Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

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
Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad university, Tehran, Iran
b
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: Recent earthquakes have shown that Electrical Power Substations apparatuses are seismically vulnerable. This
Multivariate fragility analysis causes to disrupt the power supply in many cases, and therefore their seismic evaluation with high reliability is
Fragility surface significantly important. Using fragility curves is a common practice for assessing seismic vulnerability. In
Multi-parameter seismic hazard maps general, fragility curves are based on only one intensity measure (IM), such as peak ground acceleration (PGA).
Power substation
This study has attempted to propose multivariate fragility analysis. One of the major advantages of this
Circuit breaker
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 finite 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 0.1–0.7 g.

1. Introduction by means of numerical and probability based methods such as fragility

Inspired by lessons from the past earthquakes, it is clear that the
existence of electricity during and after seismic events has a substantial
effect 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 ele-
ments, 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 vulner-
ability of the electrical apparatuses can be classified into three main
sections: the studies conducted on physical damages of either one or
several special equipment in the past earthquakes, the studies con-
ducted through experimental and analytical methods, and the studies
dealt with evaluating the power substation's equipment vulnerabilities
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,
• Insufficient lateral stiffness of supporting equipment,
• Low redundancy of structures and networks as a whole,
• Interaction between adjacent devices and structures and their
different 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. intro-
duced 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.
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 effective-
ness 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 effect rather than horizontal shear deformations
[36].
In a companion paper the experimental characterization of the
previously discussed base-isolation system was addressed. The com-
parison between experimental and numerical results showed a con-
sistency for all response quantities (displacements, moments, and
deformations), while the maximum values were systematically under-
estimated 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 Günay (2013) proposed a real-time hybrid simulation
system (RTHS) for cost-effective and time efficient 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 effect of support structure
damping and stiffness on the response of DSes with two different
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 equip-
ment, and evaluated the influence of significant 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 find the critical compo-
nents 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 effect 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 fine cracks will
annihilate its insulation capability and then its performance will be
80
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94
h
Selecting Enough
umber of Recorrds
Nu
Sortin ng the
ng and Clusterin
Selected
S ds
Record
Computer
Creating tthe Stucture's C
Model by AAn Appropriatte Sofware
Perfoming Time
T Analyses and
History A
he Required Ressponse Values
Calculating th
Con heir
nsidering Approopriate Damagee Indices and Th
Thresholds
T Damages Statess
Based on Defined D
Probability Disttribution
Obtaining the Probabiltty Density and P
Functoins
F of the Calculated Reesponse Valuess
agility Curves
Plotting the Fra Illusttrating the Fraggility Surfaces
Based on PGA
P as IM Baseed on PGA and d PGV as IMs
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the required process for seismic fragility assessment.
affected [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 flowchart of the required process for developing the
seismic fragility functions for a structural system.
2.1. Single-variable fragility function (fragility curves)
By definition, seismic fragility curves are natural logarithmic
functions which give the probability of exceedance of a specific
response of the structure from a specific performance level for different
values of a specific IM of the earthquake. Some types of fragility curves
have been discussed in previous researches [1,14,33–35] 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 analy-
tical 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 finally 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
efficient fragility estimates than other methods for a given number of
structural analyses and evaluates structural seismic responses in
different IM levels [6]. In this section MSA process is described:
Probability of exceedance of a specific structural response versus a
specific IM values have often a log-normal distribution [6,16], math-
ematically expressed as:
S.A. Zareei et al.
⎛ ln( x ) ⎞
P (EIM =X )=∅ ⎜⎜ θ ⎟⎟
⎝ β ⎠
where P (EIM = x ) is the probability that a ground-motion with IM = x
will cause exceedance of the structural response from the specified
performance level, θ is the median of fragility function, and β is the
standard deviation. The method used here for fitting 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 findings 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 preference of (PGA-PGV) based fragility function is due to the better
P (zj exceedances in nj ground motions)=(nj /zj ) pj j (1−pj )nj − zj
where pj is the probability that a ground motion with IM=xj will cause
exceedance. To predict pj, the related fragility function is identified 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)
m
z
Likelihood= ∏ (nj / zj ) pj j (1−pj )nj − zj
j =1
where m is the number of IM levels and Π is the product over all levels.
By substituting Eq. (1)
m ⎛ ln ( )
xj ⎞ Zj ⎛ ⎛ ln ( ) ⎞ ⎞nj − zj
xj
θ ⎟ ⎜ θ ⎟⎟
Likelihood= ∏ (nj / zj )∅ ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 1 − ∅ ⎜
⎜ β ⎟⎟
j =1 ⎝ β ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠
The appropriate fitting 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:
m ⎧
⎛ ln( xj ) ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ ln( xj ) ⎞ ⎞ ⎪
⎪ ⎜1 − ∅ ⎜ θ ⎟⎟
{θ̂, β̂}=argmax ∑ ⎨ln(nj / zj )+zj ln ∅ ⎜⎜ θ ⎟
⎟ +( n − z )ln ⎜ ⎟
j j
⎜ ⎟
θ, β j =1 ⎪
⎩ ⎝ β ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ β ⎠⎠⎪
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 affecting 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 affecting 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
affecting factors as possible will lead to more and more reliable fragility
function, which will be of course a multivariate function. Clearly,
contributing all the affecting factors is practically impossible, not only
because of the mathematical complexity, but also due to unavailability
of all affecting seismic parameters in the form of seismic hazard maps
of a region. Nevertheless, adding to the problem at least one more IM,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94
such as PGV, which is nowadays an available parameter in the seismic
hazard maps, may improve decrease the amount of dispersion of the
(1) 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 efficiency 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 efficient and
can assess the fragility value with a high rate of reliability. The
(2) 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.
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 specified type must be modeled separately,
because of their various structural properties and different geometries.
(3)
3.1. Features of the CB used in this study
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
(4) angles and fixed 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
(5)
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 findings; three-
dimensional finite 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 different
techniques of meshing elements) is more efficient, and for optimized
modeling and analysis, especially in susceptible regions, a finer mesh is
used. It is supposed that high strength mortar provides an effective
bonding between the porcelain and the flange so tie constraints are
defined as a contact condition in conjunction with flanges. There is a
base plate at the bottom of the structure fixing 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 environ-
mental 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].
81
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

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 Pacific
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 specifications and also their
response spectra. To obtain more reliable results and because of the
cantilevered insulators, the effect 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 specific PGV level,
there have been various accelerograms with different 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 first nine modes of system, given in Table 1, are more
important, and the effect 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
different parts of the model, the most vulnerable location was
identified, that is the bottom of the porcelain segment connecting the
Fig. 3. Overall view of the considered 420 kV CB and supporting structure.
structure to the flange. It should be noted that in some of the previous

82
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

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

Table 1
Modal frequencies of the modeled CB.

Mode number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency (Hz) 1.566 2.063 4.845 6.952 9.152 9.825 17.801 24.552 32.091 34.597

83
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

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 accord-
ing to a set of ground motion excitations.
Several failure states may occur in power substation equipment Fig. 9. Maximum bending stress values due to ground motions having various PGV
levels and the same PGA=0.1 g.
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
defined as: a) glaze defect, scratches and scraping in the glazing or fine
cracks which are not visible at first but gradually can annihilate the
insulation properties, b) major cracks or scattering, large chips broken
out from the flange surface. Porcelain failure has been defined in the
different 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 Fig. 10. Maximum bending stress values due to ground motions having various PGV
levels and the same PGA=0.2 g.
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].

4. Results and discussion

Bending stress time histories are very different due to various

characteristics of records, even those with similar value of the main
input parameter. For instance Figs. 6–8., 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 Fig. 12. Maximum bending stress values due to ground motions having various PGV
with PGA=0.3 g, and PGV=10 cm/s. levels and the same PGA=0.4 g.

84
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

Table 2
Fragility Coefficients (θ̂, β̂ ) for Moderate and Severe Damage States.

PGV (cm/s) 10 20 30 40 50 60
Damage state Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate
θ̂ 0.49 0.15 0.32 0.12 0.26 0.08 0.23 0.11 0.25 0.09 0.23 0.08
β̂ 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).

portion subjected to three different acceleration records all with the
same value of PGA=0.3g, and PGV values between 10–30 cm/s.
The above figures show uncertain evaluation of stress values due to
considering PGA as the single input parameters or IM. The effect of
considering PGV as a complementary input data for assessing fragility
values are more clearly in Figs. 9–12. Each figure shows maximum
bending stress occurring at the bottom of porcelain portion subjected
to different accelerograms with the same value of PGA, but various PGV
levels.
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 (θ̂, β̂ ) previously
discussed in part 2.1, have been calculated as shown in Table 2 for
moderate and severe damage levels.

85
S.A. Zareei et al.
Fig. 16. Comparing developed fragility curves of this study with those of previous
studies.
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 specific PGV level are shown in
Figs. 13–15.
A fragility curve considering all PGV levels altogether, was com-
pared with the previous studies; results are shown in Fig. 16.
Variation of failure probability due to different PGV levels is
relatively evident in moderate state (See Fig. 17); PGAs≤0.1 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 specific 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).
86
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94
Where PGA=0.2 g, the failure probability might be between 0–30%.
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 effect 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 different levels of PGV is higher in severe damage state rather
than moderate state. This also emphasizes the importance of consider-
ing 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 PGA≤0.2 g and is highly vulnerable
for PGA≥0.5 g.
In the process of combining fragility values to surfaces, Biharmonic
V4 function was used. The R-square index value of the fitted 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
figures 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 assess-
ment projects of an area.
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
finite element modeling and time-history analysis of a type of triple-
pole 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:
• Among various possible failure modes, breaking of ceramic insula-
tors 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 flange.
• The dispersion of fragility values for different 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 0.1–0.7 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 efficient 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
specific seismic considerations is necessary for substations in seismic
regions. Base isolation, using dampers, exclusion of porcelain insula-
tors and/or retrofitting 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.
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

Fig. 19. Moderate damage state fragility surfaces.

Fig. 20. Severe damage state fragility surfaces.

Appendix A

Selected records list with their related specifications

PGV class PGA Record name Effective dura- Station Magnitude Distance Mechanism
(cm/s) class tion (S) (km)

10 0.1 g CHALFANT VALLEY 8 BISHOP LADWP SOUTH ST 6.19 14.38 Strike slip
07/21/86
10 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 19 CHY050 7.62 44.74 Reverse
Oblique
10 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 10 CHY052 7.62 38.7 Reverse
Oblique
10 0.1 g COYOTE LAKE 08/06/ 7 San Juan Bautista, 24 Polk St 5.74 19.46 Strike slip
79
10 0.1 g DUZCE 11/12/99 8 Lamont 1058 7.14 0.21 Strike slip
10 0.1 g FRIULI 09/11/76 7 ForgariaCornino 5.91 14.65 Reverse
10 0.2 g MENDOCINO 04/25/92 19 Shelter Cove Airport 7.01 26.51 Reverse
10 0.2 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 6 Superstition Mtn Camera 6.53 24.61 strike slip
15/79
10 0.2 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 12 Hayward – BART Sta 6.93 54.01 Reverse
89 Oblique

87
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

10 0.2 g PALM SPRINGS 07/08/ 8 Cranston Forest Station 6.06 27.21 Reverse
86 Oblique
10 0.2 g PALM SPRINGS 07/08/ 6 San Jacinto - Soboba 6.06 22.96 Reverse
86 Oblique
10 0.3 g PALM SPRINGS 07/08/ 6 San Jacinto - Soboba 6.06 22.96 Reverse
86 Oblique
10 0.3 g NORTHRIDGE 1/17/94 10 Lake Hughes #12A 6.69 20.77 Reverse
10 0.3 g WHITTIER NARROWS 7 Inglewood -Union Oil 5.99 21.41 Reverse
10/01/87 Oblique
10 0.3 g LIVERMORE 01/27/80 6 Livermore – Morgan Terr 5.42 7.94 strike slip
Park
10 0.4 g COALINGA 07/09/83 7 Oil City 5.09 3.46 Reverse
10 0.4 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 17 UCSC Lick Observatory 6.93 12.04 Reverse
89 Oblique
10 0.4 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 15 UCSCSTATION 15 6.93 12.15 Reverse
89 Oblique
10 0.4 g PALM SPRINGS 07/08/ 5 CABAZON 6.06 6.84 Reverse
86 Oblique
10 0.4 g NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/ 12 Glendale – Las Palmas 6.69 21.64 Reverse
17/94
10 0.4 g COALINGA 07/09/83 6 Oil City 5.09 3.46 Reverse
20 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 23 CHY042 7.62 27.47 Reverse
Oblique
20 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99, 9 TCU009 7.62 80.83 Reverse
Oblique
20 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 10 TAP052 7.62 98.51 Reverse
Oblique
20 0.1 g DUZCE 11/12/99 6 Lamont 1058 7.14 0.21 strike slip
20 0.1 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 8 Parachute Test Site 6.53 12.69 strike slip
15/79
20 0.1 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 13 APEEL 7 PULGAS 6.93 41.68 Reverse
89 Oblique
20 0.2 g CAPE MENDOCINO 04/ 9 Eureka - Myrtle & West 7.01 40.23 Reverse
25/92
20 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 30 CHY086 7.62 27.57 Reverse
Oblique
20 0.2 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 43 Cerro Prieto 6.53 15.19 strike slip
15/79
20 0.2 g KERN COUNTY 7/21/52 20 Taft Lincoln School 7.36 38.42 Reverse
20 0.2 g LANDERS 06/28/92 35 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 7.28 21.78 strike slip
20 0.2 g LANDERS 6/28/92 38 Morongo Valley Fire Station 7.28 17.36 strike slip
20 0.3 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 6 GILROY GAVILAN COLL 6.93 9.19 Reverse
89 Oblique
20 0.3 g SAN FERNANDO 02/ 10 Castaic - Old Ridge Route 6.61 19.33 Reverse
09/71
20 0.3 g PALM SPRINGS 07/08/ 10 Desert Hot Springs 6.06 0.99 Reverse
86 Oblique
20 0.3 g NORTHRIDGE 01/17/ 14 LA - Century City CC North 6.69 15.53 Reverse
94
20 0.3 g PARKFIELD 06/28/66 6 Temblor pre-1969 6.19 15.96 strike slip
20 0.3 g WHITTIER NARROWS 7 Obregon Park 5.99 4.5 Reverse
10/04/87 Oblique
20 0.4 g NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/ 9 LA - N Westmoreland 6.69 23.4 Reverse
17/94
20 0.4 g PARKFIELD 06/28/66 5 Temblor pre-1969 6.19 15.96 strike slip
20 0.4 g WHITTIER NARROWS 6 Alhambra - Fremont School 5.99 1.67 Reverse
10/01/87 Oblique
20 0.4 g WHITTIER NARROWS 6 LA – 116th St School 5.99 18.23 Reverse
10/01/87 Oblique
20 0.4 g WHITTIER NARROWS 7 LA – Obregon Park 5.99 4.5 Reverse
10/01/87 Oblique
20 0.4 g NORTHRIDGE, 1/17/94 10 TOPAGANA-FIRE STA 6.69 10.31 Reverse
20 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE 01/17/ 13 LA – UCLA Grounds 6.69 13.8 Reverse
94 12:31-
20 0.5 g WHITTIER NARROWS 10 LA – Obregon Park 4.5 15.18 Reverse
10/01/87 Oblique

88
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

30 0.1 g BORREGO MOUNTAIN 4 El Centro Array #9 6.63 45.12 strike slip

04/09/68
30 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 6 CHY008 7.62 40.43 Reverse
Oblique
30 0.1 g KOCAELI 08/17/99 7 Iznik 7.51 30.73 strike slip
30 0.1 g LANDERS 06/28/92 4 Barstow 7.28 34.86 strike slip
1158
30 0.1 g TAIWAN SMART1 (45) 16 SMART1 C00 7.3 56.01 Reverse
11/14/86
30 0.1 g TAIWAN SMART1 (45) 21 SMART1 M01 7.3 56.87 Reverse
11/14/86
30 0.2 g CAPE MENDOCINO 04/ 8 Eureka – Myrtle & West 7.01 40.23 Reverse
25/92
30 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 8 HWA045 7.62 60.2 Reverse
Oblique
30 0.2 g COALINGA 05/02/83 8 Parkfield – Vineyard Cany 1E 6.36 24.83 Reverse
30 0.2 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 40 DELTA 6.53 22.03 strike slip
15/79
30 0.2 g IRPINIA EQ, 11/23/80 11 CALITRI 6.9 13.34 Normal
30 0.2 g KOCAELI 08/17/99 15 Izmit 7.51 3.62 strike slip
30 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 12 CHY029 7.62 10.96 Reverse
Oblique
30 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 32 TCU089 5.9 10.13 Reverse
30 0.3 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 20 Chihuahua 6.53 7.29 strike slip
15/79
30 0.3 g WHITTIER 10/01/87 7 Compton – Castlegate St 5.99 18.32 Reverse
Oblique
30 0.3 g WHITTIER 10/01/87 12 Lakewood – Del Amo Blvd 5.99 22.4 Reverse
Oblique
30 0.3 g WHITTIER 10/01/87 8 LB – Orange Ave 5.99 19.8 Reverse
Oblique
30 0.4 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99, 10 NST 7.62 38.36 Reverse
NST, E (CWB) Oblique
30 0.4 g COALINGA 05/02/83 12 Pleasant Valley P.P. – bldg 6.36 7.69 Reverse
30 0.4 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 50 Delta 6.53 22.03 strike slip
15/79
30 0.4 g NORTHRIDGE 01/17/ 14 LA - Hollywood Stor FF 6.69 19.73 Reverse
94
30 0.4 g TABAS, IRAN 09/16/78 14 DAYHOOK 7.35 0.0 Reverse
30 0.4 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 11 Gilroy Array #2 6.93 10.38 Reverse
89 Oblique
30 0.5 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 11 SAHOP CASA FLORES 6.33 39.1 Strike Slip
15/79
30 0.5 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 8 GILROY ARRAY #1 6.93 8.84 Reverse
89 Oblique
30 0.5 g CANADA 12/23/85, 10 SITE 2, 240 6.76 0.0 Reverse
30 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE 1/17/94 14 Los Angeles – 7-story Univ 6.69 32.39 Reverse
Hospital (FF)
30 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/ 10 PACIFIC PALISADES - 6.69 13.34 Reverse
17/94 SUNSET
40 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 8 TCU003 7.62 86.57 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99, 6 TCU006 7.62 72.52 Reverse
TCU006 Oblique
40 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 14 TCU017 7.62 54.28 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 12 TCU026 7.62 56.03 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 20 TCU046 7.62 16.74 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 29 TCU050 7.62 9.49 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99, TCU 28
40 0.2 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 12 BRAWLEY AIRPORT 6.53 8.54 strike slip
15/79
40 0.2 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 6 SF Golden Gate Bridge 6.93 79.71 Reverse

89
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

89 Oblique
40 0.2 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 18 Palo Alto – 1900 Embarc. 6.93 30.56 Reverse
89 Oblique
40 0.2 g TAIWAN SMART1 (40) 6 SMART1 M07 6.32 57.66 Reverse
05/20/86
40 0.2 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 15 Sunnyvale - Colton Ave. 6.93 23.92 Reverse
89 Oblique
40 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 28 CHY036 7.62 16.04 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 32 TCU075 7.62 0.89 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.3 g COALINGA 05/02/83 8 Parkfield - Fault Zone 14 6.36 28.11 Reverse
40 0.3 g WHITTIER 10/01/87 5 Downey – Birchdale 5.99 14.9 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.3 g LANDERS 06/28/92 31 Joshua Tree 7.28 11.03 strike slip
40 0.3 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 10 Hollister Differential Array 6.93 24.52 Reverse
89 Oblique
40 0.4 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 20 TCU047 7.62 35 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.4 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 7 El Centro Array #11 6.53 12.56 strike slip
15/79
40 0.4 g LANDERS 7/23/92 10 Coolwater 7.28 19.74 strike slip
40 0.4 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 15 Gilroy Array #4 6.93 13.81 Reverse
89 Oblique
40 0.4 g NORTHRIDGE, 1/17/94 9 STONE CANYON
40 0.4 g WHITTIER 10/01/87 6 SANTA FE SPRINGS-E 5.99 11.47 Reverse
JOSLIN Oblique
40 0.5 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 15 TCU045 7.62 26 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.5 g KOBE 01/16/95 15 Nishi-Akashi 6.9 7.08 strike slip
40 0.5 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 16 Coyote Lake Dam - 6.93 19.97 Reverse
89 Southwest Abutment Oblique
40 0.5 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 16 CAPITOLA 6.93 8.85 Reverse
89 Oblique
40 0.5 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 10 Saratoga - Aloha Ave 6.93 7.58 Reverse
89 Oblique
40 0.6 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 29 CHY041 7.62 19.37 Reverse
Oblique
40 0.6 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 14 Gilroy Array #3 6.93 12.23 Reverse
89 Oblique
40 0.6 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/ 17 WAHO090 (UCSC STATION 6.93 11.03 Reverse
89 00:05 14) Oblique
40 0.6 g NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/ 14 Beverly Hills – 12520 Mulhol 6.69 12.39 Reverse
17/94
50 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 40 CHY002 7.62 24.96 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 22 CHY026 7.62 29.52 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 18 TCU015 7.62 49.81 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 20 TCU036 7.62 19.83 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 22 TCU040 7.62 22.06 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 26 TCU064 7.62 16.59 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 33 CHY025 7.62 19.07 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 43 CHY104 7.62 18.02 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 21 TCU029 7.62 28.04 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 23 TCU033 7.62 40.88 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 31 TCU048 7.62 13.53 Reverse
Oblique

90
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

50 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 27 TCU051 7.62 7.64 Reverse

Oblique
50 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 26 CHY024 7.62 9.62 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 18 CHY034 7.62 14.82 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 31 CHY035 7.62 12.6 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.3 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 15 El Centro Array #3 5.01 14.54 strike slip
15/79
50 0.3 g IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/ 11 Holtville Post Office 5.01 7.69 strike slip
15/79
50 0.3 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89 8 APEEL 2 - Redwood City 6.93 43.06 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.4 g COYOTE LAKE 08/06/79 4 Gilroy Array #6 5.74 0.42 strike slip
50 0.4 g IRPINIA EQ, 11/23/80 14 Sturno (STN) 6.9 6.78 Normal
50 0.4 g NORTHRIDGE 01/17/ 11 PACOIMA KAGEL CANYON 6.69 5.26 Reverse
94
50 0.4 g NORTHRIDGE 01/17/ 5 PACOIMA DAM 6.69 4.92 Reverse
94
50 0.4 g SUPERSTITION HILLS 17 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent 6.54 18.2 strike slip
11/24/87
50 0.5 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89 17 BRAN 6.93 3.85 Reverse
Oblique
50 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE 01/17/94 16 Castaic - Old Ridge Route 6.69 20.11 Reverse
50 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/ 9 Canyon Country - W Lost 6.69 11.39 Reverse
17/94 Cany
60 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 21 TCU036 7.62 19.83 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 22 TCU103 7.62 6.08 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 43 TCU111 7.62 22.12 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.1 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 32 TCU117 7.62 25.42 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 40 CHY104 7.62 18.02 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 31 TCU059 7.62 17.11 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 32 TCU070 7.62 19 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 26 TCU082 7.62 5.16 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 41 TCU120 7.62 7.4 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.2 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99, 22 TCU136 7.62 8.27 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.3 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 25 TCU049 7.62 3.76 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.3 g KOCAELI 08/17/99 10 Duzce 7.51 13.6 strike slip
60 0.3 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89 12 Saratoga - W Valley Coll. 6.93 8.48 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.3 g KOCAELI 08/17/99 16 Yarimca 7.51 1.38 strike slip
60 0.4 g CHI-CHI 09/20/99 31 CHY006 7.62 9.76 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.4 g LOMA PRIETA 10/18/89 24 Hollister - South & Pine 6.93 27.67 Reverse
Oblique
60 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/ 12 Beverly Hills – 14145 Mulhol 6.69 9.44 Reverse
17/94
60 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE 01/17/94 8 LA Dam 6.69 0.0 Reverse
60 0.5 g NORTHRIDGE Eq. 1/ 17 NORTHRIDGE – SATICOY 5.28 1.83 Reverse
17/94

91
S.A. Zareei et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94

92
S.A. Zareei et al.
References
[1] Shafei B, Zareian F, Lignos DG. A simplified method for collapse capacity
assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems. Eng
Struct 2011;33(4):1107–16. 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;4:231–44. 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) 79–94
mers. J IEEE Power Eng Rev 1989;9(10):53–4. 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;55:179–91. 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. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural
analysis. Earthq Spectra 2015;31(1):579–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/
021113EQS025M.
S.A. Zareei et al.
[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. 141–52,
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; 19–24 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 1–6, 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 1–6, 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 substation’s equipment
in Iran’s 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 performance-
based earthquake engineering. J Earthq Spectra 2007;23(2):471–89. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1193/1.2720892.
[15] Roininen T, Sölver 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):691–708. 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:
Effects of electrical power availability and power backup systems on system
vulnerability. Reliab Eng Sys Saf 2006;93:78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ress.2006.10.014.
[19] Gilani AS, Chavez JW, Fenves GL, Whittaker AS. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
230-kV porcelain transformer bushings. PEER 1999/14 Dec.
[20] Paolacci F, Giannini R. Seismic reliability assessment of a disconnect switch using
an effective fragility analysis. J Earthq Eng 2009;13:217–35. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/13632460802347448.
[21] Hernandez-Fajardo I, Duen˜as-Osorio L. Probabilistic study of cascading failures in
complex interdependent lifeline systems. Reliab Eng Sys Saf 2013;111:260–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.10.012.
[22] Schiff AJ. Earthquake effects on electric power systems. ASCE J Power Div
1973;99(2):317–28.
[23] Takhirov S, Gilani A. Earthquake performance of high voltage electric components
and new standards for seismic qualification. TCLEE; 2009: p. 1–11. 〈http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/41050(357)26〉
94
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 79–94
[24] Paolacci F, Giannini R, Alessandri S, De Felice G. Seismic vulnerability assessment
of a high voltage disconnect switch. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;67:198–207. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.014.
[25] Knight B, Kempner Jr. L. Seismic vulnerabilities and retrofit of high-voltage
electrical substation facilities. TCLEE 2009:1–12. 〈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):425–30.
[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;105:80–90.
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;36:1885–900. 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;22:1199–208. 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; 26–28 May
[33] Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL. Processing Italian damage data to derive typological
fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28(10):933–47. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.010.
[34] Kim SH, Shinozuka M. Development of fragility curves of bridges retrofitted by
column jacketing. J Probab Eng Mech 2004;19(1–2):105–12. 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):57–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:1(57).
[36] Alessandri S, Giannini R, Paolacci F, Malena M. Seismic retrofitting of an HV
circuit breaker using base isolation with wire ropes. Part 1: preliminary tests and
analyses. Eng Struct 2015;98:251–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
gstruct.2015.03.032.
[37] Alessandri S, Giannini R, Paolacci F, Amoretti M, Freddo A. Seismic retrofitting of
an HV circuit breaker using base isolation with wire ropes. Part 2: shaking-table
test validation. Eng Struct 2015;98:263–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
gstruct.2015.03.031.
[38] Mosalam KM, Günay 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):1205–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2395.
[39] Mosalam KM, Günay S. Seismic performance evaluation of high voltage disconnect
switches using real-time hybrid simulation: II. Parametric study. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2013;43(8):1223–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2394.