SEISMIC INTERACTION OF INTERCONNECTED ELECTRICAL

SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT
By André Filiatrault1 and Spyridon Kremmidas2

ABSTRACT: This paper investigates experimentally the dynamic interaction between components of electrical
substation equipment interconnected by rigid bus conductors. Specific tests conducted in this study were (1)
quasi-static tests of three different types of rigid bus with spring connectors; (2) quasi-static tests of one rigid
bus slider; and (3) shake table tests of five different pairs of generic substation equipment specimens intercon-
nected by three different rigid bus assemblies. All connectors tested exhibited stable hysteretic behavior with
various degrees of energy dissipation capacity. The spring connectors dissipate energy through yielding and
generated the highest forces among the connector tested and generally caused an amplification of the dynamic
response of one of the interconnected equipment components. The bus slider dissipated energy through friction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and generated lower forces than those of the spring connectors. Its high damping capacity, however, systemat-
ically reduced the dynamic response of interconnected equipment components. Finally, a special seismic con-
nector that incorporates three flexural vertical aluminum cables generated the lowest forces. Its minimal damping
capacity, however, resulted in higher equipment dynamic response than with the bus slider.

INTRODUCTION facilities suffered architectural damage, with isolated instances

of equipment damage. Several substations tripped off-line after
Electrical distribution and transmission systems are partic- fluctuations in the electrical grid.
ularly vulnerable to earthquake loading. In North America, In response to the vulnerabilities exhibited by substation
most of these systems were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s equipment in recent earthquakes, utilities manufacturers, and
and incorporate several pieces of equipment, such as porcelain others closely related with the industry have developed new
bushings or poorly anchored transformers that are particularly seismic qualification procedures that are described in the IEEE
vulnerable to earthquake damage. Electrical equipment com- 693 standard (IEEE 1997). These procedures, however, only
ponents are typically designed primarily to meet electrical qualitatively address interaction between equipment connected
function requirements as opposed to structural performance by conductors. This is due to the wide variety and complex
requirements. Furthermore, electrical bus conductors are behavior of equipment used in substations, manufacturer and
used to interconnect substation equipment components, utility-specific design characteristics of the equipment and
thereby complicating their structural dynamic response. their support structures, and practical considerations of the
The rigid bus, typically made of aluminum tubular sections, qualification procedure. For these reasons, electrical equipment
usually incorporates connectors to accommodate thermal ef- is, in general, seismically qualified in a ‘‘stand-alone’’ condi-
fects. During recent earthquakes in California, it is suspected tion (i.e., without connection to the adjacent equipment) and
that significant structural dynamic interaction and equipment the effects of interaction are typically ignored.
damage due to forces transferred through the connectors oc- The primary objective of the research project described in
curred. this paper is to investigate experimentally, through quasi-static
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake caused major damage to and shake table testing, the structural dynamic interaction
the Metcalf, Moss Landing, and San Mateo substations owned between components of electrical substation equipment inter-
by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Monte connected by rigid bus conductors. The main goal is to gen-
Vista and Newark substations, also owned by PG&E, suffered erate experimental data that would provide guidance in the
less severe damage. Live-tank circuit breakers were severely seismic design and analysis of conductor assemblies and
damaged. Transformer radiators developed oil leaks and would offer realistic mechanical properties of bus conductors
had damaged bushings. Current transformers failed or devel- for inclusion in ongoing analytical studies (Der Kiureghian et
oped oil leaks. Air disconnect switches were damaged, al. 1999).
and transfer buses were damaged (Benuska 1990). As a result
of the damage to the 500-kV switchyard of the Moss
Landing power plant, a complete 750-MW unit of the
plant remained inoperative for 4 days after the earthquake.
Damage to the San Mateo substation tripped off a portion of
the 115-kV power supply running up the peninsula to San
Francisco.
Electric power generating and distributing plants sustained
relatively minor damage during the 1994 Northridge earth-
quake mainly because of their locations (Hall 1995). Three
1
Prof., Dept. of Struct. Engrg., Univ. of California, San Diego, 9500
Gilman Dr., Mail Code 0085, La Jolla, CA 92093.
2
Asst. Devel. Engr., Dept. of Struct. Engrg., Univ. of California, San
Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., Mail Code 0085, La Jolla, CA.
Note. Associate Editor: Brad Cross. Discussion open until March 1,
2001. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on October 5, 1999.
This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126,
No. 10, October, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/00/0010-1140–1149/
$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 21994. FIG. 1. Rigid Bus Assemblies with Spring Connectors

1140 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149

 QUASI-STATIC TESTS OF RIGID BUS WITH SPRING
CONNECTORS
Description of Test Specimens
Three different types of rigid bus-spring connector assem-
blies commonly used in California were tested under quasi-
static loading in the longitudinal directions of the bus assem-
blies under a prescribed displacement history. Fig. 1 presents
a general view of the three specimens tested. Each rigid bus
includes a 3-m-long aluminum pipe (114-mm outside diameter
and 102-mm inside diameter) with offset cast-aluminum ter-
minal pads welded at each end. Each bus incorporates a dif-
ferent spring connector. Spring type A is nonsymmetrical with
one horizontal and one vertical terminal pad. Spring type B is
symmetrical with two horizontal terminal pads. Finally, spring
type C is nonsymmetrical with two horizontal terminal pads
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 2. Dimensions of Spring Connectors
FIG. 3. Experimental Setup for Quasi-Static Tests on Rigid Bus Assemblies: (a) General View; (b) Details of Connections at Ends of
Rigid Bus
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 1141
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149
at different elevations. Fig. 2 presents the dimensions of the
three spring connectors tested. Each spring is made up of three
pairs of copper alloy straps (3-mm thick by 76-mm wide) sep-
arated by two 6-mm gaps. Shim plates are inserted in the gaps
only at the ends of the springs to provide continuous bolted
connections through the terminal pads.
Preliminary Tensile Tests
Preliminary monotonic tensile tests were performed on three
different coupons taken from one specimen of spring type C
in order to evaluate the properties of the copper alloy. Three
different coupons were tested according to the ASTM E 8-99
standard (ASTM 1999). The tensile stress-strain curve indi-
cated that the copper alloy exhibits an almost perfect elastic-
plastic behavior that can be characterized by an elastic mod-
ulus of 96,200 MPa and a yield strength of 185 MPa.
Experimental Setup for Quasi-Static Tests
Fig. 3(a) illustrates the experimental setup used to perform
the quasi-static tests on the three rigid bus-spring connector
assemblies. A hydraulic actuator with a 610-mm stroke was
attached to the strong wall of the laboratory and applied hor-
izontal loading in the longitudinal direction of the bus assem-
bly. The head of the actuator was prevented from moving in
perpendicular directions of the loading by a supporting chain
system. Also, locking the swivel near the bus assembly pre-
vented rotation of the head of the actuator. The bus assembly
was inserted between the head of the actuator and a vertical
steel column anchored to the strong floor of the laboratory.
The terminal pad of the spring connector was attached to the
 column by a transfer plate, and the other end of the bus was loops shown in Fig. 4, the equivalent viscous damping ratio
connected to the head of the actuator by a similar transfer of a spring connector ␨ at at given displacement amplitude ␦
plate. A 45-kN capacity axial load cell was inserted between is given by (Clough and Penzien 1993)
the head of the actuator and the terminal pad of the pipe to
ED␦
measure accurately the applied load during the test. Fig. 3(b) ␨= (2)
presents photographs of the connection details at each end of 2␲F␦␦
the rigid bus assembly. where ED␦ = energy dissipated per cycle obtained by comput-
ing the area of the hysteresis loop at displacement amplitude
Instrumentation ␦; and F␦ = force at the same displacement amplitude ␦.
Fig. 5 presents the equivalent viscous damping ratios of the
The force-displacement hysteresis loops were obtained from
the quasi-static tests by measuring the load across the 45-kN
load cell and the displacement across the spring connector.
Also, six strain gauges were installed on the top and bottom
surfaces of each pair of straps at the position of maximum
bending moment. The strain gauge readings were used at the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

beginning of each test to define the yield displacement of the

specimen, as described in the next section.

Test Protocol
The ATC-24 loading protocol [Applied Technology Council
(ATC) 1992] was used to perform the quasi-static tests on the
rigid bus assemblies. This protocol has been developed for the
cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures. The
protocol consists of stepwise increasing displacement ␦ ex-
pressed in terms of a displacement ductility factor ␮ defined
as
␦
␮= (1)
␦y
The yield displacement ␦y was obtained from the strain gauge
readings during the first cycle in each loading direction.

Experimental Results
Fig. 4 presents the load-displacement response of each
spring connector obtained for the complete range of ductility
levels considered in the tests. The three spring connectors
tested exhibited large and stable hysteresis loops with good
energy dissipation capabilities. For ductility levels <4, the hys-
teresis loops are nearly symmetrical. For larger ductility levels,
the stiffness of springs A and B increases for negative loading
and deformation (opening of the spring conductor) because of
the tension stiffening effect. This effect is more predominant
for spring type A than for spring type B. Because of its lower
stiffness, this tension stiffening effect is not observable for
spring C. Also the load level developed by spring type C is
significantly lower than the loads induced in the other two
springs.
Two of the spring connectors (types B and C) were tested
to failure. During the last cycle of each test, the specimen was
pulled monotonically until failure occurred. For both speci-
mens, failure occurred across the net area of the cast-aluminum
terminal pad connection that is welded to the aluminum pipe. FIG. 4. Load-Displacement Responses of Spring Connectors
Although failures occurred for large ductility levels in the
spring connector of about 10, they were extremely brittle. Sim-
ilar failures of cast aluminum components of rigid bus con-
ductors were reported during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
(Jablonski et al. 1990). The recorded failure loads were 37 and
40 kN for spring types B and C, respectively. These corre-
spond to very low failure tensile stresses of <30 MPa across
the net area.

Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios

The energy dissipation capacity of each spring connector,
for different displacement amplitudes, can be characterized by FIG. 5. Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios for Rigid Bus
an equivalent viscous damping ratio ␨. Based on the hysteresis Conductors

1142 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149

 three spring connectors tested for different displacement am-
plitudes corresponding to ductility levels ⱖ1. The values pre-
sented correspond to the mean values of the different cycles
for a given displacement amplitude. Only the symmetric cy-
cles, before contact occurred, are presented. For comparison
purposes, the damping ratios computed for the rigid bus-slider
specimen (discussed in the next section) are also shown in the
figure.
For the three specimens tested, the equivalent damping ratio
increases with displacement amplitude, indicating higher en-
ergy dissipation capacity of the spring connectors at large in-
elastic displacements. Spring types A and B exhibit damping
ratios significantly higher than the more flexible spring type C
for the complete range of displacement amplitudes.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
QUASI-STATIC TESTS OF RIGID BUS SLIDER
Description of Test Specimen
Fig. 6(a) presents a general view of the rigid bus-slider spec-
imen tested in this investigation. The specimen was made of
a 3-m-long aluminum pipe (114-mm outside diameter and 102-
mm inside diameter) with a slider connection at one end and
an offset terminal pad at the other end. The details of the slider
connector are shown in Fig. 6(b). A bulged-end shaft sliding
against the inside surface of the pipe generates the friction
force. The diameter of the bulged-end of the shaft is precisely
machined to be identical to the inside diameter of the pipe,
thereby inducing an aluminum-on-aluminum sliding interface.
An elastic restoring force is also provided by four looped alu-
minum cables welded on the pipe and on a terminal pad that
is attached to the end of the shaft.
Experimental Results
Fig. 7 presents the load-displacement response of the rigid
bus slider obtained for the complete range of displacements
considered in the test. In the positive direction, the displace-
ment was increased until contact occurred between the alu-
minum pipe and the terminal pad. In the negative direction,
the displacement was increased until the shaft slid out of the
aluminum pipe. The specimen exhibits a behavior that is typ-
ical of a Coulomb-type friction system coupled with an elastic
restoring force mechanism. Before the slider can move, the
static friction between the bulged-end shaft and the interior
surface of the pipe must be overcome. For the specimen tested,
this slip force can be estimated at 240 N. After slipping has
started, the force increment is obtained by the elastic flexural
deformation of the four looped cables. For the specimen tested,
this elastic postslip stiffness can be estimated at 15 N/mm.
FIG. 6. Rigid Bus-Slider Assembly: (a) General View; (b) De-
tails of Slider Connector
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 1143
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149
FIG. 7. Load-Displacement Response of Rigid Bus Slider
Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios
Fig. 5 presents the equivalent viscous damping ratio com-
puted from the hysteresis loops of the bus slider (Fig. 7) along
with the damping ratios computed earlier for the three spring
connectors tested. Contrary to the spring connectors, the
equivalent damping ratio of the bus slider decreases slightly
with increasing displacement amplitude. The energy dissipated
per cycle ED␦ at a displacement amplitude ␦ can be written as
follows:
ED␦ = 4Fs ␦ (3)
where Fs = slip force of the bus slider. The force F␦ at a
displacement ␦ is given by
F␦ = Fs ⫹ K e ␦ (4)
where K e = elastic restoring stiffness. Substituting (3) and (4)
into (2) leads to a theoretical expression for the damping ratio
␨ for the bus slider
2 Fs
␨= (5)
␲(Fs ⫹ K e ␦)
Eq. (5) shows that the damping ratio of the bus slider de-
creases with increasing displacement amplitudes. For a slip
force Fs = 240 N and a restoring stiffness K e = 15 N/mm, (5)
yields damping ratios of 0.25, 0.15, and 0.11 for displacement
amplitudes ␦ = 25, 50, and 50 mm, respectively. These pre-
dicted values agree reasonably well with the experimental
damping values shown in Fig. 5.
For the range of displacements allowed by the slider, how-
ever, the equivalent viscous damping ratios provided by the
bus slider are higher than the ones exhibited by the three
spring connectors. This result indicates the superior energy
dissipation capacity of the bus slider at small displacement
amplitudes.
SHAKE TABLE TESTS OF PAIRS OF GENERIC
SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT INTERCONNECTED WITH
RIGID BUS ASSEMBLIES
Shake table tests of five pairs of generic substation equip-
ment interconnected with three different rigid bus assemblies
were performed to evaluate the influence of different conduc-
tor assemblies on the structural dynamic response of intercon-
nected substation equipment components. Simulated horizon-
tal ground motions were applied in the longitudinal direction
of the bus assemblies by the uniaxial earthquake simulation
facility at the University of California, San Diego (Filiatrault
et al. 2000).
Description of Generic Substation Equipment
Components
Initially, four different pairs of generic substation equipment
components were considered for the shake table tests. Each
 TABLE 1. Target Dynamic Characteristics of Pairs of Generic
Equipment
Equipment A Equipment B
Equip- Seismic Natural Equip- Seismic Natural
ment weight frequency ment weight frequency
Pair number (kN) (Hz) number (kN) (Hz)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 1 3.56 2 3 0.67 6
2 1 3.56 2 4 0.67 12
3 2 0.40 2 3 0.67 6
4 2 0.40 2 4 0.67 12

TABLE 2. Properties of Generic Equipment Specimens

Target Tubular section
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

natural (weak axis Lumped top Total

frequency bending) weight weight
Equipment (Hz) (mm) (kN) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 2 178 ⫻ 127 ⫻ 4.8 3.32 4.23
2 2 89 ⫻ 64 ⫻ 6.4 0.34 0.89
3 6 203 ⫻ 152 ⫻ 4.8 0.42 1.49
4 12 305 ⫻ 203 ⫻ 8.0 0.13 2.65

pair of components was designed to be representative of the

dynamic properties of typical interconnected substation elec-
trical equipment components such as insulator posts of
switches and circuit switchers, circuit breaker bushings, and
bus supports. Table 1 presents the target dynamic character-
istics of the four pairs of generic equipment components con-
sidered. The target seismic weights listed in this table represent
only a small fraction of the total weight of typical substation
equipment. Preliminary dynamic analyses based on measured
dynamic properties have shown only a small portion of their
total weight participate to the modal dynamic properties in the
frequency range of typical earthquake ground motions (E. Fu-
jisaki, personal communication, 1999).
For simplicity, steel cantilevered tubular columns, of appro-
priate stiffness and strength, were anchored to the shake table
to represent the equipment components. To mobilize sufficient
strength to maintain elastic response for a given lateral stiff-
ness, the height of all cantilevers was fixed at 4.3 m. To adjust
the natural frequency of each equipment specimen, supple-
mental steel weights were added at the top of the columns.
Table 2 indicates the tubular steel section used to fabricate
each cantilevered column, the final lumped weight added at
the top of each equipment specimen, and the total weight of
each specimen.
Description of Rigid Bus Specimens
Three different rigid bus-connector assemblies were tested
with each of the four pairs of interconnected equipment de-
fined earlier. These rigid bus assemblies were (1) the bus as-
sembly with the spring connector type B; (2) the rigid bus
slider; and (3) a special seismic connector with a 100-mm-
diameter rigid bus.
The first two rigid bus specimens were tested previously
under quasi-static loading, as described earlier. The third rigid
bus specimen was considered only for the shake table tests
and was not tested under quasi-static loading. Fig. 8 presents
photographs of this special seismic connector installed on the
shake table. The connector includes three vertically parallel
6061-T6-aluminum alloy cables, 33 mm in diameter and 915
mm in length. These cables are welded to 6061-T6 aluminum
alloy T-shaped plates that are mounted to the rigid conductor.
This seismic connector is currently used by the Bonneville
Power and Administration (BPA) and has been tested previ-
1144 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000
FIG. 8. BPA Seismic Connector: (a) General View on Shake Ta-
ble; (b) Details of Connector
ously (Starkel et al., 1998). This connector is referred to in
this paper as the BPA seismic connector.
Earthquake Ground Motions
Two recorded components of near-field earthquake ground
motions were used for the seismic tests on the shake table:
Tabas (1978 Iran earthquake) and Newhall (1994 Northridge,
Calif., earthquake). These two records are representative of
earthquakes known to have a high potential for damaging
structures and equipment.
The Tabas record was modified using a nonstationary re-
sponse-spectrum matching technique (N. Abrahamson, per-
sonal communication, 1997) to match the IEEE 693 standard
(IEEE 1997) target response spectrum for testing. The record
was further high-pass filtered using a cutoff frequency of 1.5
Hz so as not to exceed the displacement limit of 150 mm of
the shake table.
Fig. 9 compares the absolute acceleration response spectra,
at 5% damping, of the two accelerograms scaled at the differ-
ent intensities used during the tests (desired signals) and ex-
pressed as a percentage of full span (100% span corresponds
to the full-scale amplitude) with the response spectra of the
acceleration time-histories recorded on the shake table (feed-
back signals). The feedback signals shown represent the mean
values of three different tests with the bare shake table.
The mean differences (in percent) between the desired and
the feedback spectral values in the frequency range of 2–12

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149

 Hz are also indicated in Fig. 9. The maximum difference for
all records is <6%. Based on this result, the performance of
the shake table was considered adequate. For comparison pur-
poses, each graph in Fig. 9 also shows the IEEE 693 (IEEE
1997) required response spectrum for 2% damping and for a
peak ground acceleration of 1g.
Results of Preliminary Frequency and Damping
Evaluation Tests
Table 3 summarizes the results of preliminary frequency and
damping evaluation tests on the stand-alone (unconnected) ge-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
neric equipment specimens. The fundamental frequencies of
equipment specimens 3 and 4 are substantially lower than the
target frequencies shown in Table 1. For these stiffer equip-
ment specimens, it was not possible to completely prevent ro-
tation at the base of the tubular column. Rocking of the base
caused the fundamental frequencies to be lower than antici-
pated. Therefore, it was decided to repeat the tests on equip-
ment pair No. 2, but with equipment 4 equipped with a lateral
bracing member (two angles 76 ⫻ 76 ⫻ 9.5 mm back-to-back)
to increase its natural frequency to 12 Hz. The bracing member
was installed at a distance of 1 m from the base of the column
and at an angle of 45⬚. This new pair of equipment is referred
to as pair No. 5.
Tables 4–6 summarize the results of the frequency and
damping evaluation tests on the five pairs of generic equip-

ment specimens interconnected by the three rigid bus assem-

blies. The mode shapes are represented by the relative lateral
motions at the top of the equipment specimens. For the tests
involving the bus slider, a mechanical locking device was in-
troduced at the sliding interface to prevent slippage during the
frequency and damping evaluation tests. This locking device
was removed for the seismic tests.
The natural frequencies measured on the generic intercon-
nected equipment specimens fall between the natural frequen-
cies obtained for the corresponding uncoupled generic equip-
ment specimens (Table 3). The lowest natural frequencies were
obtained with the flexible BPA seismic connector, whereas the
highest natural frequencies correspond to the pairs of equip-
ment interconnected with the rigid bus slider. With the bus
slider, the vibrations at the top of the equipment specimens
are virtually in phase for all frequencies because the bus slider
is rigid (locked).

Results of Seismic Tests

The results of all seismic tests conducted on the five pairs
of generic equipment specimens interconnected by the three
different rigid bus assemblies are presented in Table 7. In-
cluded in this table for each seismic test are the maximum
relative displacement and maximum absolute acceleration at
FIG. 9. Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra, 5% Damp-
the top of both equipment specimens and the maximum force
ing, Bare Shake Table
induced in the connector.
TABLE 3. Measured Natural Frequencies and Damping of Ge-
The maximum force in the connector Fc max was estimated
neric Equipment Specimens by considering the dynamic equilibrium at the top of equip-
ment specimen A, adjacent to the connector
Natural Frequency
First modal
(⫾0.04 Hz) Fc max = 兩mA ẍA(t) ⫹ cA ẋA(t) ⫹ kA xA(t)兩max (6)
damping ratio
Equipment Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 (%) where mA, cA, and kA = mass, viscous damping coefficient, and
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) lateral stiffness of equipment specimen A, respectively; and
1 1.99 19.84 23.75 0.42 xA(t), ẋA(t), and ẍA(t) = relative displacement, relative velocity,
2 1.88 16.88 29.22 0.52 and absolute acceleration at the top of equipment specimen A,
3 4.10 Not measured Not measured 0.41 respectively. Strictly speaking, (6) is valid only for a single-
4 5.47 28.30 Not measured 0.39
4 with Brace 12.23 Not measured Not measured 0.29
degree-of-freedom system, which approaches the condition of
system A with a heavy mass at its top. Axial load cells were

TABLE 4. Results of Frequency and Damping Evaluation Tests on Equipment Interconnected by Bus Assembly with Spring Con-
nector
MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3
Mode Shape Mode Shape Mode Shape
Natural frequency Damping ratio Natural frequency Natural frequency
Pair (⫾0.04 Hz) A B (%) (⫾0.04 Hz) A B (⫾0.04 Hz) A B
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
1 2.38 1 0.64 1.10 5.15 1 ⫺3.71 20.08 1 0.70
2 2.58 1 0.49 0.63 5.82 1 ⫺4.52 20.08 1 0.60
3 3.01 1 0.83 1.00 6.60 1 ⫺0.78 17.31 1 ⫺0.16
4 3.79 1 0.54 0.90 6.72 1 ⫺0.98 17.31 1 ⫺0.05
5 2.96 1 0.14 1.85 11.37 1 ⫺15.3 Not measured — —

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 1145

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149

 TABLE 5. Results of Frequency and Damping Evaluation Tests on Equipment Interconnected by Bus Slider

MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3

Mode Shape Mode Shape Mode Shape
Natural frequency Damping ratio Natural frequency Natural frequency
Pair (⫾0.04 Hz) A B (%) (⫾0.04 Hz) A B (⫾0.04 Hz) A B
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
1 2.54 1 0.99 1.08 19.81 1 0.66 28.20 1 0.40
2 3.05 1 1.00 1.16 19.81 1 0.47 26.02 1 1.11
3 3.16 1 1.06 1.86 15.43 1 0.88 20.04 1 0.72
4 4.30 1 1.00 1.57 14.92 1 0.66 20.08 1 0.56
5 5.78 1 0.96 0.47 Not measured — — Not measured — —
Note: These tests were performed with slider mechanically locked to prevent slippage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 6. Results of Frequency and Damping Evaluation Tests on Equipment Interconnected by Rigid Bus with BPA Connector

MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3

Mode Shape Mode Shape Mode Shape
Natural frequency Damping ratio Natural frequency Natural frequency
Pair (⫾0.04 Hz) A B (%) (⫾0.04 Hz) A B (⫾0.04 Hz) A B
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
1 2.07 1 0.16 1.84 3.39 1 — 20.08 1 0.86
2 2.07 1 0.10 1.60 4.22 1 ⫺17.8 20.08 1 0.63
3 2.34 1 0.24 1.65 3.40 1 ⫺1.75 15.66 1 ⫺0.63
4 2.38 1 0.10 1.85 4.34 1 ⫺4.47 15.39 1 ⫺0.62
5 2.11 1 0.01 0.36 8.42 — — 15.43 — —

TABLE 7. Results of Seismic Tests

Peak Relative Displacement Peak Relative Displacement Peak Absolute Acceleration Peak Absolute Acceleration Peak Connector
Equipment A Equipment B Equipment A Equipment B Force
Ground
(mm) (mm) (g) (g) (N)
motion-
span Stand- Stand- Stand- Stand-
Pair (%) Spring Slider BPA alone Spring Slider BPA alone Spring Slider BPA alone Spring Slider BPA alone Spring Slider BPA
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
1 Newhall-30 24.9 — 52.6 38.1 17.8 — 18.0 16.0 0.55 — 0.91 0.59 0.76 — 0.78 1.14 970 – 317
Newhall-100 — 92.7 — 129 — 38.4 — 52.3 — 1.84 — 1.92 — 1.56 — 3.59 — 1,485 —
Tabas-25 42.9 — 58.2 52.3 29.7 — 19.8 28.7 1.01 — 1.00 0.81 1.13 — 0.84 1.97 1,306 — 440
Tabas-50 — 77.2 — 126 — 29.2 — 50.8 — 1.51 — 1.90 — 1.45 — 3.54 — 1,340 —
2 Newhall-30 35.6 16.0 47.8 38.1 17.0 7.37 11.4 10.2 0.96 0.40 0.81 0.59 0.61 0.47 0.73 0.80 1,391 533 341
Newhall-100 73.4 80.3 159 129 33.0 23.6 39.4 27.2 1.97 1.75 2.55 1.92 1.23 1.51 2.79 2.56 2,857 1,691 866
Tabas-25 39.6 25.4 49.3 52.3 18.0 7.37 18.8 11.7 1.07 0.56 0.87 0.81 0.85 0.53 1.24 1.19 1,660 608 428
Tabas-50 78.5 73.9 117 126 32.3 15.5 35.3 24.9 2.08 1.49 1.95 1.90 1.69 1.28 2.34 2.32 2,900 1,262 666
3 Newhall-30 26.2 — 38.9 43.9 20.1 — 22.1 16.0 0.96 — 0.88 0.87 0.78 — 0.84 1.14 208 — 132
Newhall-100 80.1 74.9 — 144 63.8 32.8 — 52.3 3.15 2.55 — 2.24 2.36 1.53 — 3.59 680 525 —
Tabas-25 42.7 — 61.2 77.2 33.8 — 21.1 28.7 2.00 — 1.55 1.17 1.28 — 0.79 1.97 488 — 230
Tabas-50 92.5 51.8 — 199 69.1 27.7 — 50.8 3.92 2.19 — 3.04 2.76 1.44 — 3.54 911 546 —
4 Newhall-30 26.6 — 27.9 45.0 14.0 — 10.9 9.1 1.60 — 0.71 0.70 0.80 — 0.74 0.93 419 — 124
Newhall-100 71.1 59.9 — 145 37.9 19.8 — 2.82 3.88 2.82 — 2.43 2.07 1.48 — 2.73 995 731 —
Tabas-25 23.4 — 49.3 74.7 11.9 — 18.0 12.4 1.54 — 1.21 1.11 0.75 — 1.22 1.20 413 — 182
Tabas-50 50.0 31.8 — 197 24.1 11.4 — 24.4 3.52 1.73 — 2.84 1.73 1.08 — 2.36 965 432 —
Tabas-200 — 208 — — — 114 — — — 31.8 — — — 9.4 — — — 10,829 —
5 Newhall-30 18.0 16.8 38.1 48.5 5.08 4.57 4.32 4.57 0.65 0.41 0.67 0.79 0.61 0.44 0.51 0.49 1,214 928 473
Newhall-100 50.8 65.0 150 132 8.38 8.13 6.35 5.08 1.66 1.65 2.40 1.90 1.35 2.25 1.01 1.22 3,105 2,273 539
Tabas-25 26.7 20.6 47.8 82.0 6.35 4.32 7.11 5.08 1.02 0.47 0.84 0.73 0.98 0.60 0.91 1.71 2,126 749 416
Tabas-50 49.0 61.5 99.3 112 9.14 8.64 7.88 8.64 1.75 1.34 1.63 1.73 1.75 1.38 1.59 3.13 3,329 1,436 608

also installed at the top of each generic equipment item, but
they provided unreliable readings because of the significant
rotation and bending that they experienced.
The spring connector exhibited slight inelastic behavior in
a number of tests and severe yielding in some of the higher
intensity tests. The inelastic behavior of the spring connector
was similar to that observed during the quasi-static tests in-
cluding significant vertical deformation at the end of the rigid
bus.
The bus slider performed well except for one test involving
equipment pair No. 4 under the Tabas ground motion at 200%
span. For this test, the bulged-end shaft slid out of the alu-
minum pipe during shaking. This induced severe impact load-
ing between the shaft and the pipe as evidenced by the very
1146 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000
large accelerations and force (Table 7). After this test, the
looped cables had yielded permanently and it was not possible
to reinsert the shaft inside the pipe. The unit had to be replaced
for the following tests. This detrimental behavior of the bus
slider could likely be avoided by increasing the available travel
distance of the shaft inside the aluminum pipe and by increas-
ing the length of the looped cables to avoid an undesirable
increase of the elastic restoring force.
The BPA seismic connector did not suffer any visible dam-
age during any of the shake table tests. The physical arrange-
ment of the rigid bus along with its significant mass, however,
caused an out-of-plane rigid-body rotation of the whole spec-
imen during some of the tests, because no torsional stiffness
was provided by the end bus connections.

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 10. Maximum Dynamic Forces from Static Tests

FIG. 11. DAF from Seismic Tests

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 1147

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 12. AAF from Seismic Tests
The maximum forces induced in the connectors during the
seismic shake table tests involving equipment pair Nos. 2 and
5 are presented in Fig. 10. The spring connectors dissipate
energy through yielding and generate the highest forces among
the connectors tested. The bus slider dissipates energy through
friction and generates lower forces than the spring connectors.
The very flexible BPA connector generates the lowest dynamic
forces in the bus.
The effect of the various connectors on the dynamic re-
sponse of the generic equipment specimens can be evaluated
by defining a displacement amplification factor (DAF) and an
acceleration amplification factor (AAF) as
DAF = Maximum Relative Displacement of Interconnected Equipment
/Maximum Relative Displacement of Stand-Alone Equipment (7)
AAF = Maximum Absolute Acceleration of Interconnected Equipment
/Maximum Absolute Acceleration of Stand-Alone Equipment (8)
The DAF and AAF values computed at the top of equipment
A and equipment B during the seismic tests involving equip-
ment pair Nos. 2 and 5 are presented in Figs. 11 and 12,
respectively. The results are presented for each ground motion
and various intensity levels.
The presence of rigid bus connectors can amplify or reduce
the dynamic response of equipment components depending on
their dynamic characteristics and the frequency content and
intensity of the earthquake ground motion input. In general,
the displacement at the top of the lighter and stiffer equipment
B is more amplified than the displacement at the top of the
heavier and more flexible equipment A.
Among the three connectors investigated, the bus slider con-
sistently reduces the response at the top of the equipment spec-
imens (DAF and AAF values <1). This response reduction
occurs despite the larger forces induced by the bus slider com-
1148 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149
pared to the BPA connector (Fig. 10). The energy dissipation
capacity of the bus slider is larger than that of the BPA con-
nector and causes an increase of the equivalent damping of
the coupled system. The bus slider as tested, however, did not
have a sufficient displacement capacity.
CONCLUSIONS
The quasi-static and shake table testing reported in this pa-
per has provided an opportunity to evaluate the structural dy-
namic interaction between components of substation equip-
ment interconnected by the rigid bus. In particular, from the
results of the shake table tests, it has been observed that in
some cases the dynamic response of interconnected substation
equipment can be amplified over the response of individual
equipment. This conclusion is important because substation
equipment items are currently qualified on an individual basis
(i.e., unconnected). Further experimental and analytical studies
are required, however, to fully capture the interaction of in-
terconnected substation equipment under earthquake ground
motions. Although the results obtained in this study indicate
that the performance of the bus slider appears to be promising,
its displacement capacity as tested was inadequate to accom-
modate large amplitude sliding. This component will have to
be redesigned and retested. Other factors, such as the perfor-
mance of interconnected equipment under transverse seismic
loading, also need to be considered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research project described in this paper was funded by the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center/PG&E Directed Studies under
the PG&E Agreement No. 09566 (Prime Agreement CEC 500-97-010)
‘‘Electric System Seismic Safety and Reliability’’—SA2115-59652. The
writers greatly appreciate the input and coordination provided by Prof.
Gregory Fenves from the University of California, Berkeley, and Eric
 Fujisaki and Dr. William Savage from PG&E during the development of
this research project. The support of Dr. Leon Kempner from Bonneville
Power Administration is also gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1992). ‘‘Guidelines for cyclic seis-
mic testing of components of steel structures.’’ ATC-24, Redwood City,
Calif.
ASTM. (1999). ‘‘Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic
materials.’’ E 8-99, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Benuska, L. tech. ed. (1990). ‘‘Loma Prieta earthquake reconnaissance
report.’’ Earthquake Spectra, Supplement to Vol. 6, Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures, 2nd Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Der Kiureghian, A., Sackman, J. L., and Hong, K.-J. (1999). ‘‘Interaction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Horacio Munoz on 05/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in interconnected electrical substation equipment subjected to earth-
quake ground motions.’’ Rep. PEER 1999/01, Pacific Earthquake
Engrg. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Filiatrault, A., Kremmidas, S., Seible, F., Clark, A. J., Nowak, R., and
Thoen, B. K. (2000). ‘‘Upgrade of first generation uniaxial seismic
simulation system with second generation real-time three-variable dig-
ital control system.’’ Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg.,
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New
Zealand (on CD-ROM).
Hall, J. tech. ed. (1995). ‘‘Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994
reconnaissance report Volume 1.’’ Earthquake Spectra, Supplement to
Vol. 11, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
IEEE. (1997). ‘‘Recommended practices for seismic design of substa-
tions.’’ IEEE-693, IEEE Standards Dept., Piscataway, N.J.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 1149
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(10): 1140-1149
Jablonski, A. M., Law, K. T., Lau, D. T., Pierre, J.-R., and Tang, J. H. K.
(1990). ‘‘The 1989 Loma Prieta (San Francisco Area) earthquake: Site
visit report.’’ Internal Rep. No. 594, Inst. for Res. in Constr., National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Starkel, D. L., Mueller, W., III, and Kempner, L. (1998). ‘‘Seismic eval-
uation seismic connection with rigid bus conductor.’’ Portland State
University, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oreg.
U2 & V2 manual. (1993). Experimental Dynamic Investigations, Van-
couver.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
cA = viscous damping coefficient of generic equipment A;
ED␦ = energy dissipated per cycle at displacement amplitude ␦;
Fc max = maximum dynamic force in connector;
F␦ = force at displacement amplitude ␦;
Fs = slip force of bus slider;
Fy = yield force;
K e = elastic restoring stiffness of bus slider;
kA = lateral stiffness of generic equipment A;
mA = mass of generic equipment A;
xA(t) = relative displacement at top of generic equipment A;
ẋA(t) = relative velocity at top of generic equipment A;
ẍA(t) = absolute acceleration at top of generic equipment A;
␦ = displacement;
␦y = yield displacement;
␨ = equivalent viscous damping ratio; and
␮ = displacement ductility factor.