Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 185

Seismic Design of Substation Steel Structures:

What Code Should I Follow?
Hannah M. Hillegas1 and Prapon Somboonyanon, P.E., P.Eng.2
1
Assistant Structural Engineer, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, 9400 Ward Pkwy.,
Kansas City, MO 64114. E-mail: hmhillegas@burnsmcd.com
2
Senior Structural Engineer, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, 9400 Ward Pkwy.,
Kansas City, MO 64114. E-mail: psomboonyanon@burnsmcd.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT
Steel structure design requirements in high seismic zones are clearly defined in ASCE 7 in
conjunction with AISC 360 and AISC 341, but these standards are more applicable to buildings.
For substation steel structure designs, utilities often refer to ASCE 113 and IEEE 693. Many
design aspects outlined in ASCE 113 are similar to those in ASCE 7 but were modified to better
suit substation steel structures. IEEE 693 is also referenced in ASCE 113 for substation seismic
requirements; however, there are some differences in seismic design requirements between
ASCE 113 and IEEE 693. In this paper, the authors will first present and compare the design
philosophies of each seismic design component of substation steel structures, e.g. load
development, load combinations, detailing requirements, etc., as outlined in IEEE 693, ASCE
113, and ASCE 7 standards. Then, the differences in design requirements among the standards
will be noted. The main focus of this paper is to make engineers aware of substation steel seismic
design requirements as outlined in those standards as well as to offer opinions of how each
requirement may affect design results or how to comply with an aspect of design requirements
that one standard may not offer for a safe, effective, and optimal design of substation steel
structures in high seismic areas.

INTRODUCTION
The three standards that are widely used for seismic design of steel structures are 1) ASCE 7
“Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”, 2) AISC 360 “Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings”, and 3) AISC 341 “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings.” Together, the three standards offer a complete guideline for designing steel structures
in high seismic areas. However, these standards are more applicable to buildings. For substation
steel structures, utilities often refer to ASCE 113 “Substation Structure Design Guide”, or IEEE
693
“IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Design of Substations.” The general seismic
design approach outlined in these standards are similar with some differences. For example, the
most obvious one is seismic load combinations that vary among these standards. In addition,
ductile failure of steel structures is highly preferred over a brittle or inelastic failure when subject
to seismic loads, especially in high seismic areas. To achieve this, structural detailing is a major
consideration.
While ASCE 7 together with AISC 360 and AISC 341 clearly define detailing requirements,
ASCE 113 and IEEE 693 provide little or no information on this topic. Furthermore, IEEE 693 is
sometimes referenced for seismic design of substation steel structures, but the design information
it offers is primarily from the equipment manufacturer’s perspective, focusing on the seismic
qualification of substation equipment. It includes some structure design guidelines but does not

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 186

address member design, connection design, or detailing requirements.

In this paper, the three standards that will be presented and compared are 1) IEEE 693, 2005
edition, 2) ASCE 113, 2008 edition, and 3) ASCE 7, 2010 edition. The paper will first step
through the individual components of seismic design of substation steel structures including load
development, load combinations, analysis method, connection and anchorage designs, seismic
detailing requirements, and deflection criteria. Then, the differences in seismic design
requirements among the standards will be noted and followed by the authors’ opinions of how
seismic design requirements of each standard may affect design results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

LOAD DEVELOPMENT
Seismic load determination applied to steel structures can vary from one standard to another,
which is compared as follows:

IEEE 693:
 Seismic load determination can vary by “Seismic Qualification Level” as well
as by analytical qualification, which are based on several factors such as
location, equipment type, voltage class, etc.
 For comparison purposes only, high seismic level (Section 8.3) with static
analysis (Section A.1.3.1) is assumed.
 Provide design response spectrums for different qualification levels (Figure A.1
and Figure A.2)
ASCE 113:
 Seismic loads are determined using Eq. 3-6 thru 3-10.
 Include importance factor, IFE, based on structure types (Section 3.1.7.2)
 Include structure mode, IMV
 Refer to IEEE 693 for design response spectrum (Section 5.5.3)
ASCE 7:
 Seismic loads are determined as outlined in Chapter 12 or Chapter 15
 Include importance factor, Ie, based on Risk Category (Table 1.5-2)
 Include redundancy factor, ρ (Section 12.3.4)
 Provide outline for design response spectrum (Section 11.4.5)

Seismic load determination as outlined in ASCE 113 and ASCE 7 are similar in the design
approach, where site-specific ground motions are obtained and then are adjusted with site
coefficients. The seismic load may be different between the two standards depending on how one
defines importance factor, structure mode, or redundancy factor. IEEE 693, on the other hand,
uses a different approach for applying seismic loads to the equipment (structure). For high
seismic level with static analysis, a horizontal seismic load of 0.5g and a vertical seismic load of
0.4g are applied. From ASCE 7 seismic maps as shown in Chapter 22, it is observed that a
horizontal seismic load could possibly be greater than 0.5g in several areas. However, a vertical
seismic load of 0.4g could be generally conservative. This is due to the fact that IEEE 693
specifies a vertical seismic load to be equal to 80% of the horizontal seismic load whereas ASCE
7 generally specifies it to be 20% (with some exceptions). Engineers should be aware of these
requirements for different standards when developing seismic loads applied to substation
structures.

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 187

LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations apply factors to various load cases which take into account the
probability of these cases to occur simultaneously. These combinations are based on historical
data and probability. For comparison purposes, this paper assumes the use of Load Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) methodology.
Comparisons of load combinations among standards are as follows:

IEEE 693:
 Provided in Section A.2.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Eq. (8) = 1.2 D + 1.4 ERRS + 1.0 OP

ASCE 113:
 Provided in Section 3.3, Table 3-17
Case 4 = 1.1 D + 1.25 E IFE + 0.75 SC + 1.1 TW
ASCE 7-10: (Section 2.3)
 Provided in Section 2.3
5. 1.2 D + 1.0 E + L + 0.2 S

Considering that seismic load determination is similar between ASCE 113 and ASCE 7,
assuming multiplication of importance factor, structure mode, and redundancy factor are the
same, it is observed that using load combination from ASCE 113 would result in 25% higher
seismic loads. It is difficult to show how seismic loads obtained from IEEE 693 compares to the
other two standards since the philosophy of seismic load determination is quite different, as
mentioned earlier.
However, if we were to compare the overload factor used in IEEE 693 load combination only
assuming that computed seismic load is the same from all three standards, seismic loads
computed from IEEE 693 would be as high as 40% over that of ASCE 113 and ASCE 7. It
should be noted while the comparison could be true in some areas, care should be taken before
making a conclusion that IEEE 693 provides the most conservative design.

ANALYSIS METHOD
Various analysis methods for substation steel structures including both static and dynamic
analysis are provided in these standards and are summarized below:

IEEE 693:
 Static analysis, Section A.1.3.1
 Static coefficient method, Section A.1.3.2
 Dynamic analysis, Section A.1.3.3
ASCE 113:
 Static analysis method, Section 5.4
 Dynamic analysis method, Section 5.5
ASCE 7-10:
 Equivalent lateral force procedure, Section 12.8
 Modal analysis procedure, Section 12.9
 Linear response history analysis procedure, Section 16.1
 Nonlinear response history analysis procedure, Section 16.2

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 188

Each standard provides a guideline of which analysis method can be used with a certain type
of structure (or equipment). The most commonly used analysis method is static analysis, which
assumes the seismic force to be a constant, static force rather than a varying function with time.
For substation steel structures, static analysis is sufficient and considered conservative. Static
analysis methods as outlined in the three standards are similar in the design approach. The
difference is only based on how the seismic load (or seismic coefficient) is determined. It should
be noted that while static analysis from IEEE 693 uses a constant seismic coefficient based on
seismic qualification level, the static coefficient method from the same standard uses the peak of
the provided design response spectrum with a multiplication factor of 1.5. It can be seen that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design results could be directly affected by the selection of an analysis method.

CONNECTION AND ANCHORAGE DESIGNS

Ductility is a critical concept in seismic structural design to prevent structure collapse under
seismic events. This is represented by Response Modification factor (R), which is generally
based on seismic system configuration and material. A higher R value represents a more ductile
system. Many times, a structure failure occurs at connections rather than structural members. All
three standards emphasize that connections and anchorage need to be ductile, and provisions for
connections and anchorage are addressed in the following sections of each standard.

IEEE 693:
 No guideline on structural connection requirements
 Sections 5.8 and A.4.2 only provide general information for anchorage
without design guidelines
 Refer to ASCE 113 for design requirements
ASCE 113:
 No guideline on structural connection requirements
 Section 7.3 provides design guidelines for anchorage to foundation
ASCE 7:
 Include the overstrength factor, Ω0, for connection and anchorage design under
seismic loads
 Ω0 values for nonbuilding structures can be found from Table 15.4-1 and 15.4-2

Neither IEEE 693 nor ASCE 113 contains provisions for structural connection design
requirements. In general, ASCE 113 promotes ductile behavior through material selection but
provides little design guidance when brittle materials are used for anchorage. ASCE 113 does
implement the use of a higher earthquake importance factor for anchorage than for other
elements of the structure or equipment, which may be in line with the design philosophy of
ASCE 7 for anchorage. ASCE 7 uses the overstrength factor for both connection and anchorage
design under seismic loads, which is consistent with seismic design requirements of anchorage as
outlined in ACI 318 “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,
Appendix D.” Therefore, when ductility may not be achieved thorough material selection or by
satisfying design requirements, connection and anchorage design using the overstrength factor as
outlined in ASCE 7 is an alternative.

SEISMIC DETAILING REQUIREMENTS

As mentioned previously, with connection and anchorage design, brittle or inelastic failures

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 189

should be avoided when subject to seismic loads. ASCE 7 provides the overstrength factor
approach to ensure that loads can be fully transferred from one structural member to another
through connections. In addition, structural detailing can distinguish between different levels of
ductility for the expected severity of the design earthquake.

IEEE 693:
 No specific guidance on seismic detailing requirement, but Section A.4.1.1
refers to AISC 360
ASCE 113:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 No guidance on seismic detailing requirements

ASCE 7:
 Chapter 14 outlines seismic detailing requirements
 Table 15.4-1 and Table 15.4-2 also provide guidelines on seismic detailing
requirements for nonbuilding structures

Again, neither IEEE 693 nor ASCE 113 provides any guidance on seismic detailing
requirements. Although ASCE 7 does not directly address this topic, it specifically refers to
AISC 341 for detailing requirements, which is commonly used for steel structures in seismic
zones. One may argue that ASCE 7 is not applicable to substation steel structures; hence, such
detailing requirements may not be needed.
However, several configurations as listed in ASCE 7 Table 15.4-1 and Table 15.4-2 for
nonbuilding structures are similar to some configurations commonly used for substation
structures such as deadend structures. Substation equipment-supporting structures generally have
a much lower mass compared to building structures and hence, lower seismic loads applied to
structures, which may have been a reason why ASCE 113 does not address this issue. For
substation structures having a configuration similar to those listed in Table 15.4-1 and Table
15.4-2 and supporting a high mass, especially in high seismic areas, detailing provisions should
be carefully assessed.

DEFLECTION CRITERIA
In addition to strength, serviceability is an important consideration in design of substation
steel structures. Oftentimes, substation structures support critical electric equipment which must
adhere to strict clearance requirements to avoid fault hazards. Excessive deflections could violate
these clearances and cause significant damage.

IEEE 693:
 Refer to ASCE 113 for deflection criteria (as stated in Section A.4.1.2)
ASCE 113:
 Outline deflection criteria in Table 4-1 for different structure class
ASCE 7:
 No guideline on a deflection limit
 AISC 360 Chapter L provides a little guidance on deflection that focuses more
on how member deflection could impair structure functionality, which is not
applicable to substation steel structures

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 190

From the comparison above, ASCE 113 is the only guideline providing deflection criteria for
substation structures. Therefore, it is recommended to fall back on ASCE 113 deflection criteria
even when other standards are used for seismic design of substation steel structures.

CONCLUSION
ASCE 7 in conjunction with AISC 360 and AISC 341 offer a well-defined set of design
guidelines for steel structures in seismic areas, but these standards are more applicable to
buildings. For substation steel structures, utilities often refer to ASCE 113 and IEEE 693 which
have similar design approaches to ASCE 7 and are modified to better suit substation steel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

structures. However, ASCE 113 and IEEE 693 still lack guidance in some seismic design
aspects, particularly structural detailing requirements necessary to avoid brittle failure. In
addition, although general seismic design philosophies among these standards are similar, some
differences are present, which makes it difficult to use only one particular standard for seismic
design of substation steel structures. This paper first compared several seismic design aspects
among the three standards 1) IEEE 693, 2) ASCE 113, and 3) ASCE 7 such as load development,
load combinations, analysis methods, connection and anchorage designs, seismic detailing
requirements, and deflection criteria. Then, the differences were presented to make engineers
aware of variances in seismic design requirements among the standards. Also, for each seismic
design aspect, the authors offered opinions of how those differences could impact design results
or how to adopt design requirements of another standard where one may not offer. In conclusion,
although it is not possible to use a single standard for seismic design of substation steel
structures, ASCE 113 together with IEEE 693 and ASCE 7 can form a good basis that can be
used to achieve a safe, effective, and optimal design of substation steel structures in high seismic
areas.

REFERENCES
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI 318-14. Farmington Hills, MI:
American Concrete Institute, 2014.
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10. Reston,
VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010.
Recommended Practice for Seismic Design of Substations. IEEE 693-05. New York, NY:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2005.
Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC Standard 341. Chicago, IL: American
Institute of Steel Construction, 2016.
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC Standard 360-10. Chicago, IL: American
Institute of Steel Construction, 2010
Substation Structure Design Guide. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 113.
Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2008.

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018