Professional Documents
Culture Documents
crossmark
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
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.
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
ln( x )
P (EIM =X )=
(1)
(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)
m
z
(3)
j =1
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
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
z
)ln
j
j
,
j =1
(5)
82
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
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.
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.
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
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.
85
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.
86
Appendix A
PGA
class
Record name
10
0.1 g
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
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
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Strike slip
12
6.93
54.01
Reverse
Oblique
87
Magnitude Distance
(km)
Mechanism
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
6.06
27.21
6.06
22.96
6.06
22.96
10
7
6.69
5.99
20.77
21.41
5.42
7.94
7
17
5.09
6.93
3.46
12.04
15
UCSCSTATION 15
6.93
12.15
CABAZON
6.06
6.84
12
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
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
7.36
7.28
7.28
6.93
38.42
21.78
17.36
9.19
20
0.3 g
10
6.61
19.33
20
0.3 g
10
6.06
0.99
20
0.3 g
14
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
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
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
7.01
40.23
Reverse
HWA045
7.62
60.2
8
40
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
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
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
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
6.93
79.71
Reverse
89
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
6.93
30.56
SMART1 M07
6.32
57.66
15
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
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
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
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
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
0.1 g
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
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
5.01
7.69
strike slip
50
0.3 g
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
Reverse
Oblique
strike slip
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
6.54
18.2
strike slip
17
BRAN
6.93
3.85
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
6.93
27.67
60
0.5 g
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
16
31
91
6.69
5.28
92
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
[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