage state. In severe
damage state, the sensitivity of fragility values to PGV value is high,
particularly for PGA values in the range of 0.10.7 g, and decreases
for higher PGA levels.
Using two input parameters such as PGA and PGV, rather than a
single parameter, provides more reliable seismic evaluation.
Fragility surfaces are more ecient in seismic risk assessments of
electric power substations in areas with multi-parameter seismic
hazard micro-zonation maps.
For PGA values less than 0.2 g, the considered type of CB will
remain undamaged, and on the contrary, failure is almost inevitable
in regions for PGA values larger than 0.5 g in all levels of PGV.

Based on the above conclusions it can be expressed that utilizing


specic seismic considerations is necessary for substations in seismic
regions. Base isolation, using dampers, exclusion of porcelain insulators and/or retrotting the porcelain base are among the available
techniques which can be used in this regard. Making decision on the
most appropriate seismic vulnerability reduction technique needs
further research.

86

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

Fig. 19. Moderate damage state fragility surfaces.

Fig. 20. Severe damage state fragility surfaces.

Appendix A

Selected records list with their related specications


PGV class
(cm/s)

PGA
class

Record name

Eective dura- Station


tion (S)

10

0.1 g

BISHOP LADWP SOUTH ST 6.19

14.38

Strike slip

10

0.1 g

CHALFANT VALLEY
07/21/86
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

19

CHY050

7.62

44.74

10

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

10

CHY052

7.62

38.7

10

0.1 g

San Juan Bautista, 24 Polk St 5.74

19.46

10
10
10
10

0.1 g
0.1 g
0.2 g
0.2 g

8
7
19
6

Lamont 1058
ForgariaCornino
Shelter Cove Airport
Superstition Mtn Camera

7.14
5.91
7.01
6.53

0.21
14.65
26.51
24.61

Strike slip
Reverse
Reverse
strike slip

10

0.2 g

COYOTE LAKE 08/06/


79
DUZCE 11/12/99
FRIULI 09/11/76
MENDOCINO 04/25/92
IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/
15/79
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Strike slip

12

Hayward BART Sta

6.93

54.01

Reverse
Oblique

87

Magnitude Distance
(km)

Mechanism

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

10

0.2 g

10

0.2 g

10

0.3 g

10
10

0.3 g
0.3 g

10

0.3 g

10
10

0.4 g
0.4 g

10

0.4 g

10

0.4 g

10

0.4 g

10
20

PALM SPRINGS 07/08/


86
PALM SPRINGS 07/08/
86
PALM SPRINGS 07/08/
86
NORTHRIDGE 1/17/94
WHITTIER NARROWS
10/01/87
LIVERMORE 01/27/80

Cranston Forest Station

6.06

27.21

San Jacinto - Soboba

6.06

22.96

San Jacinto - Soboba

6.06

22.96

10
7

Lake Hughes #12A


Inglewood -Union Oil

6.69
5.99

20.77
21.41

5.42

7.94

7
17

Livermore Morgan Terr


Park
Oil City
UCSC Lick Observatory

5.09
6.93

3.46
12.04

15

UCSCSTATION 15

6.93

12.15

CABAZON

6.06

6.84

12

Glendale Las Palmas

6.69

21.64

0.4 g
0.1 g

COALINGA 07/09/83
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
PALM SPRINGS 07/08/
86
NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/
17/94
COALINGA 07/09/83
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

6
23

Oil City
CHY042

5.09
7.62

3.46
27.47

20

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99,

TCU009

7.62

80.83

20

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

10

TAP052

7.62

98.51

20
20

0.1 g
0.1 g

6
8

Lamont 1058
Parachute Test Site

7.14
6.53

0.21
12.69

20

0.1 g

13

APEEL 7 PULGAS

6.93

41.68

20

0.2 g

Eureka - Myrtle & West

7.01

40.23

20

0.2 g

DUZCE 11/12/99
IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/
15/79
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
CAPE MENDOCINO 04/
25/92
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

30

CHY086

7.62

27.57

20

0.2 g

43

Cerro Prieto

6.53

15.19

20
20
20
20

0.2 g
0.2 g
0.2 g
0.3 g

20
35
38
6

Taft Lincoln School


DESERT HOT SPRINGS
Morongo Valley Fire Station
GILROY GAVILAN COLL

7.36
7.28
7.28
6.93

38.42
21.78
17.36
9.19

20

0.3 g

10

Castaic - Old Ridge Route

6.61

19.33

20

0.3 g

10

Desert Hot Springs

6.06

0.99

20

0.3 g

14

LA - Century City CC North

6.69

15.53

20
20

0.3 g
0.3 g

6
7

Temblor pre-1969
Obregon Park

6.19
5.99

15.96
4.5

20

0.4 g

LA - N Westmoreland

6.69

23.4

20
20

0.4 g
0.4 g

5
6

Temblor pre-1969
Alhambra - Fremont School

6.19
5.99

15.96
1.67

20

0.4 g

LA 116th St School

5.99

18.23

20

0.4 g

LA Obregon Park

5.99

4.5

20
20

0.4 g
0.5 g

10
13

TOPAGANA-FIRE STA
LA UCLA Grounds

6.69
6.69

10.31
13.8

20

0.5 g

10

LA Obregon Park

4.5

15.18

IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/


15/79
KERN COUNTY 7/21/52
LANDERS 06/28/92
LANDERS 6/28/92
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
SAN FERNANDO 02/
09/71
PALM SPRINGS 07/08/
86
NORTHRIDGE 01/17/
94
PARKFIELD 06/28/66
WHITTIER NARROWS
10/04/87
NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/
17/94
PARKFIELD 06/28/66
WHITTIER NARROWS
10/01/87
WHITTIER NARROWS
10/01/87
WHITTIER NARROWS
10/01/87
NORTHRIDGE, 1/17/94
NORTHRIDGE 01/17/
94 12:31WHITTIER NARROWS
10/01/87

88

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
Reverse
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
Reverse
strike slip
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse
Reverse
Oblique

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

30

0.1 g

30

0.1 g

30
30

0.1 g
0.1 g

30

0.1 g

30

0.1 g

30

0.2 g

30

0.2 g

30
30

0.2 g
0.2 g

30
30
30

0.2 g
0.2 g
0.3 g

30
30

0.3 g
0.3 g

30

BORREGO MOUNTAIN
04/09/68
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

El Centro Array #9

6.63

45.12

strike slip

CHY008

7.62

40.43

7
4

Iznik
Barstow

7.51
7.28

30.73
34.86

Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
strike slip

16

SMART1 C00

7.3

56.01

Reverse

21

SMART1 M01

7.3

56.87

Reverse

Eureka Myrtle & West

7.01

40.23

Reverse

HWA045

7.62

60.2

8
40

Parkeld Vineyard Cany 1E 6.36


DELTA
6.53

24.83
22.03

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
strike slip

11
15
12

CALITRI
Izmit
CHY029

6.9
7.51
7.62

13.34
3.62
10.96

TCU089
Chihuahua

5.9
6.53

10.13
7.29

0.3 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99
32
IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 20
15/79
WHITTIER 10/01/87
7

Compton Castlegate St

5.99

18.32

30

0.3 g

WHITTIER 10/01/87

12

Lakewood Del Amo Blvd

5.99

22.4

30

0.3 g

WHITTIER 10/01/87

LB Orange Ave

5.99

19.8

30

0.4 g

10

NST

7.62

38.36

30
30

0.4 g
0.4 g

12
50

Pleasant Valley P.P. bldg


Delta

6.36
6.53

7.69
22.03

30

0.4 g

14

LA - Hollywood Stor FF

6.69

19.73

Reverse

30
30

0.4 g
0.4 g

14
11

DAYHOOK
Gilroy Array #2

7.35
6.93

0.0
10.38

30

0.5 g

11

SAHOP CASA FLORES

6.33

39.1

Reverse
Reverse
Oblique
Strike Slip

30

0.5 g

GILROY ARRAY #1

6.93

8.84

30
30

0.5 g
0.5 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99,
NST, E (CWB)
COALINGA 05/02/83
IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/
15/79
NORTHRIDGE 01/17/
94
TABAS, IRAN 09/16/78
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/
15/79
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
CANADA 12/23/85,
NORTHRIDGE 1/17/94

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
strike slip

10
14

6.76
6.69

0.0
32.39

30

0.5 g

6.69

13.34

Reverse

40

0.1 g

SITE 2, 240
Los Angeles 7-story Univ
Hospital (FF)
PACIFIC PALISADES SUNSET
TCU003

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse

7.62

86.57

40

0.1 g

40

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique

KOCAELI 08/17/99
LANDERS 06/28/92
1158
TAIWAN SMART1 (45)
11/14/86
TAIWAN SMART1 (45)
11/14/86
CAPE MENDOCINO 04/
25/92
CHI-CHI 09/20/99
COALINGA 05/02/83
IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/
15/79
IRPINIA EQ, 11/23/80
KOCAELI 08/17/99
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/
17/94
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

10

Normal
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
strike slip

TCU006

7.62

72.52

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99,
TCU006
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

14

TCU017

7.62

54.28

40

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

12

TCU026

7.62

56.03

40

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

20

TCU046

7.62

16.74

40

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

29

TCU050

7.62

9.49

40
40

0.2 g
0.2 g

BRAWLEY AIRPORT

6.53

8.54

strike slip

40

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99, TCU 28


IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 12
15/79
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
6

SF Golden Gate Bridge

6.93

79.71

Reverse

89

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

0.3 g

89
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
TAIWAN SMART1 (40)
05/20/86
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

40

0.3 g

40
40

Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse

18

Palo Alto 1900 Embarc.

6.93

30.56

SMART1 M07

6.32

57.66

15

Sunnyvale - Colton Ave.

6.93

23.92

28

CHY036

7.62

16.04

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

32

TCU075

7.62

0.89

0.3 g
0.3 g

COALINGA 05/02/83
WHITTIER 10/01/87

8
5

Parkeld - Fault Zone 14


Downey Birchdale

6.36
5.99

28.11
14.9

40
40

0.3 g
0.3 g

31
10

Joshua Tree
Hollister Dierential Array

7.28
6.93

11.03
24.52

40

0.4 g

LANDERS 06/28/92
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

20

TCU047

7.62

35

40

0.4 g

El Centro Array #11

6.53

12.56

40
40

0.4 g
0.4 g

7.28
6.93

19.74
13.81

strike slip
Reverse
Oblique

40
40

5.99

11.47

7.62

26

6.9
6.93

7.08
19.97

16

Nishi-Akashi
Coyote Lake Dam Southwest Abutment
CAPITOLA

6.93

8.85

10

Saratoga - Aloha Ave

6.93

7.58

29

CHY041

7.62

19.37

14

Gilroy Array #3

6.93

12.23

17

11.03
12.39

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse

40

0.2 g

40

0.2 g

40

0.2 g

40

10
15

Coolwater
Gilroy Array #4

0.4 g
0.4 g

IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/


15/79
LANDERS 7/23/92
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
NORTHRIDGE, 1/17/94
WHITTIER 10/01/87

9
6

40

0.5 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

15

STONE CANYON
SANTA FE SPRINGS-E
JOSLIN
TCU045

40
40

0.5 g
0.5 g

15
16

40

0.5 g

40

0.5 g

40

0.6 g

KOBE 01/16/95
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

40

0.6 g

40

0.6 g

40

0.6 g

50

14

WAHO090 (UCSC STATION 6.93


14)
Beverly Hills 12520 Mulhol 6.69

0.1 g

LOMA PRIETA 10/18/


89
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/
89 00:05
NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/
17/94
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

40

CHY002

7.62

24.96

50

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

22

CHY026

7.62

29.52

50

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

18

TCU015

7.62

49.81

50

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

20

TCU036

7.62

19.83

50

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

22

TCU040

7.62

22.06

50

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

26

TCU064

7.62

16.59

50

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

33

CHY025

7.62

19.07

50

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

43

CHY104

7.62

18.02

50

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

21

TCU029

7.62

28.04

50

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

23

TCU033

7.62

40.88

50

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

31

TCU048

7.62

13.53

90

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

50

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

27

TCU051

7.62

7.64

50

0.3 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

26

CHY024

7.62

9.62

50

0.3 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

18

CHY034

7.62

14.82

50

0.3 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

31

CHY035

7.62

12.6

50

0.3 g

El Centro Array #3

5.01

14.54

50

0.3 g

Holtville Post Oce

5.01

7.69

strike slip

50

0.3 g

IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 15


15/79
IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 11
15/79
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89 8

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip

APEEL 2 - Redwood City

6.93

43.06

50
50
50

0.4 g
0.4 g
0.4 g

50

0.4 g

50

0.4 g

50

0.5 g

50
50

0.5 g
0.5 g

60

4
14
11

Gilroy Array #6
5.74
Sturno (STN)
6.9
PACOIMA KAGEL CANYON 6.69

0.42
6.78
5.26

Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
Normal
Reverse

PACOIMA DAM

6.69

4.92

Reverse

17

El Centro Imp. Co. Cent

6.54

18.2

strike slip

17

BRAN

6.93

3.85

Castaic - Old Ridge Route


Canyon Country - W Lost
Cany
TCU036

6.69
6.69

20.11
11.39

0.1 g

NORTHRIDGE 01/17/94 16
NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/
9
17/94
CHI-CHI 09/20/99
21

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Reverse

7.62

19.83

60

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

22

TCU103

7.62

6.08

60

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

43

TCU111

7.62

22.12

60

0.1 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

32

TCU117

7.62

25.42

60

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

40

CHY104

7.62

18.02

60

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

31

TCU059

7.62

17.11

60

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

32

TCU070

7.62

19

60

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

26

TCU082

7.62

5.16

60

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

41

TCU120

7.62

7.4

60

0.2 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99,

22

TCU136

7.62

8.27

60

0.3 g

CHI-CHI 09/20/99

25

TCU049

7.62

3.76

60
60

0.3 g
0.3 g

KOCAELI 08/17/99
10
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89 12

Duzce
Saratoga - W Valley Coll.

7.51
6.93

13.6
8.48

60
60

0.3 g
0.4 g

KOCAELI 08/17/99
CHI-CHI 09/20/99

Yarimca
CHY006

7.51
7.62

1.38
9.76

60

0.4 g

LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89 24

Hollister - South & Pine

6.93

27.67

60

0.5 g

Beverly Hills 14145 Mulhol 6.69

9.44

60
60

0.5 g
0.5 g

NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/
12
17/94
NORTHRIDGE 01/17/94 8
NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/
17
17/94

Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse

LA Dam
NORTHRIDGE SATICOY

0.0
1.83

Reverse
Reverse

COYOTE LAKE 08/06/79


IRPINIA EQ, 11/23/80
NORTHRIDGE 01/17/
94
NORTHRIDGE 01/17/
94
SUPERSTITION HILLS
11/24/87
LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89

16
31

91

6.69
5.28

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

92

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

mers. J IEEE Power Eng Rev 1989;9(10):534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/


MPER.1989.4310323.
[4] Camensig C, Breseti L, Clementel S, Salvetti M. Seismic risk evaluation for high
voltage air insulated substation. J Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1997;55:17991. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(96)00107-X.
[5] Anagnos T. Development of an Electrical Substation equipment performance
database for evaluation of equipment fragility. Berkeley: Peer Report 2000/06
College of Engineering University of California; 1999
[6] Baker Jack W. Ecient analytical fragility function tting using dynamic structural
analysis. Earthq Spectra 2015;31(1):57999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/
021113EQS025M.

References
[1] Shafei B, Zareian F, Lignos DG. A simplied method for collapse capacity
assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems. Eng
Struct 2011;33(4):110716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.028.
[2] Fischer EG, Daube WM. Combined analysis and test of earthquake resistant circuit
breakers. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1976;4:23144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
eqe.4290040304.
[3] Thuries E, Girodet A, Serres E, Mees , Willieme JM. Seismic behavior of Candle
Type SF6 outdoor circuit breakers and associated SF6 insulated current transfor-

93

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 7994

S.A. Zareei et al.

[24] Paolacci F, Giannini R, Alessandri S, De Felice G. Seismic vulnerability assessment


of a high voltage disconnect switch. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;67:198207. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.014.
[25] Knight B, Kempner Jr. L. Seismic vulnerabilities and retrot of high-voltage
electrical substation facilities. TCLEE 2009:112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
41050(357)22
[26] Massie A, Watson NR. Impact of the Christchurch earthquakes on the electrical
power system infrastructure. Bulletin of the New Zealand. Soc Earthq Eng
2011;44(4):42530.
[27] Zareei AR. Evaluating seismic performance risk of power substation using fragility
surfaces [Ph.D. dissertation]. Tehran, Iran: Department of Civil Engineering,
Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University; 2015.
[28] Kjolle GH, Utne IB, Gjerde O. Risk analysis of critical infrastructures emphasizing
electricity supply and interdependencies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2012;105:8090.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.02.006.
[29] Eidinger J, Tang AK. Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake sequence of 7.1 Mw
September 04, 2010; 6.3 Mw February 22, 2011; 6.0 Mw June 13, 2011. Lifeline
performance. 2012, Technical council on lifeline earthquake engineering,
Monograph No 40, ASCE
[30] Kafali C, Grigoriu M. Seismic fragility analysis: application to simple linear and
nonlinear systems. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:1885900. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/eqe.726.
[31] Menoni S, Pergalani F, Boni MP, Petrini V. Lifelines earthquake vulnerability
assessment: a systemic approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2002;22:1199208. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00148-3.
[32] Gehl P, Serigne S, Seyedi D. On developing fragility surfaces for more accurate
seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings. In: Proc. COMPDYN 2011,
ECCOMAS. Thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics
and earthquake engineering. Corfu, Greece; 2628 May
[33] Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL. Processing Italian damage data to derive typological
fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28(10):93347. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.010.
[34] Kim SH, Shinozuka M. Development of fragility curves of bridges retrotted by
column jacketing. J Probab Eng Mech 2004;19(12):10512. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.probengmech.2003.11.009.
[35] Villaverde R. Methods to assess the seismic collapse capacity of building structures.
State of the Art. J Struct Eng 2007;133(1):5766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:1(57).
[36] Alessandri S, Giannini R, Paolacci F, Malena M. Seismic retrotting of an HV
circuit breaker using base isolation with wire ropes. Part 1: preliminary tests and
analyses. Eng Struct 2015;98:25162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.032.
[37] Alessandri S, Giannini R, Paolacci F, Amoretti M, Freddo A. Seismic retrotting of
an HV circuit breaker using base isolation with wire ropes. Part 2: shaking-table
test validation. Eng Struct 2015;98:26374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.031.
[38] Mosalam KM, Gnay S. Seismic performance evaluation of high voltage disconnect
switches using real-time hybrid simulation: I. System development and validation.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;43(8):120522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2395.
[39] Mosalam KM, Gnay S. Seismic performance evaluation of high voltage disconnect
switches using real-time hybrid simulation: II. Parametric study. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2013;43(8):122337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2394.

[7] IEEE Std. 693-2005. Recommended practice for seismic design of substations.
(Revision of IEEE Std. 693-1984 & 1997)
[8] Takada Sh, Bastami M, Kuwata Y, Javanbarg MB. Performance of electric power
systems during the Bam earthquake and its fragility analyses. Kobe University,
Japan: Memoirs of Construction Engineering Research Institute; 2004. p. 14152,
No.46.
[9] Paolacci F, Giannini R. Evaluation of seismic fragility of electrical insulators. In:
Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural safety and reliability.
Rome, Italy; 1924 June 2005
[10] Mena U, Lopez A, Guerriero VA. Seismic behavior study of lifelines in the
occidental region of Mexico. In: Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada; August 16, 2004. Paper No. 105.
[11] Sezen H, Whittaker AS. Performance of industrial facilities during the 1999,
Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake. In: Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada; August 16, 2004. Paper No. 282
[12] Jaigirdar MA. Seismic Fragility and risk analysis of electric power substations.
Master of Engineering thesis. Montreal, Quebec: Department of Civil Eng. &
Applied mechanics, McGill University; 2005.
[13] Khalvati AH, Hosseini M. Seismic performance of electrical substations equipment
in Irans recent earthquake. In: Proc. 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering (14WCEE.). Beijing, China; 2008. Paper No.0042
[14] Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R. Creating fragility functions for performancebased earthquake engineering. J Earthq Spectra 2007;23(2):47189. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1193/1.2720892.
[15] Roininen T, Slver CE, Nordli H, Bosma A, Jonsson P, Alfredsson A. ABB Live tank
circuit breakers Application Guide. Publication 1HSM 9543 23-02en, Edition 1.2,
2013-02
[16] Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Mousavi M, Azarbakht A. Strong ground motion record
selection for the reliable prediction of the mean seismic collapse capacity of a
structure group. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2010;40(6):691708. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/eqe.1055.
[17] Yaseen AA, Begg D, Nanos N. Seismic fragility assessment of low-rise unreinforced
masonry buildings in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. In: Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. on
Advances in Civil, Structural and Mechanical Engineering CSM; 2014. http://dx.
doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-054-5-41
[18] Adachi T, Ellingwood BR. Serviceability of earthquake-damaged water systems:
Eects of electrical power availability and power backup systems on system
vulnerability. Reliab Eng Sys Saf 2006;93:7888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ress.2006.10.014.
[19] Gilani AS, Chavez JW, Fenves GL, Whittaker AS. Seismic evaluation and retrot of
230-kV porcelain transformer bushings. PEER 1999/14 Dec.
[20] Paolacci F, Giannini R. Seismic reliability assessment of a disconnect switch using
an eective fragility analysis. J Earthq Eng 2009;13:21735. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/13632460802347448.
[21] Hernandez-Fajardo I, Duenas-Osorio L. Probabilistic study of cascading failures in
complex interdependent lifeline systems. Reliab Eng Sys Saf 2013;111:26072.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.10.012.
[22] Schi AJ. Earthquake eects on electric power systems. ASCE J Power Div
1973;99(2):31728.
[23] Takhirov S, Gilani A. Earthquake performance of high voltage electric components
and new standards for seismic qualication. TCLEE; 2009: p. 111. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/41050(357)26

94