Study on Shaking Table Test and Vulnerability Analysis of 220 kV Indoor Substation in High-Intensity Areas
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Design of Indoor Substation Structure and Test Model
2.1. Structural Overview
2.2. Scale Model Design
2.3. Seismic Isolation Parameter Design
2.4. Experimental Cases and Layout of Measuring Points
3. Analysis of Test Results
3.1. Structural Dynamic Characteristics
3.2. Structural Displacement Response
3.3. Structural Acceleration Response
4. Vulnerability Analysis of Substation Structure
4.1. Analysis Method
4.2. Finite Element Modeling and Verification
4.3. Seismic Intensity Index and Damage Index
4.4. Selection of Seismic Waves
4.5. Vulnerability Result Analysis
5. Conclusions
- The test frequencies of the shaking table model structure exhibit strong consistency with the frequencies obtained from theoretical calculations and numerical simulations. This consistency confirms that the model can accurately reflect the dynamic characteristics of the substation prototype. The maximum error between the test and theoretical frequencies is only 3.42%, with an average error of 10.98%.
- The first period of the isolated structure is 2.33 times longer than that of the non-isolated structure, showing a trend of frequency decrease and period increase with the rise in input PGA. Notably, the growth rate of the isolated structure’s first period (4.82%) is lower than that of the non-isolated structure (15.38%). After experiencing an earthquake with a PGA of 800 gal, the isolated structure remains in the elastic state without any damage to the upper structure.
- The isolation design demonstrates significant control over the seismic response, with substantial attenuation of both displacement and acceleration under varying earthquake intensities and directions. The isolation effect exceeds 50%, leading to a considerable improvement in seismic resistance. As a result, the seismic fortification level of the substation can be reduced from 8 degrees to 7 degrees.
- The failure probability of the isolated substation structure, across the four performance states (LS1, LS2, LS3, LS4), shows a clear reduction compared to the non-isolated structure. The most significant decrease, 27.8%, occurs in the LS3 state at a PGA of 600 gal. The isolation design successfully delays the critical failure point, verifying the effectiveness and reliability of isolation technology in high-intensity earthquake zones.
- This research focuses on the dynamic response and vulnerability of isolated and non-isolated substation structures under seismic action, using electrical equipment as equivalent mass blocks. Future studies will aim to further investigate the seismic impact on real electrical equipment, providing essential data for ensuring the comprehensive safety performance of electrical systems during earthquakes.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Civil and Structural Groups of Tsinghua University; Xinan Jiaotong University; Beijing Jiaotong University. Analysis on seismic damage of buildings in the Wernchuan earthquake. J. Build. Struct. 2008, 29, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Lan, G.; Chen, T.; Dai, J.; Zhu, X.; Sun, G. Seismic damage investigation and analysis of rural dwellings in Ms6.2 Jishishan earthquake. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Dyn. 2024, 44, 200–213. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, W.; Shao, Z.; Dai, J.; Yang, Y. Earthquake damage reconnaissance and numerical analysis of a middle school teaching building after the Ms 6.0 Changning earthquake. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2025, 169, 109201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Zhu, B.; Zhang, L.; Kishiki, S. Damage analysis of a pseudoclassic reinforced concrete frame structure under the action of the Ms 6.8 Luding earthquake in China. Structures 2024, 60, 105887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, Q.; Bian, X.; Xu, J. Anti-seismic design method for floor electrical equipment in whole-indoor substation. High Volt. Eng. 2020, 46, 2155–2163. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Lu, Z. Progress and development trend on seismic measures of electric power equipments in transformer substation. Power Syst. Technol. 2008, 32, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
- He, C.; Xie, Q.; Yang, Z.; Xue, S. Seismic performance evaluation and improvement of ultra-high voltage wall bushing-valve hall system. J Constr Steel Res. 2019, 154, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicoletti, V.; Tentella, L.; Carbonari, S.; Gara, F.; Arezzo, D. Stiffness contribution and damage index of infills in steel frames considering moderate earthquake-induced damage. Structures 2024, 69, 107581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, B.; Zhang, L.; Niu, D.; Su, L. Seismic behavior of substation considering dynamic interaction on the main structure and substructure. J. Vib. Shock 2019, 38, 166–173. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, B.; Xu, H.; Hou, C.; Niu, D. Analysis on the interaction for dynamic the main characteristics of equipment structure building of a transformer substation. J. Xi’an Univ. Archit. Technol. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2012, 44, 620–626. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, C.-C.; Mir, F.U.H.; Whittaker, A.S. Validation of numerical models for seismic fluid-structure -interaction analysis of nuclear, safety-related equipment. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2021, 379, 111179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, J.; Wang, Z.; Kang, L.; Zhao, Z.; Ma, J. Dynamic response analysis of vertical hybrid structure-equipment system of petrochemical production plant. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 19, e02594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Zang, H.; Jiang, G.; Guo, Z.; Li, M. Optimization method of vibration isolation performance of the 6DOF vibration isolation platform based on different configurations. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 2024, 167, 104924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, X.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.; Bai, L. Vibration isolation and quasi-static compressive responses of curved Gyroid metamaterials fabricated by selective laser sintering. Eng. Struct. 2025, 325, 119453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, R.; Ge, Y.; Wang, L.; Xue, J.; Yuan, L.; Shen, Z.; Jin, J. Electromechanical-coupling modeling and experimental validation of piezoelectric active vibration isolation for truss structures. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2025, 224, 112178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.; Cai, Q.; Zhu, S. Superior vibration isolation performance of inerter dampers for SDOF structures under narrowband random excitations. Eng. Struct. 2025, 326, 119413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, D.; Luo, W.; Li, J.; He, Z. Shaking table test of vertical isolation performances of super high-rise structure under metro train-induced vibration. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 82, 108323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, D.; Li, X.; Wang, G. Global seign is fragility analysis of structures based on reliability and perfoimance. J. Nat. Disasters 2006, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, W.; Shi, F.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, Y.; Li, Z. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame with lead viscoelastic damper under mainshock-aftershock sequences. Structures 2022, 41, 1624–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, F.; Yuan, W.; Ozbulut, O.E.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, Y. Performance assessment of steel frame buildings with hybrid self-centering braces under extremely rare far-field earthquakes. Thin-Walled Struct. 2024, 195, 111456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, R.; Gao, C.-F.; Gao, X.-L.; Sun, Y.-Y.; Xu, Z.; Xu, K. Shaking table test and numerical analysis of an innovative precast reinforced concrete building structure. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 77, 107503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, W. Shaking table model test and numerical analysis of a complex high-rise building. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2007, 16, 131–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GB 50011-2010; Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
- Sinha, R.; Rao, B. Seismic fragility of non-ductile RC frames for poundingriskassessment. Structures 2023, 56, 104865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Wu, S.; Xie, Q.; Li, Q. Vulnerability-based seismic resilience and post-earthquake recovery assessment for substation systems. Structures 2024, 69, 107387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zareei, S.A.; Hosseini, M.; Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. Evaluation of power substation equipment seismic vulnerability by multivariate fragility analysis: A case study on a 420 kV circuit breaker. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 92, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamburger, R.O.; Hooper, J.D.; Sabol, T.; Shaw, R.; Saunders, C.M.; Reaveley, L.D.; Tide, R.H.R. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. 2001. Available online: https://atcouncil.org/pdfs/FEMA350toc.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2025).
Similarity Coefficient | Symbol | Formula | Ratio (Model/Prototype) | Similarity Coefficient | Symbol | Formula | Ratio (Model/Prototype) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Size | SL | SL = model L/prototype L | 0.0500 | Stress | Sσ | 0.4000 | |
Elastic modulus | SE | SE = model E/prototype E | 0.4000 | Bending stiffness ratio | EI | 2.5 × 10−6 | |
Acceleration | Sa | 2.0000 | Axial stiffness ratio | EA | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | |
Quality | Sm | Sm = model m/prototype m | 0.0005 | Stiffness | SK | 0.0303 | |
Time | St | 0.1581 | Force | SF | 0.0010 | ||
Frequency | Sf | 6.3245 | Strain | Sε | 1.0000 | ||
Velocity | SV | 0.3162 | Damping ratio | = 1 | 1.0000 | ||
Displacement | Su | 0.0500 | Density | Sρ | = / | 4.0000 |
Lead rubber bearing (original structure) | Equivalent stiffness (kN/mm) | Elastic stiffness (kN/mm) | Yield force (kN) | Stiffness ratio after yielding |
1.55 | 14.04 | 59 | 0.077 | |
Lead rubber support (vibration table) | Equivalent stiffness (kN/mm) | Elastic stiffness (kN/mm) | Stiffness ratio after yielding | |
0.6 | 44.23 | 0.403 |
Parameter | Equivalent Stiffness (kN/mm) | Elastic Stiffness (kN/mm) | Stiffness Ratio After Yielding |
---|---|---|---|
Original structure | 170.22 | 1554.28 | 119.56 |
Similarity constant | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
Theoretical scaled model | 5.11 | 46.63 | 3.59 |
Actual scaled model | 4.8 | 44.23 | 3.38 |
Error (%) | 6.1 | 5.2 | 5.85 |
Isolated Model | Non_Isolated Model | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case | Earthquake | Direction | PGA (gal) | Case | Earthquake | Direction | PGA (gal) |
C1 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 | C21 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 |
C2~C5 | EW3 | X/Y/X + Y/X + Y + Z | 140 | C22~C25 | EW3 | X/Y/X + Y/X + Y + Z | 140 |
C6 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 | C26 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 |
C7~9 | EW1/EW2/EW3 | X | 400 | C27~C29 | EW1/EW2/EW3 | X | 400 |
C10~12 | EW1/EW2/EW3 | Y | 400 | C30~C32 | EW1/EW2/EW3 | Y | 400 |
C13/C14 | EW3 | X + Y/X + Y + Z | 400 | C33/C34 | EW3 | X + Y/X + Y + Z | 400 |
C15 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 | C35 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 |
C16~C19 | EW3 | X/Y/X + Y/X + Y + Z | 800 | C36~C39 | EW3 | X/Y/X + Y/X + Y + Z | 800 |
C20 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 | C40 | WNW | X + Y + Z | 50 |
Model | Original Structure | Theoretical Calculation | Scaling Simulation | Scaling Test Model | Error (B-A)/A | Error (C-A)/A | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mode | Frequency/Hz | Frequency Similarity Ratio | Frequency/Hz (A) | Frequency/Hz (B) | Frequency/Hz (C) | |||
non_isolated model | 1 | 1.27 | 5.47 | 6.94 | 7.62 | 5.92 | 9.80% | 14.70% |
2 | 1.44 | 7.89 | 8.33 | 7.62 | 5.58% | 3.42% | ||
Isolated model | 1 | 0.417 | 5.47 | 2.28 | 2.48 | 2.54 | 8.77% | 11.40% |
2 | 0.419 | 2.29 | 2.49 | 2.62 | 8.73% | 14.41% |
Case | Non_Isolated Model (First Order) | Non_Isolated Model (Second Order) | Case | Isolated Model (First Order) | Isolated Model (Second Order) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency (Hz) | Period (s) | Frequency (Hz) | Period (s) | Frequency (Hz) | Period (s) | Frequency (Hz) | Period (s) | ||
C21 | 5.92 | 0.169 | 7.62 | 0.131 | C1 | 2.54 | 0.394 | 2.62 | 0.382 |
C26 | 5.78 | 0.173 | 6.80 | 0.147 | C6 | 2.42 | 0.413 | 2.56 | 0.391 |
C35 | 5.38 | 0.186 | 6.41 | 0.156 | C15 | 2.39 | 0.419 | 2.53 | 0.395 |
C40 | 5.13 | 0.195 | 6.06 | 0.165 | C20 | 2.35 | 0.426 | 2.45 | 0.408 |
Mode | Scaled Model | Numerical Model Based on SAUSAGE | Ratio (Scaled Model/Numerical Model) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.121 × Sf = 0.663 | 0.646 | 0.97 |
2 | 0.108 × Sf = 0.592 | 0.604 | 1.02 |
3 | 0.097 × Sf = 0.531 | 0.575 | 1.08 |
Mode | SAUSAGE Software | ETABS Software | Error | MIDAS Software | Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.646 | 0.666 | 3.10% | 0.648 | 0.31% |
2 | 0.604 | 0.629 | 4.14% | 0.582 | 3.64% |
3 | 0.575 | 0.589 | 2.43% | 0.563 | 2.09% |
Damage Degree | Damage Description | Quantitative Indicator |
---|---|---|
Intact (DS1) | The main load-bearing components are intact, and a few load-bearing components are damaged and do not require repair. | <3/1100 |
Slightly damage (DS2) | Minor cracks in individual load-bearing components and damage to non-load-bearing components do not require repair or require minor repairs. | 3/1100~3/550 |
Moderately damaged (DS3) | Most load-bearing components are slightly damaged, while a few non-load-bearing components are severely damaged and require repair. | 3/550~4/550 |
Severely damage (DS4) | Most load-bearing components suffer severe damage or even collapse. | 4/550~9/500 |
Collapse (DS5) | Most of the main load-bearing components have collapsed. | ≥9/500 |
Structural Performance Level | Minor Damage (LS1) | Moderate Damage (LS2) | Severe Damage (LS3) | Collapse (LS4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Maximum story drift θmax (%) | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 2 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feng, J.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y.; Wu, X.; Wang, D. Study on Shaking Table Test and Vulnerability Analysis of 220 kV Indoor Substation in High-Intensity Areas. Infrastructures 2025, 10, 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10050119
Feng J, Wang L, Chen Y, Wu X, Wang D. Study on Shaking Table Test and Vulnerability Analysis of 220 kV Indoor Substation in High-Intensity Areas. Infrastructures. 2025; 10(5):119. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10050119
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeng, Jie, Liuhuo Wang, Yueqing Chen, Xiaohui Wu, and Dayang Wang. 2025. "Study on Shaking Table Test and Vulnerability Analysis of 220 kV Indoor Substation in High-Intensity Areas" Infrastructures 10, no. 5: 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10050119
APA StyleFeng, J., Wang, L., Chen, Y., Wu, X., & Wang, D. (2025). Study on Shaking Table Test and Vulnerability Analysis of 220 kV Indoor Substation in High-Intensity Areas. Infrastructures, 10(5), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10050119