DYNAMIC DESIGN ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL BUS RUNS AND SUPPORTS TO WITHSTAND EARTHQUAKES
E. G. Fischer
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Pittsburgh, Pa.
ABSTRACT
Both foundation and building floor seismic response spectra,
based upon a random type of earthquake input inotion,indicate that
important quasi-resonance vibration buildup of about 5 to 10 times
can occur in the usual 1 to 25 Hz frequency range of damaging seismic
effects. However, dynamic analysis has shown that properly designed
supports can be added to raise all bus run natural frequencies
well-above 25 Hz, thereby causing the above-mentioned seismic
vibration magnification to become negligible. The resulting stiffened
and strengthened bus run configurations Would then be required to
withstand only the specified earthquake-induced building floor mo-
tions amounting to about 0.2 to 0.5g. A steady vibration of 0.5g at 25
Hz results in an amplitude of only 0.008 in. Since such a small lateral
deflection of a bus run section would produce only negligible bending
stress, no strength failure or malfunction would be anticipated,
provided there was no extreme relative motion in the building itself.
Computer-aided analyses have been made for several 3-
dimensional bus run structures to determine their natural frequencies
of vibration and modal configurations as modified by the addition of
supports in appropriate directions. The required computer models
were based upon experimentally determined force versus deflection
characteristics of typical electrical bus run sections subjected to both
bending and torsion loads. Dynamic analysis and design were used to
eliminate the possible quasi-resonance vibration buildup because of
coincident "earthquake-building-bus" system frequency effects in the
critical 1 to 25 Hz range. Also, the residual seismic floor motions have
been shown to be negligible compared to the momentary current
vibrations for which bus runs are normally designed.
INTRODUCTION
The bus runs with which we are concerned in this paper are those
covered in ANSI Standard C37.20 for SWITCHGEAR ASSEMBLIES
INCLUDING METAL-ENCLOSED BUS. Further, they are the NON-
SEGREGATED PHASE type in that all conductors are in a common
metal enclosure, without barriers between the phases. Parts of a bus
run for a typical nuclear power generating station are shown in Fig. 1,
and certain details of the system of special interest in seismic design
appear in Figs. 2 and 3. Some photographs of sections of the system
are found in Figs. 4, 5 and 6.
Considerable work has already been done on the interpretation
of the original earthquake accelerograms as modified by the filter
action of a "soil-foundation-building" system and reported in terms of
floor response spectra for specific buildings and geographic loca-
tionsl,2,3. Briefly, random types of earthquake ground motions can
be modified by building structures to produce sine beat vibrations at
various natural frequencies in the range from 1 to 25 Hz. It becomes
desirable to raise all bus run frequencies well-above 25 Hz to avoid
quasi-resoniance vibration buildup caused by random sine wave floor
motions.
In general, the electric bus system is composed of simple, rugged
parts, namely (1) insulated solid copper or aluminum bus bars, (2)
flexible, braided connectors, (3) internal bus bar supports (insulators),
and (4) external steel bar and rod supports for the (5) reinforced steel
Paper T 73 046-0, recommended and approved by the Switchgear Committee
of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Winter
Meeting, New York, N.Y., January 28-February 2, 1973. Manuscript submitted
September 7, 1972; made available for printing November 9, 1972.
1493
R. W. Long
or aluminum enclosures. Such equipment is not subject to possible
malfunction under shock and vibration, so an actual test under
simulated seismic conditions was not considered necessary. The
available floor response spectra can then be used directly as inertia
loading of the bus runs, and can also be interpreted as the maximum
relative motion between various floor levels.
From a dynamic response point-of-view, it becomes evident that
the bus run strength problem can be reduced if all bus system natural
frequencies are raised above the 1 to 25 Hz range of potentially
damaging floor response magnification. Since the damping in bus runs
typically amounts to only 1 or 2 percent of critical, the resulting
flexure or stress buildup of 5 to 10 times could be eliminated.
Subsequently, the usual static load and stress formulas can be used to
show that electrical bus components do withstand the earthquake
induced floor accelerations of 0.2 to 0.5g (above 25 Hz). A
continuous sinusoidal 0.5g vibration at 25 Hz has an amplitude of
only 0.008 inch. Such a small deflection would produce only
negligible stresses in ductile materials such as the copper or aluminum
conductors. Hence, no strength failure would be anticipated, except
possibly where the earthquake causes extreme relative motion within
the building itself and the bus run is forced to accommodate.
The following' dynamic design analysis required that the com-
puter models be justified by means of actual force versus deflection
measurements. These characteristics for typical bus sections were
determined experimentally by mechanical loading of actual produc-
tion units. This information, in the form of mechanical "influence
coefficients", along with the usual strength properties and physical
dimensions of the bus run components, was used to authenticate the
3-dimensional structural model for the computer.
The typical configurations analyzed by use of the NASTRAN
digital computer program were: (1) the crossover bus connection
between switchgear cubicles shown in Fig. 2, (2) the right-angle bus
run bends along 3-coordinate axes shown in Fig. 10, and (3) the
previous case with a 500 in. extension of the bus run after the second
right-angle bend as shown in Fig. 16.
In all cases, the electrical bus system natural frequencies and
corresponding modal configurations were first calculated with only
the end terminations for support. Subsequently, additional supports
were added in each coordinate direction to show how the modal
configurations changed as the system natural frequencies were raised
by the added supports. Eventually, enough supports were added to
raise all bus system natural frequencies above 25 Hz.
The present study was based on a three phase, 3000 ampere, 5
KV bus run with two vertically stacked 0.5 x 4.0 in. copper bars per
phase in an aluminum enclosure. For other ratings, with their different
sizes and materials, the same type of analysis would still be valid,
provided that the proper values for mechanical strength parameters
and physical dimensions are substituted into the computer program. It
is not considered necessary to perform additional force versus
deflection measurements for every bus run rating, since all designs are
quite similar. This simplification presupposes that the values of the
influence coefficients for bending and tension would always be on the
low side, thereby insuring that the actual system frequencies will be
above those calculated for any system of supports.
The external supports studied were (1) 0.25 x 3 x 12 in.
rectangular steel bars (See Fig. 2) and (2) 0.625 dia. x 50 in. steel rods
(See Fig. 3). However, such supports can be generalized in terms of
their cross-sections and lengths so that many different power plant bus
support systems can also be handled accurately with the available
computer program.
 With present design procedures, most supports have been found Insulated Bus Bars
to be adequately stiff in the vertical direction because of static weight
considerations already employed. However, additional supports for
both horizontal directions X,Z in. Fig. I are required to achieve
comparable stiffnesses in all three coordinate directions. In this way,
the bus run system is designed with adequate supports assuring all
natural frequencies to be well-above 25 Hz so that the bus run
response motion will not be greater than the building motion. The
architectural engineers would still have to allow for temperature
effects and floor loading effects, as well as the seismic distortions of
the building.
DISCUSSION OF TEST AND DESIGN ANALYSIS PROGRAMS
Metal
The details of the present seismic study can best be explained by Enclosure
reference to the sketches and photographs as follows:
Figure I - This much simplified schematic diagram of parts of a
typical electrical bus system emphasizes that usually the bus system
can be analyzed in terms of a fixed set of coordinate axes, X-Y-Z.

Fig. 1 - Part of a typical bus run system in power plant building
Supports
Fig. 3 - Section of bus run
Figure 4 - A portable hydraulic hand pump and jack were used
for obtaining the force versus deflection characteristic for one-half of
the bus run crossover shown in Fig. 2. (See section A in Fig. 1).
Mechanical dial gage displacement measurements indicate that a slight
buckling (bowing-out) effect at the right-angle turn of the bus run
enclosure is responsible for about 80 percent of the deflection
measured at the "free" end of the bus run. Perhaps 15 percent more
deflection is caused by a similar hinge-effect in the top plate
attachment of the bus run to the cubicle. Both of these rotations are
expressed in terms of the effective torsional stiffness, Koz =
0.21(10)7 Ib-in/rad, shown in Fig. 7 at nodes 2-3 and 9-10 and also
listed in Table I.

Figure 2 - An example of a common bus run section is a

crossover connection between two switchgear line-ups. This figure is a
more detailed view of section A in Fig. 1.

External Bar Supports

A

Fig. 2 - Typical crossover bus run with supports

Figure 3 - A typical rectangular bus run enclosure has dimensions

of 18 by 20 in. with .125 in. (skin) thickness, with three insulated
pairs of vertically stacked 0.5 by 4 in. copper bus bars (two bus bars
per phase). The bus bars are supported and located within the
enclosure by snug-fitting internal supports (insulators) spaced 24 in. Fig. 4 - Experimental setup for determining the force versus deflection
apart. The entire assembly is supported by steel rods every eight feet characteristic of a typical bus run right-angle turn and attach-
throughout the bus run system. ment to a switch.gear cubicle. (See Section A in Fig. 1)
1494
 By applying the hydraulic load in the sidewise Z-coordinate
direction, the buckling and hinge effects are less pronounced, giving a
much stiffer influence coefficient of Kgy = I.O(I 0)8 Ib-in/rad.
The rotational stiffness KgX about the bus run X-axis is
relatively large and can be so designated without further testing.
Figure 5 - Horizontal loads are applied to the free end of a
vertical section of bus run in order to isolate the force versus
deflection characteristic of the hinge-effect in the top plate attach-
ment. The corresponding effective torsional stiffnesses (lb-in/rad) are
then KoX and Kgz. (See section B in Fig. I). Dial gage displacement
measurements along the vertical axis of the bus run indicate a small
additional motion which is characteristic of a cantilever beam in
bending. This latter effect is represented in the structures program in
terms of the length and cross-section properties of a straight section of
the bus.
Fig. 5 - Experimental setup for determining the force versus deflection
characteristic of a straight section of bus run attached to a
switchgear cubicle. (See Section B in Fig. 1)
Figure 6 - A load in the vertical direction (actually a lateral, or
sidewise load on the bus run) is applied at a mid-span position of a
straight section of bus which is supported on hinged ends. Unless the
load is extreme, the buckling in the aluminum rectangular enclosure
has only a small effect in reducing the beam stiffness of the bus run.
(See section C in Fig. 1). Subsequently, torsional loads were applied in
opposite directions about the bus run axis at the free ends of the
straight section. In general, this rotational stiffness is relatively high
and is usually not included in the electrical bus structural analysis
program. In the foregoing tests, the correct interpretation of the data
requires the use of some engineering judgment because of peculiar
nonlinear effects at the higher structural loading. The governing
criterion is that the resulting influence coefficients (or stiffnesses) are
always evaluated on the low side. This conservative appraisal results in
our specifying more supports than are actually required to raise all bus FUgawe S
run system natural frequencies above 25 Hz.

1'-

Fig. 6 Experimental setup for determining the Jbrce versus deflection characteristic in both bending and torsion for a straight section of bus run
without end attachments (See Section C in Fig. 1)
1495
 Figure 7 - A schematic diagram, representing the bus section in TABLE I - Physical Dimensions and Mechanical Properties
Fig. 2, defines the principal mass points and stiffnesses as used in the for the Computer Model of the Crossover Bus
structural analysis program. The straight sections between "nodes" are with Supports (Fig. 7)
automatically tepresented as simple bending effects in uniform section
beams. (See data for computer model in Table I). Coordinate Locations, Inches
y "Nodes" X Y Z
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Coordinate Axes
2 0.0 16.8 0.0
3 0.0 16.8 0.0
x
4 33.3 16.8 0.0
5 66.6 16.8 0.0
6 99.9 16.8 0.0
7 133.2 16.8 0.0
8 166.5 16.8 0.0
9 199.8 16.8 0.0
10 199.8 16.8 0.0
11 i99.8 0.0 0.0
16 3/4" (a) Effective torsional stiffness (lb-in/rad) at nodes 2-3 and 9-10 as

-IL determined by test:

Koz= 0.21(10)7; Key = l.0(l0)8; KX=2.2(10)7
(b) Calculated linear stiffness (lb/in) for supports at nodes 5 and 7:
\- K Kz = 400; Ky = 3.6(10)6; KX = 5.7(10)4
'K
\- KY
Kx -M (c) Distributed bending stiffness of bus run calculated from:
Area =-21.4 in2; Area Moment of Inertia = IZ = ly = 416.5 in4.
Fig. 7- Computer model representing crossover bus with supports (d) Concentrated mass points representing bus run calculated as:
shown in Fig. 2
MA, nodes 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 = 277 lb/g; g = 386 in/sec2
Figure 8 The two lowest natural frequencies for the switc hgear
-
MB, nodes 3 and 9 = 190 lb/g
crossover bus are below 25 Hz, indicating a need for supports in both Mc, nodes 1 and 11 = lOlb/g
the Y- and Z-directions. Natural modes of vibration of the cros>SUVc[ Figure 9 - The vertical stiffness of the supports in the Y-direction
bus in the X-direction (along the bus run axis) are very high.
at nodes 5 and 7 now nmakes the 1st Y-mode natural frequency
Y well-above 25 Hz However, the iateral stiffness of the siupports in the
Z-direction, KZ = 400 lb/in., is inadequate and has only a small effect
in raising the value of the 1st Z-mode from 21.1 Hz to 22.2 Hz, which
is now the lowest frequency. In the 2nd Z-mode, it is the additional
5 bending of the vettical portions of the bus run that raises the
X d 9, lo frequency from 65.6 Hz to 71.9 Hz. Since the supports are located
quite close to the resulting- nodal positions, the support stiffnesses at
points 5 and 7 are not effective for the Z-direction. Also, there could
11 be an important torsional effect in the supports, namely Key, but
7F this influence coefficient was not formulated in the original computer
model of Fig. 7. It actually turns out to be unnecessary since the
(a) 1st Y- Mode at 20.4 Hz frequency in the 2nd Z-mode is already well-above 25 Hz.
4 7 8 2,3 6 7 8 9,10
9, 10 X -4*-
2( I'll

1 zZ V1
11
7
(j) lst Z-Mode at 22.2 Hz.
(b) ls t ZMod eat 21.lIH z
-z
_-Z

2,3GJ 9,10
1
I11
(c) 2nd Z-Mode at 65.6 Hz (b) 2nd Z-Mode at 71.9 Hz.
Fig. 8 Lowest modes of vibration for crossover bus (Fig. 7) with
- Fig. 9 - Lowest modes of vibration for crossover bus (Fig. 8) with
supports removed at points S and 7 supports reinstalled at points 5 and 7
1496
 Figure 10 - A Fairly common configuration in bus run systems TABLE II - Physical Dimensions and Mechanical Properties for
consists of three (short) straight sections of bus involving two the Computer Model of the Right-Angle Bus Run Bends
right-angle bends and all three coordinate directions. (See section D in with Directional Supports (Fig. 1 1)
Fig. 1). A linear support is required in each coordinate direction
because of the general torsional freedom inherent in each right-angle Coordinate Locations, Inches
enau. "Nodes" YX Z
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 25.0 0.0 0.0
3 50.0 0.0 0.0
4 75.0 0.0 0.0
5 100.0 0.0 0.0
6 100.0 0.0 0.0
7 100.0 25.0 0.0
8 100.0 50.0 0.0
Kx 9 100.0 75.0 0.0
10 100.0 100.0 0.0
y 11 100.0 l00.0 0.0
12 100.0 1QO.0 -25.0
13 100.0 100.0 -50.0
14 100.0 100.0 -75.0
15 100.0 100.0 -100.0
x (a) Effective torsional stiffness (lb-in/rad) at nodes 5-6 and 10-11 as
determined by test:
KOZ= Kgy =KOX = 1.1 ( 10)7
(b) Calculated linear stiffness (lb/in) for supports at nodes 5-6 and
10-11:
KZ = Ky = KX 3.4(10)5
Fig. 10 Typical right-angle bus run bends along three coordinate
-
(c) Distributed bending stiffness of bus run same as in Fig. 7.
axes with directional supports
(d) Concentrated mass points same values as in Fig. 7, but new loca-
Figure Again, a schematic (line) diagram is the basis for the
-
tions:
3-dimensional structural dynamics evaluation. The bus run initial and MA at nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14
final terminations' are solid to ground. This means that resisting MB at nodes 6 and 10
moments can be exerted, but there is no resulting motion. MC at nodes 1 and 15
The effective torsional stiffnesses at the right-angle bends (not Figure 12 - With all directional supports removed from Fig. 1 1,
including the effect of the cubicle attachment as in Fig. 4) are now all there are three natural frequencies below 25 Hz. In general, these low
equal numerically about each coordinate axis. modes involve rigid body motion of the center section of -straight bus
Also, the calculated linear stiffnesses are now all equal numer-
ically in each coordinate direction, and they correspond to a pair of
0.625 dia. x 50 in. long steel rods at each location. (See data for Original Position
computer model in Table II). of Bus Run Centerline / x

\ / Xry/
Ky /X 14
13

12

1---
IMode, 16.0 Hz
K
9 ~~ez
Kx K
X + <)8 1y 00" (b) 2nd Mode, 18.3 Hz
y
7~ ~ KeX
(c) 3rd Mode, 19.0Hz
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

d) 4t h Mode, 88.6 Hz
Fig. 12 Lowest modes of vibration for the anchored 3-axis bus run
supported at ends only
Fig. 11 Computer model representing bus run bends and directional
-

supports shown in Fig. 10 (KX=KY=KZ =0)

1497
run as determined by the torsional stiffnesses at the two right-angle
turns. For the 4th mode, there are obvious bending beam effects in
the center section and the natural frequency becomes much higher at
88.6 Hz.
Figure 13 - It is difficult to decide on a meaningful representa-
tion of -the various modal configurations as given by Fig. 12. This
further illustration of the 1 st mode by using the actual bus run outline
drawing is helpful. The output of the NASTRAN computer simulation
includes plots of the modal configurations in single-line sketches
similar to those in Fig. 12.
Figure 15 - Upon adding the two additional horizontal supports
(at nodes 10, 11 and 5, 6 in Fig. 11) in the X- and Z- coordinate
directions, the lowest mode at 52.3 Hz corresponds to the 3rd mode
in Fig. 14, with the center section still vibrating as a rigid body. All
the other modes involve bending of the center section and the
corresponding natural frequencies are much higher.
y
Original Position
of Bus Run Centerline
x
z

Bendi ng
y

(c) 3rd Mode, 63.8 Hz

(d) 4th Ntode, 99.7 Hz

Bending /
Fig. 15 - Lowest modes of vibration for the anchored 3-axis bus run
Fig. 13 - Further illustration of the anchored bus run (Fig. 10) with (Fig. 14) with the additional supports in all three directions
no added supports for 1st mode at 16.0 Hz (Fig. 12a)
KX=Ky=KZ = 3.44(10)5 Ib/in
Figure 14 - It is evident that adding the vertical support (at node
10, 11 in Fig. 11 ) introduces appreciable stiffness Ky, so that the 1st
mode in Fig. 12 now becomes the 3rd mode at 52.3 Hz. Again, the
two lowest modes involve rigid body motion of the center section of
the straight bus run. The 4th mode at 88.6 Hz involving bending of
the center section remains unchanged by the vertical support.
Y
Figure 16 - As in Figs. 7 and 11, a schematic (line) diagram
defines the computer-aided analysis of still another bus run model. In
this case a 500 in. extension was added to the straight section of bus
Original Position
x in the (minus) Z-direction. (See Fig. 11). Bus run supports are
of Bus Run Centerline z uniformly spaced every 100 in. (See data for computer model in Table
III).

l x
Kx4
(a)l st Mode, 18.0 Hz/ z

4 N'O
(bO 2nd Mode, 19.0 Hz

(c) 3rd NMode, 52.3 Hz

id) 4th Mode, 88.6 Hz

Fig. 14 - Lowest modes of vibration for the anchored 3-axis bus run
(Fig. 12) but with the vertical support added Fig. 16 - Computer model of Fig. 11 with a 500" extension in the -Z
Ky=3.44(10)5 lb/in (KX=KZ=0) direction with vertical and horizontal supports every 100"
1498
 TABLE III - Physical Dimensions and Mechanical Properties Figure 18 - It is evident that the X- and Y-direction supports on
for the Computer Model of Fig. 11 with a 500 In. the 500 in. bus run extension (See Fig. 16) raise all system natural
Extension in the (Minus) Z-Direction (Fig. 16) frequencies well-above 25 Hz. Again, as shown by Figs. 14 and 15,
these high frequency modes now involve bending of the center section
Coordinate Locations, Inches of the bus run.
"Nodes" X Y Z "H" 1st Mode
16 100.0 100.0 -125.0
17 100.0 100.0 -150.0
18 100.0 100.0 -175.0 500" Extension
19 100.0 100.0 -200.0 2nd Mode
20 100.0 100.0 -225.0
21 100.0 100.0 -250.0
22 100.0 100.0 -275.0
23 100.0 100.0 -300.0
24 100.0 100.0 -325.0
25 100.0 100.0 -350.0
10, y
26 100.0 100.0 -375.0
27 100.0 100.0 -400.0
28 100.0 100.0 -425.0 x

29 100.0 100.0 -450.0 z

30 100.0 100.0 -475.0 1st Mode, 49.2 Hz
31 100.0 100.0 -500.0
(a) Effective torsional stiffness at nodes 5-6 and 10-1 1 same as in
2rn Mode, 49.2 Hz
Fig. I11.
Fig. 18 - Lowest mode of vibration for the anchored 3-axis bus run
(b) Calculated linear stiffness for supports at nodes 5-6 and 10-1 1, as (Fig. 17) with all supports restored to the 500" extension
well as additional supports at nodes 15, 19, 23 and 27, same as in (Fig. 16) with K = 3.44(10)5 Ib/in
Fig. 11.
THE EFFECT OF THE ORIGINAL
(c) Distributed bending stiffness of 500 in. bus run extension same as FLOOR MOTIONS ON BUS RUNS
in Fig. 11.
Although the possibility for quasi-resonance vibration buildup
(d) Concentrated mass points same values as in Figs. 7 and 11, but new has been eliminated by adding appropriate supports, the system must
locations: still withstand the original floor motion of about 0.2 to 0.5g. For the
MA at nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12 through 30 worst case of a steady state vibration of 0.5g at 25 Hz, the corre-
MB at nodes 6 and 10 sponding motion amplitude is only 0.008 in. For a steady state vibra-
tion, the equations of motion are as follows:
MC at nodes 1 and 31
_ Velocity, in/sec = (2sr) * (amplitude, in) (frequency, Hz)
-
(1)

Figure 17 With all X- and Y-directional supports removed from

-
Acceleration, g= (27r/386) * (velocity, in/sec) (frequency, Hz)
-
(2)
the 500 in. extension shown in Fig. 16, there are four natural Such a small lateral deflection would produce only negligible bending
frequencies below 25 Hz and the modal configurations all involve X- stress in a typical bus run section.
and Y-direction bending of the unsupported bus run section.
To evaluate the effect of the original floor motion, first consider
1st Mode
the bus run as a- whole. During the force versus deflection tests, even for
high static loadings (equivalent to 8 g's with corresponding deflections
500" Extension 2nd
of 0.09 in.), there were no permanent deformations. Since the bus run
y 3rd can withstand such static loading, it will also withstand the much less
4th severe loading caused by the original floor motion.
I5th
x
Also, since the bus bars themselves can vibrate inside the bus run,
z it is necessary to consider their response to the seismic floor
motion. Bus bars are designed to withstand the high stresses and
large deflections characteristic of momentary current vibrations. The
effects of some standard momentary currents on a typical bus run are
summarized in Table IV.
TABLE IV Calculated Deflection and Stress versus Current
-

2nd Mode, 5.0

Current Peak Deflection Max. Stress
(Amperes Asymmetric) (in.) (psi)
40,000 0.016 14,000
5th Mode, 31.6 Hz
6th Mode, 31.6 50,000 0.024 21,000
60,000 0.035 31,000
(a) Copper bus bars (1/2 by 8 in.) with a 4.75 in. phase spacing.
Fig. 17 Lowest modes of vibration for the anchored 3-axis bus run
-

(Fig. 16) for KX=Ky=Kz = 3.44(10)5 lb/in, but with all (b) Single (hinged) supports every 20 in.
supports removed from the 500" extension

1499
Since these currents are at the 60 Hz electrical power frequency, the
0.035 in. deflection of the 60,000 ampere current was caused by a
corresponding acceleration of 13 g's (see equations 1 and 2), a value 26
times the expected maximum seismic floor motion. Again, since the
bus bars withstand such momentary vibrations, they will also withstand
the much less severe original floor motions.
CONCLUSIONS
It has been shown that proper design procedures will quickly lead
to the correct number and orientation of supports needed to raise all
bus run natural frequencies well-above 25 Hz. For example, the initial
and final bus run end terminations provide sufficient stiffness along
the bus axes without additional supports in those directions. However,
additional supports are required at right-angles to the bus run axes.
When additional stiffness is required in the vertical direction, the
vertical supports which are provided based upon static weight
considerations, are usually sufficient. In general, the 3-dimensional
example shown in Fig. 16, using the 0.625 dia. x 50 in. steel rod
supports, indicated that the maximum axial spacing between bus run
attachments should be 100 in.
It is of course possible to make a 3-dimensional dynamic analysis
of a building structure and simply attach the bus run system.
However, the location of the necessary supports would lead to an
expensive trial-and-error procedure, and the essential "influence
coefficients" for defining the motion response of the bus run might
not be incorporated. In addition, each system would be unique and it
would be difficult to arrive at design simplifications.
On the other hand, the procedure herein suggested recQgnizes the
mechanical properties of the bus run as manufactured and provides
the needed supports for all system configurations. Hence, the bus run
will safely withstand an earthquake environment provided the
building, itself, survives.
REFERENCES
1. E. G. Fischer, "Sine Beat Vibration Testing Related to Earth-
quake Response Spectra", 42nd Shock and Vibration Symposium,
Dept. of Defense, Naval Research Laboratories, Key West, Florida
meeting, November 2, 1971.
2. E. G. Fischer, W. H. Ferguson, and A. P. Colaiaco, "Test Method to
Demonstrate the Seismic Capabilities of Equipment", IEEE Trans-
actions Paper T 72 052-4 Winter Meeting, New York, N.Y.,
February, 1972.
3. A. P. Colaiaco, W. S. Albert, "Seismic Testing of Metal Clad and
Metal Enclosed Switchgear Using Sine Beat Vibrations", IEEE
Transactions Paper T 72 050-8 Winter Meeting, New York, N.Y..
February, 1972.
Discussion
G. Warren Hammond (I-T-E Imperial Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa.
19130): There has been much discussion and publication on the subject
of switchgear exposure to earthquakes. I compliment the authors of
this paper in sharing with us their experience and resulting knowledge
on another component of important integrity in the electrical power
system.
I wish to underscore the authors' references to "relative motion in
the building itself" and "seismic distortions of the building". The in-
Manuscript received February 5, 1973.
1500
stallation of this equipment within, exiting from, or exterior to the
building must recognize such limitations.
I would like the authors to expand on certain statements in their
paper, namely:
1. Does the 5 to 10 times quasi-resonance buildup in the 1 to 25
Hz frequency range relate equipment to floor or ground acceleration?
2. Do the authors have evidence to support the statement that 1
or 2 percent of critical damping is typical in bus runs?
3. Would the authors please expand on the lack of need for addi-
tional force/deflection measurements for other bus run ratings. Does
"presuppose" mean "assume" that influence coefficients are always on
the low side?
4. And finally, what is the authors' definition for "end
terminations"?
E. G. Fischer and R. W. Long: The authors appreciate the comments
and questions raised by Mr. Hammond, especially in view of his early
contributions to IEEE on the subject of seismic design and test of
switchgear.4
Electrical bus runs can be properly supported in order to avoid
seismic motion amplification in the frequency range from 1 to 25 Hz.
However, this technique requires that they also be securely attached to
the building, itself, with a maximum (axial) spacing between supports of
only 100 in. Therefore, any earthquake-induced distortions between
floors or adjacent buildings spanned by the bus runs will cause similar
distortions in the latter. It is assumed that on the basis of an overall
dynamic appraisal of the buildings involved, the architect-engineer will
specify relative amplitudes that can be accommodated by additional
bus run flexible connections, which will not detract from the earlier
seismic design objective to avoid motion amplification.
The answers to Mr. Hammond's specific questions are as follows:
1. The 5 to 10 times motion buildup refers to the building floor
acceleration specified in the range from 0.2 to 0.5 g (so-called "zero
period" value above 25 Hz). In turn, this floor acceleration could be 2
to 3 times the peak value of the acceleration-time history representing
the original seismic ground motion.
2. Simple mechanical "bump" tests of bus run panels and con-
ductors, also of typical bus runs with adequate supports, produced
"free" vibrations whose logarithmic amplitude decay was interpreted as
1 to 2 percent of critical. Also, larger induced motions indicated loose-
ness or clearance in the system resulting in erratic, nonlinear vibration
decay with effective damping amounting to 5 percent.
3. Displacement measurements for a specific bus run rating
showed that the principal flexibility was caused by the so-called "hinge
effect," whereby buckling occurred in the aluminum rectangular en-
closure at the right-angle turns. It is assumed that other bus run ratings
will buckle in a similar manner. To maintain the conservative design ap-
proach, the calculation procedure always employs the lowest values for
stiffness as determined by test. Subsequently, when supports were added
at the "hinge" locations, the precise value of the original flexibility be-
came unimportant compared to the support stiffness being added. It
might develop that other bus run ratings should be tested when impor-
tant design changes are made whose effects cannot readily be determined
by computation.
4. The "end terminations" shown in Fig. 10 are defined as rigid
attachments to ground and were a convenient assumption to use in the
computer structural analysis. However, the example in Fig. 11 shows
that for long bus run extensions the precise attachment to ground (de-
gree of stiffness or motion constraint) becomes unimportant.
REFERENCES
4. C. R. Gallant, G. W. Hammond, et al, "A Testing Program for
Qualification of Switchgear to be subjected to an Earthquake
Experience." IEEE paper 70 TP175-PWR, Vol. PAS-90, No. 1,
Jan/Feb 1971
Manuscript received April 27, 1973.