Earthquake Requirements and Seismic Capabilities For Eatons Electrical Distribution and Control Equipment

Seismic White Paper SA12501SE Effective August 2009
Earthquake requirements and seismic

capabilities for Eaton’s electrical
distribution and control equipment
Table of contents
Description
Part I Abstract and general overview. . . . . . . . . 2
Part II Seismic terminology and earthquake
engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Part III Seismic requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Part IV Test facility and test methodology . . . . . 16
Part V Shared responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Part VI Typical Eaton seismic equipment
specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Part VII References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Seismic White Paper SA12501SE Earthquake requirements and seismic
Effective August 2009 capabilities for Eaton’s electrical
About the authors For more than 20 years, Eaton has had a comprehensive program
focused on designing and manufacturing electrical distribution
Mr. Eddie Wilkie graduated from North Carolina State University, and control equipment capable of meeting and exceeding the
earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. seismic load requirements of the Uniform Building Code姞 (UBC),
Eddie has been employed with Eaton for 19 years. During that time, the California Building Code (CBC), and the Building Officials and
he has held a variety of engineering and management positions. Code Administrators姞 (BOCA) International, Inc. The entire pro-
Eddie has worked as a design engineer, design engineering man- gram has been updated to demonstrate compliance with the 2006
ager, business operations manager and most recently as the division International Code Council (ICC) and the 2006 International Building
engineering manager for Eaton’s Power Distribution Operations– Code (IBC) unified seismic requirements. This also includes
Americas. Eddie is currently responsible for coordinating Eaton’s the 2007 CBC.
electrical equipment seismic program, which includes annual testing
and equipment certification. Eaton recognized that the most direct and proven method of
assuring seismic performance of electrical equipment is through
Mr. Frederick M. Paul has spent over 31 years in various aspects of simulation testing via triaxial or biaxial shake tables. Representative
the electrical industry. The last 11 have been as an application engi- configurations for each of Eaton’s product lines were designed
neer with Eaton, covering the central valley of California, USA. Prior and built for seismic testing. Considerable attention was given to
to Eaton, he was involved in the sales and application of electrical selecting test units that conservatively represented the entire family
control and automation equipment. Earlier in his career, he was vice of products being certified.
president of operations for 11 years at an electrical contracting firm
in Southern California, USA. Test units were initially subjected to independent 0.2g resonant
searches in each of the three principal axes prior to being subjected
Dr. Mostafa A. Ahmed has 37 years of extensive experience in to a series of seismic simulation tests. The test assemblies were
structural and mechanical design and construction of power proven to meet or exceed the seismic performance requirements
generating stations. He is a fellow engineer with the Westinghouse and remain operational immediately after the seismic event. This
Electric Company Nuclear Service division. He is skilled in civil and paper provides a summary of the efforts that were involved in the
mechanical engineering practices, dynamic analysis of equipment achievement of this objective.
and structures, and finite element analyses. Dr. Ahmed is an
expert in equipment seismic qualification and seismic testing. Background
He earned his bachelor of science degree in civil engineering
from Cairo University in 1971, and received his master of science Although the need for seismic-capable electrical equipment is
and doctorate in structural mechanics from the University of known, there is a lack of understanding of how to comply with
Pittsburgh in 1981 and 1991. He is currently working in Shanghai, current code requirements. The 2006 International Building Code
China, as a technical advisor for the Westinghouse On-Shore (IBC) and the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) both emphasize
Engineering Organization. building design requirements with limited information for seismic
certifications of equipment. Electrical equipment and distribution
Mr. Nathan M. Glenn, P.E., is a practicing Mechanical Engineer system components are treated as non-structural attachments to
specializing in equipment qualification. He is experienced in shock the building.
and vibration testing, structural dynamics, electro-mechanical
analysis, and design. Nathan earned his Bachelor of Science degree Since seismic testing contains many special terms and formulations,
in Mechanical Engineering Technology from The Pennsylvania this paper begins with the basics of seismic terminology and
State University, and received a Master of Science in Engineering earthquake engineering, then proceeds with addressing the specific
Mechanics specializing in Explosives Engineering from New Mexico factors involved with meeting the requirements of the IBC and CBC.
Institute of Mining and Technology. He is a registered Professional The 2006 IBC seismic requirements, along with associated codes
Engineer in the state of Pennsylvania. Nathan is a Senior Engineer derived from the IBC, will be addressed, explaining how they relate
with Westinghouse Electric Company. Currently he is responsible to Eaton’s previous and current test programs. The most stringent
for the qualification of nuclear power plant components and requirements of these codes (IBC and CBC) will be presented as
systems. In addition to nuclear power plant equipment qualification, they apply to electrical distribution and control equipment and
Nathan provides seismic certification for electrical equipment used will be combined to formulate a single reference for purposes
in building code applications. of evaluation.
To properly define the acceptability of the equipment to the

Part I specified codes, it is necessary to present the equipment seismic
requirements and the equipment seismic capability data on the
Abstract
same technical basis. For this purpose, the use of the “response
Eaton Corporation is a global diversified industrial manufacturer spectrum” concept will be introduced. To simplify the application for
consisting of two sectors: Industrial and Electrical. Throughout the user, the seismic capability of all of Eaton’s equipment has been
this document, all references to Eaton are in regards to Eaton’s established to the same basic levels and requirements.
Electrical Sector. The equipment is considered acceptable, or granted a “seismic
Beginning with qualification testing in 1985, Eaton has led the certificate,” if it can withstand the seismic event and perform its
industry in seismic certification of electrical equipment for use in function immediately afterward. Eaton participates in a cooperative
facilities across the continental United States. Eaton was the first effort with the user, building designer, and installer to ensure
electrical equipment supplier to employ seismic simulation testing that the equipment is mounted properly to a foundation that can
for equipment seismic certification. withstand the effects produced by an earthquake.
2 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

Earthquake requirements and seismic Seismic White Paper SA12501SE
capabilities for Eaton’s electrical Effective August 2009
General overview Nearly all of Eaton’s electrical assemblies have been tested and
were found acceptable when evaluated to IBC and CBC seismic
Eaton’s electrical distribution and control equipment has undergone requirements. Eaton continues to lead the industry in using
seismic simulation tests and meets or exceeds performance simulation testing to ensure conformance of electrical distribution
requirements as identified in the 2006 IBC1 and the 2007 CBC2. It and control equipment to the most current codes. (See Part III.)
is important to note that Eaton has tested its equipment using the
most typical mounting methods. All Eaton floor-mounted equipment Establishing the equipment seismic capability is only the first step.
has been seismically tested as free-standing units, with no lateral A seismically qualified mounting base with anchors or welds is
supports at the top that are affixed to adjacent walls or structures. required to hold the equipment safely to the supporting structure.
This allows users to either secure it from the base alone or in com- (See Part V.)
binations of base and top lateral supports. It must be recognized
that equipment tested with top lateral supports is not certified to the
same levels as free-standing items. Eaton has shown by simulation
Part II
testing that equipment seismic capabilities are reduced by more Seismic terminology and earthquake engineering
than a factor of two when mounted at the base only as compared to
securing with lateral supports located at the top of the equipment. Earthquakes occur in most every region around the world.3 (See
Complete and proper certification of equipment to achieve maxi- Figure 1.) As reported by the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2007 alone,
mum flexibility for the user must include testing of equipment as 55 earthquakes greater than 6.0 were recorded around the world.
stand-alone items. Eaton equipment that is certified to higher levels These resulted in 681 reported deaths and widespread damage to
when installed with top lateral supports is specifically indicated on structures, buildings, and equipment with damage estimates in the
Eaton’s seismic certificates. billions of dollars.
Eaton is highly experienced in the design, manufacture, and seismic The May 12th, 2008 earthquake in Chengdu, China, exceeded 6.9
certification of electrical distribution equipment to meet the most and caused a major tragedy of more than 69,000 deaths and
rigorous seismic standards. As new products are developed, or resulted in several thousands of people missing. The problems
existing products are modified, Eaton continues to verify the seismic were further compounded due to the delays in restoring power
acceptability of nearly all lines of electrical equipment for applica- and service to the affected areas.
tions requiring certification to the IBC and CBC. To restore function of emergency management facilities as quickly
Over a period of more than 20 years, over 100 different assemblies, as possible, public officials have revised building codes to mandate
representing many product lines, have been successfully tested improved seismic design. This includes not only buildings, but also
and verified to seismic levels higher than the maximum seismic the electrical and mechanical equipment contained therein, as well
requirements specified in the IBC and CBC. The equipment main- as machinery necessary for safe occupancy and normal operation.
tained structural integrity and demonstrated the ability to function
Eaton has taken the unique step of performing seismic simulation
immediately after the seismic simulation tests. This achievement, an
tests on various lines of distribution and control products. Users can
industry first, is consistent with the Eaton commitment to produce
be sure that Eaton’s electrical equipment has been designed and
the most reliable equipment that exceeds both present and future
tested to exceed the requirements as identified by the IBC and CBC.
requirements. Testing was performed on simulation tables
For purposes of understanding, it is important to review a few of the
at Wyle Test Laboratory in Huntsville, Alabama, along with the
basic principles of earthquake engineering. From an analytical per-
former Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division in
spective, it is not easy to quantify the severity of an earthquake.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Most news reports refer to the magnitude of the earthquake in
The general concepts for seismic test methodology, ANSI/IEEE姞 terms of the open-ended Richter scale. Although most people have
Standard 344-1987, and the applicable procedures from ANSI/IEEE heard of the Richter scale, the understanding is limited. The original
C37.81—Guide for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Metal-Enclosed definition is:4
Power Switchgear Assemblies—were consulted.
Richter magnitude is M, where M = log10(A)
The equipment was subjected to the following vibration excitation Where A is equal to the trace amplitude (in microns) of a
and seismic simulation testing: Wood-Anderson Seismograph having magnification of 2800,
natural period of 0.8 seconds, a damping coefficient of 80%,
1. Initial resonance searches in all three principal directions in located on firm ground, at a distance of 62.5 miles (100 km)
the frequency range of 1 to 50 Hz, using sine sweep motion from the earthquake epicenter.
at the base of the test units, with a sweep rate of 1.0 octave
per minute. Peak acceleration of the sine wave was designed Since 1000 microns are equal to 1.0 millimeter, and log10 (1000)
around 0.2g. (Some resonance sweep tests have been is equal to 3, M could then be redefined as:
conducted up to 100 Hz.) M = 3 + log10(trace amplitude in mm)
2. Seismic simulation testing using 30-second-long random
multifrequency inputs imposed simultaneously and
measured at the base of the test cabinets in all three
principal directions. The base acceleration levels were
increased further to encompass the combined code
requirements, and additional testing was performed to
demonstrate margin beyond code requirements.
1 International Code Council, International Building Code.

2 California Building Standards Commission, California Building Code.
3 Newmark, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, p. 252.
4 Ibid., p. 217.
EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 3

To determine the magnitude of an earthquake in terms of Richter Table 1. Relationship of Earthquake Magnitude to
Scale M, one could proceed as follows: Other Parameters
Maximum7 Duration of 7
1. Measure the amplitude of the Wood-Anderson Seismograph Earthquake Ground Strong Length of8 Equivalent9
in millimeters at a location 62.5 miles from the earthquake’s Magnitude M Acceleration Motion Fault Slip Energy
(Richter Scale) (% g) (Seconds) (Miles) (Tons of TNT)
epicenter.
8.5 50 73 530 70 million
2. Take common logarithm of the amplitude.
8 50 43 190 13 million
3. Add 3 to it.
7.5 45 30 70 2.2 million
The result is the magnitude (M) of an earthquake on the 7 37 24 25 400,000
Richter scale. 6.5 29 18 9 70,000
Note: It is important to note that for a change of one unit in the Richter scale, 6 22 12 5 13,000
M means a change of 10 in the amplitude of the motion of the earthquake. 5.5 15 6 3 2200
To relate the magnitude (M) to the energy radiated by the earth-
5 9 2 2 400
quake, Gutenberg and Richter developed the following relationship5:
log10(Es) = 11.8 + 1.5 M
Where Es is the seismic energy of the earthquake and M is the Table 2. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (abridged and
Richter magnitude. Rewritten by C. F. Richter10)
A one megaton bomb releases about 5x1022 ergs. If all of the energy Intensity11 Definition
could be converted into seismic energy (typically only about 2% 1 Not felt. Marginal and long period of large earthquakes.
would be), it would correspond to a magnitude 7.3 earthquake6. 2 Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed.
Table 1 relates the earthquake magnitude to other relevant param-
eters. A change of one unit in the magnitude M means an increase 3 Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks.
Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake.
of 1.5 in the right-hand side of the equation, resulting in a change of
32 in the total energy of the earthquake, Es, since log10 (32) = 1.5. 4 Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or
sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking the walls. Standing motor cars
Although the magnitude of the earthquake is a direct measure of its rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the
severity, there are a number of difficulties in using it for equipment upper range of 4, wooden walls and frames crack.
design. Specifically, they include: 5 Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers awakened. Liquids disturbed,
some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing, close,
1. Maximum displacement alone does not provide necessary open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clocks start, stop, change rate.
information about the frequency content of the motion. Due 6 Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily.
to the effects of amplification, equipment is most susceptible Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, and so on, off
to damage when the earthquake motion contains the equip- shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster
ment’s inherent natural frequencies. and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes
shaken visibly, or heard to rustle.
2. Maximum displacement is not necessarily a good measure
7 Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects
of the total amount of energy the equipment is subjected to quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D including cracks. Weak
during the earthquake. Velocity is a better indicator of chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles,
the energy. cornices, unbraced parapets, and architectural ornaments. Some cracks
in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and
3. Maximum displacement is not a good measure of the force caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation
the equipment will experience. Acceleration shows a better ditches damaged.
correlation to the resultant seismic forces on the equipment 8 Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C; partial collapse.
mounted inside buildings or structures. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some
4. Seismographs are normally tuned to frequencies in the 1 masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments,
towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted
to 2 Hz range. This is adequate for measuring the magnitude down; loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling broken off. Branches
of the earthquake, but does not provide accurate information broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells.
about the frequencies typically translated to buildings Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes.
and equipment. 9 General panic. Masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged, some-
times with complete collapse; masonry B seriously damaged. General
damage to foundations. Frame structures, if not bolted, shifted off
foundations. Frames cracked. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alleviated
areas, sand and mud ejected, earthquake fountains, sand craters.
10 Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations.
Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious
damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown
on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, and so forth. Sand and mud shifted
horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly.
11 Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service.
12 Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and
level distorted. Objects thrown into the air.
5 Wiegel, Earthquake Engineering, p. 31 (Ref. 8).

6 Newmark, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, p. 252 (Ref. 7).
Figure 1. Seismicity of the Earth, 1961–1967 7 Wiegel, Earthquake Engineering, p. 79, Table 4.3 (Ref. 8).
8 Wiegel, Earthquake Engineering, p. 77, Table 4.1 (Ref. 8).
10 Newmark, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Appendix 2 (Ref. 7).
11 Intensity is frequently represented by Roman numerals.

To eliminate many verbal repetitions in the original scale, the follow- Although accurate and readily available soon after the event, these
ing convention has been adopted. Each effect is named at that level records are not ideal for translating requirements to equipment
of intensity at which it first appears frequently and characteristically. design and seismic certification. For example, note that the
Each effect may be found less strongly, or in fewer instances, at the El Centro, California, earthquake acceleration magnitude reaches
next lower grade of intensity; more strongly or more often at the 0.3g several times, and is consistently above 0.1g, while the maxi-
next higher grade. A few effects are named at two successive mum peak-to-peak displacement is about 30 cm. For the Mexico
levels to indicate a more gradual increase. City earthquake, the acceleration magnitude is generally about
Masonry A, B, C, and D. To avoid ambiguity of language, the quality 0.01g, with one peak at about 0.02g—only about 10% of the
of masonry, brick or otherwise, is specified by the following El Centro acceleration levels.
lettering (which has no connection with the conventional The maximum peak-to-peak destruction displacement of the Mexico
Class A, B, C construction). City earthquake was 60 cm, or about twice the El Centro displace-
Masonry A. Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, ment value. Noting the difference in the time scale, one immediately
especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, realizes that the Mexico City earthquake motions are characterized
and so forth; designed to resist lateral forces. by much lower frequencies than the El Centro event.
Masonry B. Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not
designed to resist lateral forces. 0.3 g
0.2 g South
Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme 0.1 g
weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced 0 t
nor designed against horizontal forces. -0.1 g
-0.2 g North Acceleration
Masonry D. Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; -0.3 g
low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally. South
20
cm sec-1
In addition to the magnitude of the earthquake, which measures the 0 t
amount of energy released, another parameter, the intensity, is used North Velocity
20
to measure the local destructiveness of earthquakes. Therefore,
one earthquake will have a single magnitude, but a number of differ- 40
ent intensities, depending on the location of the observers.12 Most 20
cm
intensity scales are based on personal and subjective observations, 10 South
including “scary feeling” and the ability (or inability) to remain
standing, as well as the sorts of property damage that occurred. 0 t
Although quantitative and based on actual damage effects, a review 10 North Displacement
of Table 2, the Modified Mercalli (mm) scale13, reveals that it is too
subjective for use in electrical equipment design and qualification.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Despite its limitations, the intensity can be quite useful in areas
Time, seconds
where there are no seismic instruments available to record the
earthquake, and it may provide the only consistent way to interpret
the diaries and other written accounts of historical earthquakes.14 Figure 2. El Centro, California, Earthquake of May 18, 1940,
When available, the most accurate descriptions of actual earth- NS Component16
quake motions are the time history records. A time history record
is simply a graphical recording of the earthquake motion (it can be Because acceleration is a function of displacement times the square
in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration) as a function of of the natural circular frequency (for sinusoidal motions), the domi-
time. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate time history records for two different nant frequencies of the El Centro earthquake are four to five times
earthquakes.15 those of the Mexico City earthquake. This illustrates that while the
time history is very accurate for any one earthquake, it is difficult to
use as the basis for generalizations about other earthquakes.

13 Ibid., Appendix 2.
14 Ibid., p. 218.
15 Ibid., p. 227.
16 Ibid., p. 227.

Finally, the last concern in using time history can be illustrated as
follows. Figure 4 shows the time history records (both displacement 0.02 g Acceleration
and acceleration forms) for a shake table test run. 0.01 g
The question arises related to the adequacy of the time history to 0
accurately represent the earthquakes shown in Figures 2 and 3. -0.01 g
-0.02 g
Because the acceleration record for the test contains several peaks Velocity
10
in the range of 2 to 3g, there are enough peak accelerations and cm sec-1 0
inertial forces to satisfy the requirements. Similarly, the peak-to-peak -10
displacements are in the range of 60 to 75 cm for the test, which cm 40
would appear to be sufficient to meet even the Mexico City 30
Displacement
displacement levels. 20
10
On the basis of amplitude alone, it appears that the shake table time 0
history (Figure 4) meets both actual earthquake events (Figures 2 -10 (Typically the ground displacements
and 3). However, there are two critical factors not yet addressed: (a) -20
are incredibly large due to small errors
in the base line for the accelerogram)
frequencies present in the required motion versus the frequencies -30
present in the test motion, and (b) the inherent equipment damping.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
It has already been shown that the frequency content represents
Time, seconds
a significant difference in contrasting Figures 2 and 3. Similarly,
frequency is also critically important in establishing equipment
certification. The reason is basic: each piece of electrical equipment Figure 3. Mexico City Earthquake of July 6, 1964, NS Component17
has its own natural frequency that produces maximum amplification.
For larger assemblies, 4 to 6 Hz is typically the minimum natural
frequency. If the earthquake has significant 4 to 6 Hz motion, the
equipment will respond accordingly, amplifying or resonating with
Displacement CAL
the earthquake motion. If the earthquake has substantial 10 to 12
(cm) 2.5" Peak/
Hz motion, the equipment will be too flexible to keep up with the 25 Lines
higher frequency, thus, it will tend to sit still or attenuate the earth- 5"/Line
quake motion. If the earthquake has a significant amount of 1 to 2
Hz motion, the equipment will rigidly follow the motion of the floor, CAL
Acceleration
neither amplifying nor attenuating. Figure 5 is a resonance curve (g) 1g/1 Line
and illustrates the three regions of equipment response as a
function of the ratio of the equipment natural frequency to the 20 Seconds
input motion frequency.
Another important factor that time histories do not address is Figure 4. Shake Table Time Histories for Equipment Test
equipment damping. For simplicity, equipment damping is often
expressed as a ratio (C/Cc) of the actual equipment (C) damping
to that of a critically damped system (Cc). Frequently, the ratio is
expressed as the percent of critical damping. As one can see from 5
Figure 5, the damping property of the equipment limits the total
F
amplification that the equipment will experience at resonance. With FF= 0
Equipment Response / Input Motion
no damping, the equipment response amplification at resonance 4

increases without bound. With a damping coefficient of 12.5%, the
equipment response will not exceed four times the input motion, F = 0.125
FF
as can be seen in Figure 5.
3
This resonance curve is helpful in understanding the equipment
response to earthquakes. However, these curves, based on continu- F = 0.25
ous sinusoidal input motions, are too conservative for representation FF
of actual earthquakes, which have not one, but a number of different 2
frequencies. Additionally, these frequencies are discontinuous, F = 0.50
starting and stopping several times during the course of the FF
seismic event. 1
F
F F= 1.00
0
0 1 2 3
Equipment Equipment Equipment
Follows Amplifies Attenuates
Frequency Ratio
Input Input Input
Motion Motion Motion
Equipment Response per Unit Input Motion as a Function of Frequency Ratio:

Equipment Natural Frequency
Input Motion Frequency
Figure 5. Resonance Curves for Continuous Sine Motion
17 Newmark, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, p. 227.

10
Sinusoidal Harmonic Motion 9 Zero Period
8
X = A sin wt = Displacement 7 Acceleration
Test Response Spectrum
6 = Maximum
X = dx = A w cos wt = Velocity (TRS)
dt Table Test
5
Motion
X = dx = – A w 2 sin wt = Acceleration 4
dt
3
Where W = 2 x Frequency
Spectrum Dip—Not
2 Important Because
Frequency Is Not an
Acceleration (g)
Linear Single- k C
Equipment Natural
Degree-of-Freedom
Frequency
Oscillator
1.0
M 0.9 Required Response
X 0.8
0.7 Spectrum Zero Period
0.6 (RRS) Acceleration
0.5 = Maximum
Figure 6. Basic Vibration Equations18 Floor Motion
0.4
Because of these difficulties in universally applying the time history 0.3

form, engineers have developed a method of comparing earthquake
response motions as a function of frequency, rather than time. 0.2
This is called the acceleration response spectrum method.
The acceleration response spectrum for any time history is a plot of
the maximum responses of a series of linear, single-degree, free- 0.1
dom oscillators (one spring, one mass, one dashpot that can move 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
linearly along only one axis) mounted on a surface moving according 60 80 100
Frequency Hz
to the time history being studied. Figure 6 depicts one such simple
oscillator and its basic equations of motion. Typically, the response
spectra are plotted over the 1 to 35 Hz frequency range in no less Figure 7. Equipment Qualification by the Response Spectrum
than 16 steps, not exceeding one-third octave. (For example, 1.0, Method When TRS “Envelopes” the RRS for All Equipment
1.26, 1.6, 2.0, 2.5, 3.2, 4.0, 5.0, 6.3, 8.0, 10.0, 12.7, 16.0, 20.0, Natural Frequencies
25.4, and 32.0 Hz.)
The responses of these oscillators are easily determined in real 40
time, with digital computers and fast spectrum analyzers in the
test laboratory. However, the complex and difficult task of commu-
nicating earthquake requirements and equipment capabilities has Continuous
Sine Motion
become a routine matter of showing that the equipment capability Q=100/(2c/cc)
response spectrum, as produced by shake table test, envelops the
ground-level seismic requirements. During this test, the response
spectrum envelops the applicable portion of the location where
the equipment is to be installed. The applicable portion means 30
that enveloping is required at all equipment frequencies. Figure 7
shows a typical test response spectrum (TRS) enveloping the
Q Factor, Magnification Number
applicable portion of the required response spectrum (RRS).

Note that enveloping does not occur at 4.5 Hz, which is accept-
able, because this was not a resonant frequency of the equipment. 10 Cycles/Beat
Enveloping is only necessary at the natural frequencies of the
equipment. This illustrates the value of the simple frequency sweep
20
test to identify the lowest natural frequencies and damping factors
5 Cycles/Beat
associated with any equipment seismic test certification program.
Figure 8 illustrates a more useful form for engineers. The peak Typical
Earthquake
magnification (alignment of the equipment natural frequency with Random
Ground Motion
the earthquake frequency), Q, as a function of the damping. Each Vibration
curve represents a different type of earthquake motion. The “low- Q= 100
X10 2c/cc
est” curve for “random motion” (all frequencies present to an equal X6.8
extent) is generally the most like the ground motion during an actual 10
X5.6
earthquake. Because most electrical equipment is mounted on a
rigid surface or inside another structure, the original earthquake X3.1
motion is “filtered” by that structure. The equipment, therefore,
experiences so-called “quasi-resonance” effects as the structure to
which it is mounted alternately amplifies and attenuates the earth-
quake motion according to its inherent characteristics. The result is
the equipment peak amplification lies somewhere between the two
0
extremes—“lower level random motion” response and “higher level 0 5 10 15
continuous sine“ response. c/cc, Percent of Critical Damping
Figure 8. “Q” Curves—Vibration Magnification vs. Percent of

18 Beer, Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dynamics, p. 771. Critical Damping

 CAUTION! 10
IT IS IMPORTANT TO VERIFY THAT THE RRS AND THE TRS ARE 2% Damping, 2.4g Peak Acceleration
BASED ON AND PLOTTED AT THE SAME DAMPING FACTOR
BEFORE MAKING THE COMPARISON. 5% Damping, 1.4g
Peak Acceleration
Acceleration (g)
Now that the basics of earthquake engineering have been presented,
several key elements that are very useful in understanding the nature
of earthquakes, time history, the response spectrum curve (RSC), and 1.0
the potential effect on electrical enclosures can be discussed further.
Although the Richter scale M is of good use in describing earth-
quake strength, it does not identify the energy content of the
earthquake or its potential to damage structures and equipment.
Basically, the Richter scale M is a displacement indicator rather 7% Damping, 1.25g Peak Acceleration
than an energy or acceleration indicator.
Zero Period Acceleration (ZPA), Equal to 0.6g
The energy content of an earthquake can best be defined via the
0.1
RSC. This curve must be carefully understood and carefully applied. 0.1 1.0 10 100
It is a theoretical curve computed for application to a system or Frequency Hz
equipment. Typical curve sets are shown in Figure 9.
The only spectral acceleration magnitude that is directly related to Figure 9. Response Spectrum Curve
the earthquake event is the maximum response of rigid systems.
Within earthquake engineering, it is understood that rigid systems
are those with no resonance frequencies below 33 Hz and are
considered to have a zero period of acceleration. Because a rigid
system will not amplify the motion of the earthquake, its maximum Switchgear
response acceleration is equal to the maximum acceleration of the Assembly
earthquake time history. As a result, the part of the RSC at the
higher frequencies, referred to as zero period acceleration (ZPA), 90"
directly defines the maximum acceleration of the earthquake time
history. It does not depend on the damping properties of the equip-
ment. Thus, no matter what the equipment damping, the ZPA is
always the same, and is equal to the maximum acceleration in the
earthquake time history.
All other spectral accelerations are possible only if the equipment
has a dominant resonant frequency that aligns with the frequency
on the response spectrum curve (RSC). Thus, this curve tells the 4 x 36"
engineer that it is possible for a piece of equipment to experience 86" Front-to-Back
the spectral acceleration defined in the curve, if the equipment has Base Motion
a dominant resonance frequency matching the frequency on
the RSC. Side-to-Side Vertical
Base Motion Base Motion
It is important to understand that the damping properties of a
system are a direct indication of the system’s ability or inability
to dissipate the earthquake energy. Figure 10. Triaxial Shake Table
To further explain the effect of damping properties on the seismic
response of systems, assume that two enclosures were similarly
designed and built, but with one exception: One enclosure is a 10
welded structure, while the other is a bolted structure. Aside from Front-to-Back Seismic Base Input
this difference, the enclosures are identical in design, mounting, Side-to-Side Seismic Base Input
and weight. Should both be subjected to an earthquake motion, the
Vertical Seismic Base Input
structural elements in the bolted cabinet will move relative to each
other, producing friction and noise. Ultimately, these effects within
Acceleration (g)
the bolted enclosure result in increased dissipation of the energy

produced by the seismic event as compared to the welded
enclosure. The bolted enclosure will dampen the energy much 1.0
quicker than the welded version, resulting in reduced time for
the seismic response to build up.
For this reason, the RSC is usually computed and plotted for different
damping properties—typically 1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, 7%, and so forth. It
must be recognized that all resultant plots on the RSC are produced
as a result of the same earthquake time history input motion
(see Figure 9). It should be apparent that the result and response 0.1
will be higher for systems with lower damping properties, and lower 0.1 1.0 10 100
for systems with higher damping. A very useful rule is: The higher Frequency Hz
the damping coefficient of the equipment, the lower its response
curve; the lower the damping coefficient of the equipment, the Figure 11. Response Spectrum Curve, 5% Damping Curves
higher its response curve.

To further demonstrate the use of the RCS, consider this example: According to Chapter 16 of the IBC, “Structure Design,” the seismic
Multiple switchgear sections are mounted to a triaxial shake table requirements of electrical equipment in buildings may be computed
(Figure 10). The section of equipment is then subjected to the base with two pieces of information: 1) a determination of the maximum
seismic response spectrum shown in Figure 11. ground motion at the site; 2) an evaluation of the equipment mount-
The switchgear assembly has a dominant natural frequency of 6 Hz ing and attachment inside the building or structure. This data can
in the side-to-side direction, 10 Hz in the front-to-back direction, and then be evaluated to develop the appropriate seismic test require-
55 Hz in the vertical direction. The assembly is a bolted structure ments. The ground motion, the in-structure seismic requirements
with a 5% damping coefficient. of the equipment, and the seismic response spectrum requirements
are discussed below.
If the switchgear assembly is subjected to test levels that could
produce the RRS, shown in Figure 11, one can quickly determine A. Ground motion
that the enclosure will amplify the base motion and could experience
According to the IBC, the first and most important step in the process
a 1.5g acceleration in the side-to-side, a 2.0g in the front-to-back, and
is to determine the maximum considered earthquake spectral response
a 0.9g in the vertical direction. The resultant forces and moments on
acceleration at short periods of 0.2 seconds (Ss) and at a period of 1.0
the structural elements and internal components can now be
second (S1). These values are determined from a set of 24 spectral
computed to confirm that the enclosure and components contained
acceleration maps contained in the International Building Code and
therein will maintain their structural integrity.
include the numerous contour lines indicating the severity of the
To design the enclosure foundation, apply these accelerations at the earthquake requirements at a particular location. Great care has been
cabinet’s center of gravity (C.G.), multiply them by the total mass of taken in selecting the maximum values for the contour lines.
the equipment, and increase them with factors as appropriate
For example, the maps indicate low to moderate seismic require-
to account for design margin. Thus, cross-coupling effects and close-
ments for most of the continental United States of America (USA)
mode contributions are taken into account. Next, determine the
with exceptions being the West Coast (State of California) and the
resultant moments, forces, and shear on the mounting bolts or welds.
Midwest (New Madrid area). The seismic levels in the New Madrid
Only the acceleration associated with the dominant natural area are approximately 30% higher than the maximum levels of the
frequencies of the enclosure need to be selected from the spectrum West Coast.
curves. For example, the front-to-back direction RRS has a peak
The maps also suggest that the high seismic requirements in both
spectral acceleration (3.2g) in the frequency range 1.5 to 3 Hz.
regions, West Coast and Midwest, quickly decrease away from the
This acceleration has little or no effect on the enclosure, because
high magnitude fault areas. These high requirements are limited to a
the front-to-back frequencies of 10 Hz do not coincide with this
relatively local area along the fault lines. Just a few miles away from
frequency range (1.5 to 3 Hz).
this area, only a small percentage of the maximum requirements
A beneficial engineering practice is to design equipment with are indicated.
natural frequencies that do not align with the frequencies found
To provide a realistic estimate of the seismic requirements for the
in the earthquake time history. continental USA, attention will initially be focused on the West
Most earthquakes tend to include low frequencies (1 to 3 Hz). Coast, where the values noted exceed the rest of the continental
Eaton understood this phenomenon and designed equipment with USA, with the exception of the New Madrid area. The New Madrid
resonance frequencies above those levels. All Eaton equipment is area seismic requirements will be addressed separately to prevent
designed with frequencies above 3.2 Hz, which serves to minimize imposing unreasonable requirements on the rest of the USA.
the amplification. The worst-case conditions are formulated by selecting the mapped
This is further discussed in the next section (Part III) where the devel- Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at
opment of seismic requirements for electrical equipment is considered. short periods of 0.2 seconds (Ss), equal to 285% gravity, and at a 1.0
second period (S1), equal to 124% gravity. These accelerations will
be used to calculate the Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake
Part III Spectral Response Accelerations. This combination of Ss and S1
is identified using the contour maps in Figures 12 and 13. These
Seismic requirements numbers are the maximum values for the entire country, except for
Consistent with Eaton’s commitment to produce equipment that the New Madrid area. These particular sites are on the border of
exceeds present and future code requirements, essentially all California and Mexico (S1) and in Northern California (Ss). Figures 12
engineered-to-order assemblies and standard assembly products and 13 are developed for Site Class B, at 5% of critical damping.
have been designed, manufactured, and tested to meet rigorous To determine the maximum considered earthquake ground motion
seismic requirements. for most site classes (A through D), the code introduces site coef-
ficients. When these are applied against the location-specific site
International Building Code (IBC) 2006 class, this produces the adjusted maximum considered earthquake
On December 9, 1994, the International Code Council (ICC) was spectral response acceleration. The site coefficients are defined as
established as a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a Fa at 0.2 seconds short period and FV at 1.0 second period. From the
single set of comprehensive and coordinated construction codes. tables in the IBC, the highest adjusting factor for SS (≥ 1.25) is equal
to 1.0 and 1.5 for S1 (> 0.5). It is important to note that the CBC
The ICC founders—the Building Officials and Code Administrators
mandates the use of site class D for California.
(BOCA), the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO),
and the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI)— Therefore, the adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral
created the ICC in response to technical disparities among the three response for 0.2 second short period (SMS) and 1.0 second period
recognized model codes in use at the time. The ICC offers a single, (SM1), adjusted for site class effects, is determined from the
complete set of construction codes without regional limitations—the following equations:
International Building Code (IBC).
SMS = Fa SS = 1.0 x 2.85g = 2.85g
Since the establishment of the ICC and the issuance of the 2000
IBC (Rev-0), there have been two revisions: the first was published SM1 = FV S1 = 1.5 x 1.24g = 1.86g
in 2003; the second in 2006. There were no substantial changes in
the code that affected the validity of the 2003 IBC Eaton seismic ASCE 7-05 (American Society of Civil Engineers) provides a plot
certifications issued prior to the revisions. This paper addresses the showing the final shape of the design response spectra of the
requirements of the 2006 IBC, hereafter referred to as the IBC. ground (Figure 14). ASCE 7-05 is referenced throughout the IBC
as the source for numerous structural design criteria.

Figure 12. Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for Region 1 of 0.2 sec. Spectral Response Acceleration
(5% of Critical Damping), Site Class B, SS

Figure 13. Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for Region 1 of 1.0 sec. Spectral Response Acceleration
(5% of Critical Damping), Site Class B, S1

It is common to over test by factors of two to three times if the
Spectral Response Acceleration Sg low end of the spectra accommodates this acceleration component.
Through testing experience and data analysis, the seismic accel-
(SDS)1.90g eration at 1.0 Hz is taken equal to 0.7g, which will ensure that the
1.24g seismic levels are achieved well below 3.2 Hz. This yields a more
vigorous test over a wider range of seismic intensities.
In developing the seismic requirements above, it is important to
recognize the following:
TS and T0 are dependent on SMS and SD1. If SM1 is small relative to SMS
then TS and T0 will be smaller and the associated frequencies will shift
SD1 higher. The opposite is also true. This must be realized in develop-
ing the complete RRS. Therefore, it is not adequate to stop the peak
0.76g spectral acceleration at 7.35 Hz. There are other contour line combi-
nations that will produce different values for TS and T0. In accounting
for this variation in the spread between SMS and SD1 and the resulting
impact on TS and T0, it is almost impossible to consider all combina-
0.131 0.653 1.0 tions. A study of the maps, however, suggests that all variations with
(7.63 Hz) (1.53 Hz) (1.0 Hz) high magnitude of contour lines could very well be enveloped by a
Period T (frequency)
factor of 1.5. Therefore, T0 is recomputed as follows:
T0 = 0.2 SD1/(SDS x 1.5) = (0.2 x 1.24)/(1.90 x 1.5) = 0.09 seconds
(11.0 Hz)
Figure 14. Specific Response Spectrum Curve—Ground
Based on past experience, most electrical equipment exhibits
The design spectral acceleration curve can now be computed. The natural frequencies in the range of 5 to 10 Hz. Therefore, they are
peak spectral acceleration (SDS) and the spectral acceleration at 1.0 tested to the peak spectral accelerations required by the code. It is
second (SD1) may now be computed from the following formulas in also important to recognize that stopping the peak acceleration
the code: shorter than 11 Hz would produce questionable test results due to
the elimination of a portion of the spectra that may well contain the
SDS = 2/3 x SMS = 2/3 x 2.85g = 1.90g natural frequency of the equipment.
SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 = 2/3 x 1.86g = 1.24g Eaton has developed generic seismic requirements that envelop
SDS, the peak spectral acceleration, extends between the values of two criteria:
TS and T0. TS and T0 are defined in the codes as follows:
1. The highest possible spectral peak accelerations and ZPA
TS = SD1/SDS = 1.24/1.90 = 0.653 seconds (1.53 Hz)
2. The maximum frequency range required for many
T0 = 0.2 SD1/SDS = 0.2 x 1.24/1.90 = 0.131 seconds (7.63 Hz) different sites
According to the IBC and ASCE 7-05, the spectral acceleration (Sa)
at periods less than 0.131 seconds may be computed by using the This approach results in a comprehensive and ultra conserva-
following formula: tive methodology in certifying equipment to the IBC and often
exceeds the approach utilized by other manufacturers.
Sa = SDS (0.6 T/T0 + 0.4)
Within the electrical industry, some manufacturers cease the
where T is the period where Sa is being calculated.
seismic peak spectral acceleration at 7 or 8 Hz. This substantially
For example, the acceleration at 0.0417 seconds (24 Hz) is equal to: reduces the amount of energy and frequency content included in
Sa = 1.90 (0.6 [0.0417/0.131] + 0.4) = 1.12g the input time history. There are many certifications issued by other
manufacturers that claim qualification to 3 or 4g spectral accelera-
The acceleration at 0.03 seconds (33 Hz) is equal to: tion. This raises the question: “What is the true acceleration that
Sa = 1.90 (0.6 (0.03/0.131) + 0.4) = 1.02g was measured at the natural frequencies of the equipment?”
At zero period (infinite frequency), T = 0, the acceleration (ZPA) is It is very likely that the equipment dominant frequencies were only
equal to: tested to a fraction of what is claimed. Therefore, the claimed curve
should be reduced to the actual spectral acceleration at the domi-
Sa = 1.90 (0.6 [0.0/0.131] + 0.4) = 0.76g (ZPA) nant natural frequencies of the equipment. Eaton accounts for that
The acceleration to frequency relationship in the range of 1.0 Hz to by testing to peak spectral accelerations even beyond 11.0 Hz.
TS is stated equal to: This completes the ground motion design response spectrum. The
Sa = SD1 /T spectral accelerations are equal to 0.76g at zero period (ZPA) and
where Sa is the acceleration at period T. increases linearly to a peak acceleration of 1.90g at 0.09 seconds
(or 11 Hz) and stays constant to 0.313 seconds (or 3.2 Hz), then
At 1.0 Hz (T = 1.0) this equation yields the following acceleration: gradually decreases to 0.7g at 1 second (or 1.0 Hz). This final
Sa = 1.24/1.0 = 1.24g curve is shown in Figure 15.
Testing has demonstrated that the lowest dominant natural
frequency of Eaton’s electrical equipment is above 3.2 Hz. This
indicates that testing at 1.24g at 1 Hz is not necessary. In addition,
having the low end of the spectra higher than realistically required
forces the shake table to move at extremely high displacements to
meet the spectral acceleration at the low frequencies.

Where:
Spectral Response Acceleration Sg
Fp: seismic design force imposed at the component’s C.G. and
(SDS)1.90g distributed relative to component mass distribution
0.7g ap: component amplification factor that varies from 1 to 2.50
SDS: spectral acceleration, short period, as determined in the
previous section
Wp: component operating weight
Rp: component response modification factor that varies
from 1.5 to 6.0 (ASCE 7-05 Table 13.6-1)
SD1
Ip: component importance factor of either 1.0 or 1.5
0.76g Z: highest point of equipment in a structure relative to
grade elevation
h: average roof height of structure relative to grade elevation
15, 0.09 0.313 1.0
(11 Hz) (T0) (3.2 Hz) (TS) (1.0 Hz) To produce the maximum required force, the following parameters
were chosen:
Period T (frequency)
Z is taken equal to h (equipment on roof)
Ip is taken as a maximum equal to 1.5
Figure 15. Specific Response Spectrum Curve—Ground
ap is taken equal to 2.5 (maximum value allowed by the ASCE code)
This curve indicates the ratio of peak spectral acceleration to Rp is taken equal to 2.5 (lowest value allowed by the ASCE code
maximum input acceleration (ZPA) is 1.90/0.76 and approximately for electrical distribution and control equipment).
equal to 2.5. This ratio is maintained throughout this document.
This combination of ap and Rp provides the most conservative
The code does not provide formulation for the seismic spectral seismic loading requirements.
requirements inside buildings or above grade. Instead, the code
provides formulation of the equivalent loads at the center of gravity SDS has been computed in the previous section equal to 1.90.
(C.G.) of the equipment internal to structures or buildings. The
purpose is to ensure the structural and mounting integrity of the The acceleration at the equipment C.G. when roof mounted is then
equipment during and immediately after a seismic event. These calculated as:
requirements will be discussed to determine realistic seismic Acceleration = 0.4 x 2.5 x 1.90g (1+2) / (2.5/1.5) = 3.42g
requirements for equipment mounted anywhere from the ground
For equipment on grade, the acceleration at the C.G. is then
level to the roof of a particular building.
calculated as:
B. Seismic requirements of equipment installed internal or Acceleration = 0.4 x 2.5 x 1.90g (1+0) / (2.5/1.5) = 1.14g
on top of structures (buildings)
Based on this criterion, in order to establish the seismic acceptabil-
The code provides a formula for computing the seismic require- ity of equipment inside a structure or a building, one must impose
ments of electrical and mechanical equipment on ground level of a an equivalent static load at the equipment C.G. and record the
structure or a building. This formula is designed for evaluating the results. This approach is very difficult and perhaps impossible
attachment of the equipment to the foundation directly supporting it. to apply.
The seismic loads are defined in ASCE 7-05 Section 13.3 as: The C.G. would first have to be located and then physically coupled
to a forcing mechanism supported by some type of a fixture and a
Fp = 0.4 ap SDS Wp (1+2 Z/h) / (Rp/Ip) reaction mass. This approach would provide incomplete data or anal-
ysis. Applying a static load will push the entire system as one unit in
the force direction without revealing sufficient data about the equip-
ment flexibility, the relative motion of internal components to the
cabinet structure, or the dynamics and resonance of the equipment.
A more realistic approach with enhanced test results is to expose
the equipment to floor motion, causing the inertia forces to occur
in the opposite direction when the mass is suddenly accelerated.
Bolting the base of a piece of equipment to a shake table, then
quickly accelerating it, results in exposing the equipment to inertia
loads higher than the source input.

As explained previously, many seismic test programs clearly indicate California Building Code (CBC) 2007
that electrical equipment, which is supported at the base, tends to
vibrate in the equipment’s natural dominant frequency, much like a The 2007 CBC, effective January 1, 2008, adopted the 2006 IBC as
free cantilever beam that is supported at the bottom and free at the CBC-Title 24. The seismic requirements are essentially the same
top. The seismic response at the middle of the equipment’s C.G. as described in the IBC, with some minor modifications. When
is at least 50% higher than the floor input of the equipment’s considering the maximum seismic requirements, the IBC and CBC
natural frequency. are basically identical.
Therefore, the base forces associated with the static loads at the Again, as in the IBC, the RSC starts at 1.24g (Sa) at 1.0 Hz, and
C.G. of the equipment could be computed as 3.42/1.5 = 2.28g. The increases to 1.90g (SDS) at 1.53 Hz (Ts). The peak spectral accelera-
ZPA associated with this spectral acceleration may be computed tions then cover a wide band of frequencies up to 7.63 Hz (To) then
per the previous relationships established. linearly decrease to 0.76g at the ZPA.
In the context of this discussion, Eaton’s seismic requirements to Combined Seismic Requirements for Eaton’s Distribution
meet the IBC (Reference 1) are: and Control Equipment
• For equipment on grade, the base seismic requirements are
To better compare all levels and determine the final enveloping
shown in Figure 15.
seismic requirements, the IBC standards are used for California and
• For equipment on the roof of a structure, the base input New Madrid areas, as plotted in Figure 17. All curves are plotted at
acceleration at the equipment natural frequency must 5% damping. All curves are determined for equipment mounted on
demonstrate the ability to withstand levels of 2.28g base grade or in the basement of the structure.
acceleration or 3.42gs at the equipment C.G.
An envelopment of the seismic levels in the frequency range of 3.2
C. New Madrid seismic requirements Hz to 100 Hz are also shown. This level is taken as Eaton’s generic
seismic test requirements for all certifications. These levels are also
According to the IBC, the New Madrid fault maximum considered plotted in Figure 18. The levels are listed below:
earthquake spectral response acceleration is Ss = 3.69g and
S1 = 1.25g. The method to develop the required spectrum and Frequency Acceleration
required forces at the C.G. is the same as described above. Based
on the exercise in the previous section, and by virtue of the 1 0.719
equations being of the first order, the requirements can be directly 3.2 2.28
determined by linearly increasing the complete levels and static force 11 2.28
requirements by the ratio of 3.69/2.85 = 1.29. The resultant RSC is
33 1.02
shown in Figure 16.
100 1.02
The maximum seismic forces at the C.G. for equipment mounted
at the top floor will be equal to 1.29 x 3.42 = 4.41g or 2.94g peak Many standards require that seismic levels be increased by 10% to
spectral acceleration. account for differences in commercial hardware. Applying this will
Eaton’s seismic requirements for (equipment on or in proximity to) bring the spectral peak acceleration to 2.51g and the ZPA to 1.12g.
the New Madrid area is:
Frequency Acceleration
1. For equipment on grade, the base seismic requirements are
shown in Figure 16. 1 0.7
3.2 2.51
2. For equipment inside a structure or on top of the roof, the
base input acceleration at the equipment natural frequency 11 2.51
must exceed the levels of 2.94g base acceleration or 4.41g at 33 1.12
the equipment C.G.
100 1.12
2.46g The vertical levels are taken equal to 2/3 of the horizontal
requirements.
0.83g In addition, Eaton performs seismic tests on the equipment at
approximately 120% of the generic enveloping seismic
requirements (see Figure 18). This testing is designed to
establish margin in anticipation of future changes in the codes.
For seismic certification of equipment located in the New Madrid
area, Eaton proceeds as follows:
Complete testing to the generic levels in Figures 17 and 18.
Perform additional tests at approximately 20% higher seismic levels
1.0g than shown in Figures 18.
During September 2008, Eaton performed experimental seismic
testing on electrical equipment levels higher than the combined
requirements. Some of the equipment test results are shown in
To Ts 1.0 Figures 19, 20, and 21. The levels are provided in the front-to-back,
side-to-side, and vertical directions. As indicated, the actual test
Period T levels recorded were much higher than current codes require.
Figure 16. Response Spectrum Curve—Ground

(New Madrid Area)
19 See discussion under “A. Ground motion” on page 9 for
acceleration at 1 Hz.

10 10
SS TRS
IBC 2006/CBC 2007 IBC 2006 New Madrid
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
1 1 SS RRS
Eaton Seismic
0.1 0.1
1 10 100 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 17. RRS Comparison Figure 20. Test Response Spectrum Curve (Side to Side)
10 100
Eaton 120% Seismic Envelope V TRS

Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
10
Eaton 100% Seismic Envelope
1
1
V RRS
0.1 0.1
1 10 100 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 18. 100% vs. 120% Figure 21. Test Response Spectrum Curve (Vertical)
10
FB TRS
Acceleration (g)
1 FB RRS
0.1
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 19. Test Response Spectrum Curve (Front to Back)

Part IV Test facility and test table
Test facility and test methodology Test specimens for current production products are tested on
a truly independent triaxial shake table at the locations such as
Test specimens Wyle Seismic Test Laboratory, located in Huntsville, Alabama.
Since the inception of Eaton’s test program in 1985, more than Wyle Laboratories is accredited by the American Association for
100 specimens have undergone seismic testing. Since it was not Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) in the field of vibration testing. The
feasible to test every single configuration, it was necessary to Wyle Laboratories, Huntsville Facility, Quality Management System
select a number of test specimens that adequately represent is registered in compliance with the ISO-9001 International Quality
the total product portfolio. Each product line was reviewed and Standard. All instrumentation, measuring, and test equipment
evaluated to determine the number and design configurations of used in the performance of test programs is calibrated in accordance
the test specimens. Criteria were established for representation with Wyle Laboratories’ Quality Assurance Program, which complies
of all equipment in each product line: with the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1, ISO 10012-1, and
ISO/IEC 17025. The table and control systems are capable of
1. The test unit structure shall be similar to the major structural exciting the test specimens in all three directions simultaneously,
configurations being supplied in the product lines. If more using statistically independent and phase incoherent seismic input
than one major structure is being offered, then these signals. A sketch of a test unit mounted to the shake table is shown
configurations shall also be selected for testing. in Figure 22.
2. The mounting configuration of the test units to the shake Test sequence
table shall simulate the different mounting conditions for the
product line. If several mounting configurations are used, the The seismic verification testing consisted of the following 10 steps
different product variations are required to be included in for each specimen:
the testing program.
1. Receipt and inspection
3. The major electrical components should be included in
the test specimens. The components shall be mounted at 2. Functional operation
similar locations to their mounting locations in production 3. Hi-pot electrical testing
configurations. The components shall be mounted to the 4. Resonance search testing
structure using the same mounting hardware used in the
typical design. 5. Seismic test at 50% of the combined seismic requirements
4. The weight of the test units shall be similar to the typical 6. Seismic test at 100% of the combined seismic requirements
weight of the equipment being represented. Equal and 7. Seismic test at higher than the 100% combined seismic
higher weights than the typical weight shall be acceptable. requirements (typically 120%–130%)
5. Other variations, such as the number of structures in 8. Functional operation
production assemblies, and indoor and outdoor applications,
will also be represented by the test specimens. 9. Hi-pot electrical testing
10. Final inspection
Resonance search test

Response Resonance search (sine sweep) tests are performed on all test
Typical Accelerometers
Test Unit specimens. The sine sweep tests are performed in the three prin-
cipal axes of the test specimens: front-to-back, side-to-side, and
vertical directions. The sine sweep tests are conducted at amplitude
of 0.2g. The sine sweep tests are performed from 1 to 50 Hz at a
sweep rate of 1 octave per minute.
Shake Table/ Seismic test input

Base Motion
Accelerometers The seismic inputs are generated using random signals with a
Shake
Table frequency and energy content up to 100 Hz. The test inputs are
independent in the three principal directions of the test specimens:
front-to-back, side-to-side, and vertical directions. All seismic test
inputs are 30 seconds in duration (see Figure 23).
Data acquisition
The test inputs to the shake table are monitored using three
accelerometers mounted on the shake table. The accelerometers
are oriented in the shake table principal axes, which coincide with
the equipment front-to-back, side-to-side, and vertical directions.
The seismic response of the test specimens are monitored using
Front-to-Back
Side-to-Side Base Input several accelerometers mounted on the test specimen and oriented
Base Input along the three principal axes of each test specimen. The test
Vertical
input and seismic response of the equipment is recorded on and
Base Input analyzed using a shock spectra analyzer. The test response
spectra are derived at 5% damping (see Figures 23 and 24).
Figure 22. Test Specimen Electrical connection and test specimen monitoring
As stated previously, the acceptability of the test specimen requires
that all equipment maintain structural integrity and perform its
intended function before and after the seismic test.

Test assembly and mounting conditions
At the beginning of each test, the test units are mounted to the shake
table (Figure 25) using the specified seismic mounting conditions.
3.0
MIN = – 0.1921E+01 MAX = 0.1588E+01

G
Min/max x:
B in size = 8
0.0
–2.0
0.00 30.00
Time (sec) x interval = 2.0000
Figure 23. Test Input
Figure 25. Typical Equipment Mounting and Installation

of Accelerometers
Test procedure
All test specimens identified in Part VI (Figure 26 See note on
pp. 20 regarding list of products.) are subjected to the seismic test
requirements specified in Figure 18. Testing is conducted in
accordance with IBC (ASCE 7-05), CBC, and ANSI C37-81 test
requirements. The test programs are documented in third-party
laboratory test reports.
Acceptance criteria
The seismic verification of the test specimens was based on the
following acceptance criteria:
1. The test specimens’ structure shall maintain structural

integrity with no major structural failure that may impact
the electrical performance of the test specimens or impact
Figure 24. Test Data Acquisition adjacent equipment.
2. The test specimens shall perform their electrical function
immediately after seismic testing.
3. The test specimens shall pass one minute dielectric
withstand testing per the associated industry standards
after seismic testing.

Part V installation. As required by the IBC and CBC, Eaton has equipment
available that has been seismically certified. When specified, such
Shared responsibilities equipment increases the likelihood that the electrical system will
The equipment manufacturer, specifier, Authority Having Jurisdiction function in the aftermath of an earthquake.
(AHJ), and installer have a shared responsibility to ensure that the
installation will meet the seismic requirements of the code. The Part VI
equipment manufacturer determines that the equipment will be
functional following a seismic event. The equipment specifier and Typical Eaton seismic equipment specifications
installer must ensure that the equipment is rigidly supported
and will not leave its foundation during a seismic event. The AHJ 1.01 The manufacturer of the assembly shall be the
shall confirm that the installation method conforms to the manufacturer of the major components within
manufacturer’s guidelines. the assembly.
Previously in this paper, the Eaton interpretation of the various codes 1.02 For the equipment specified herein, the manufacturer shall
and standards, as well as the levels of the test response spectra be ISO 9001 or 9002 certified.
used in testing, was described. The test results ensure that Eaton 1.03 The manufacturer of this equipment shall have produced
equipment will perform the intended function after the seismic similar electrical equipment for a minimum period of five
event. However, the foundation and the anchorage must also meet (5) years. When requested by the engineer, an acceptable
the codes and standards for the entire installation to be functional list of installations with similar equipment shall be provided
after a seismic event. Equipment poorly anchored or mounted to a demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
flexible foundation will not meet the requirements.
1.04 Provide seismic qualified equipment as follows:
The anchoring of electrical equipment as recommended by the
structural or civil engineer is critical. If the equipment is not attached Note: To spec writer: To help understand the 2006 IBC/2007
to the building structure in accordance with the minimum standards CBC seismic parameters for a specific location, the attached link
recommended, the complete equipment installation might become to the U.S. Geological Society will be extremely helpful:
too flexible and may overturn or shear the attachment devices and http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/
slide off its foundation. Such movement may damage either the • Download the file “Java Ground Motion Parameter Calculator—Version
building structure or other components, including items connected 5.0.8 (4.6 MB)” and save it to your hard drive, then run the executable
to the equipment. file (.exe) that was downloaded.
Structural and civil engineers formulate methods of attachment that • Enter the latitude and longitude of your project location.
are applicable to each specific condition based on past experience. (To find exact latitude and longitude for a given address,
They evaluate the equipment, methods, and techniques of attach- go to http://geocoder.us/)
ment along with tested anchoring systems. The structural or civil • The IBC seismic criteria for that location will then be displayed.
engineers responsible for the structural design review the proposed It is simply a matter of verifying that the criteria shown for your specific
method of attachment. Based on both established criteria and direct building location is less than the equipment certification levels.
calculation, they verify its performance and the capability of the
building’s structural elements to accommodate the seismic forces. 1. The equipment and major components shall be suitable for
In many states, registered professional civil or structural engineers and certified by actual seismic testing to meet all applicable
must attest that the design is adequate for the seismic environment seismic requirements of the 2006 International Building Code
and apply their seal. (IBC) Site Classification [enter classification from above Web
In evaluating the equipment mounting, the structural or civil engineer site]. The site coefficients Fa = [enter value from above Web
performs calculations based on data received from the equipment site], and spectral response accelerations of SS = [enter
manufacturer specifying the size, weight, center of gravity, and value from above Web site]g, S1 = [enter value from above
mounting provisions of the equipment. The embedded concrete Web site]g are used. The test response spectrum shall be
anchors, wood, or steel attachments must be adequate to resist the based upon a 5% damping factor, and a peak (SDS) of at least
site-specific seismic forces. For either attachment, bolts of the [enter value from above Web site] g’s (3–12 Hz) applied at
proper grade of steel must be correctly sized and tightened to the base of the equipment in the horizontal directions. The
recommended torque levels. If an embedded anchor is used, engi- forces in the vertical direction shall be at least 66% of those
neering data for the anchoring hardware will allow the engineer to in the horizontal direction. The tests shall cover a frequency
determine the size required. The mounting depth and the strength range from 1 to 100 Hz. Guidelines for the installation
of concrete to contain it will also be determined. The embedded consistent with these requirements shall be provided by the
anchors must be correctly installed in accordance with the method equipment manufacturer and based upon testing of repre-
specified by the anchor manufacturer. sentative equipment. Equipment certification acceptance
criteria shall be based upon the ability for the equipment
The reliability of electrical connections within the system must also
to be returned to service immediately after a seismic event
be considered. Electrical equipment is installed as part of a system.
within the above requirements without the need for repairs.
Busway or conduits connect individual components of the electrical
system to each other. Interface methods that will prevent damage
-- OR --
from an earthquake must be specified. For example, bottom entry
of conduits is recommended for transformers and switchgear. 2. The manufacturer shall certify the equipment based upon
If top entry is specified, seismic fittings or a flexible interface a dynamic and/or static structural computer analysis of the
designed to accommodate the necessary enclosure motion entire assembly structure and its components, provided it is
are needed. Transformers are often close coupled to switchgear based upon actual seismic testing from similar equipment.
with a flexible connector to minimize transfer of relative motion. The analysis shall be based upon all applicable seismic
Likewise, a flexible connector can be used to connect generators requirements of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC)
to the bus duct, and the addition of insulating boots improves the Site Classification [enter classification from above Web site],
integrity of such installations. site coefficient Fa = [enter classification from above Web
The availability of electrical power following a disaster is often site], FV = [enter classification from above Web site] and
critical. It is certain that earthquakes will occur in the future. It is spectral response accelerations of SS = [enter classification
the responsibility of the engineer to design and specify reliable from above Web site]g, S1 = [enter classification from above
equipment and systems that will withstand them. The IBC and CBC Web site]g. The analysis shall be based upon a 5% damp-
establish minimum requirements for equipment seismic design and ing factor, and a peak (SDS) of at least [enter classification

from above Web site]g, S1 (3–12 Hz), applied at the base of When the MCC test units were tested supported at the bottom
the equipment in the horizontal directions. The forces in the and with the top attached to a lateral wall, the seismic capacity
vertical direction shall be at least 66% of those in the hori- of the test units were found to be much higher than their seismic
zontal direction. The analysis shall cover a frequency range capacity when supported at the bottom only. The seismic capac-
from 1 to 100 Hz. Guidelines for the installation consistent ity of equipment presented in some papers appears to be based
with these requirements shall be provided by the equipment on testing of equipment with both top and bottom supports. It is
manufacturer, and should be based upon testing of repre- important, therefore, to recognize that those published curves only
sentative equipment. Equipment certification acceptance cri- apply to equipment mounted using top and bottom supports. Other
teria shall be based upon the ability for the equipment to be mounting arrangements without top lateral supports will need to be
returned to service immediately after a seismic event within re-established based on new testing programs.
the above requirements without the need for repairs.
A. The following minimum mounting and installation guidelines
shall be met, unless specifically modified by the above
referenced standards.
1. The contractor shall provide equipment anchorage details,
coordinated with the equipment mounting provision, SEISMIC QUALIFIED
prepared and stamped by a licensed civil engineer in the
state. Mounting recommendations shall be provided by the
manufacturer, and should be based upon the above criteria
to verify the seismic design of the equipment.
a. The equipment manufacturer shall certify that the
TEST CERTIFICATE OF SEISMIC WITHSTAND CAPABILITY
equipment can withstand, that is, function following the
Eaton’s Cutler-Hammer equipment identified below was tested for seismic withstand capability and tested in accordance
seismic event, including both vertical and lateral required with the combined requirements specified in the International Building Code, California Building Code and the Uniform
response spectra, as specified in above codes. Building Code. As required by the codes, the equipment demonstrated its ability to function after the seismic tests.
The seismic capability of the equipment exceeds the worst-case required levels, as illustrated in the figure below.
b. The equipment manufacturer shall document the require-

ments necessary for proper seismic mounting of the 0HWDO(QFORVHG/RZ9ROWDJH6ZLWFKJHDU³0DJQXP'6
equipment. Seismic qualification shall be considered )URQW$FFHVVLEOHZLWK7\SH0'6&LUFXLW%UHDNHUVRU
achieved when the capability of the equipment meets &01HWZRUN3URWHFWRUV
or exceeds the specified response spectra. Period (seconds)
.31 .25 .20 .16 .13 .10 .08 .06 .05 .04 .03 0
4.0
Eaton’s equipment test levels and ICC-ES-AC156 3.5 The frequency sweep
tests revealed that the
Damping = 5%
3.0 lowest equipment natural
In December 2006, the ICC-ES issued an “Acceptance Criteria frequency is:
2.5
for Seismic Qualification by Shake-Table Testing on Nonstructural Response
+]
Components and Systems.” The criteria was made effective January Acceleration
(g)
2.0
Zero Period Acceleration

1, 2007. Eaton’s methodology for seismic certification of electrical 1.5
equipment is consistent with the proposed criteria and meets the 1.0
testing requirements specified. Eaton, however, differs in one impor- .5
tant aspect: Eaton has taken the ratio of the equipment response 0
3.2 4 5 6.4 8 10 13 17 20 26 32
modification factor (RP) to equipment importance factor (IP) equal to Frequency (Hz)
2.5/1.5. This ratio provides the minimum ratio required by the codes
for electrical distribution and control equipment, and also consid-
ers that the acceleration is required to be measured at the center
3RD PARTY TEST ENGINEER IN CHARGE
of gravity of the equipment. The ICC-ES-AC156 employs a factor of
1.0 to this ratio producing unnecessary and overtesting conditions.
One additional difference needs to be mentioned—Eaton’s electrical 1DWKDQ*OHQQ3(
:HVWLQJKRXVH(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\//&
equipment, with high natural frequencies (per ICC-ES-AC156), are 7(67('%< For interpretation of testing data
:\OH/DERUDWRULHV refer to Eaton
also tested and certified to the same seismic test input as flexible 6HSWHPEHU Publication SA12501SE
equipment. ICC indicates that this equipment may be tested to 0.4 'UDZLQJ1XPEHU6$(
of the seismic levels developed for flexible equipment. Eaton’s test

program is more conservative by testing all equipment types to the
highest levels.
In addition, an important note should be made regarding the mount-
ing configurations of the test units. Eaton’s equipment is mounted
to the shake table in their most conservative and common mounting
configurations to establish the lower bound of the equipment
seismic capabilities. For example, Eaton seismic certification curves
for motor control centers (MCCs) are based on a test unit mounted
at the base as a free cantilever item, free at the top and supported
only at the bottom. This test configuration encompasses all
other mounting configurations because of its conservative nature.
The test capability in Eaton’s certificates, therefore, covers
all other applications.

Low Voltage Metal-Enclosed Switchgear

Part VII
s $3)) References
s -AGNUM$3
s (IGH2ESISTANCE'ROUND
http://www.math.montana.edu/~nmp/materials/ess/geosphere/
expert/activities/earthquakes/index.html
Panelboards http://rchrd.com/weblog/archives/archive_2004-m09.php
s 0OW 2 ,INE#AA ,8AA ,8A%0 http://w3.salemstate.edu/~lhanson/gls100/gls100_plate_tec.htm
& AND0OW 2 #OMMAND%
Switchboards Beer, Ferdinand P. and Johnston, E. Russell, Jr., (1962),

s )NSTANT s 0OW 2 ,INE0 Vector Mechanics for Engineers Statics and Dynamics
s )NTEGRATED&ACILITIES s 0OW 2 ,INE#
McGraw Hill Book Company
s -ULTIMETER s 0OW 2 ,INEI
New York, NY, 1962
California Building Standards Commission,

MCC
California Building Code (2007)
s !DVANTAGE[h gh IT.
428 J. Street, Suite 450
s &LASH'ARD[h gh 3ERIES Sacramento, CA 95814
s &REEDOM
International Code Council,
Low Voltage Busway International Building Code (2006)
s 0OW 2 7AY姞AND!SSOCIATED&ITTINGS Suite 708,
s 0OW 2 7AY)))AND!SSOCIATED&ITTINGS Falls Church, VA 22031-3401
Dry Type Transformers International Conference of Building Officials, (1997),

s -INI0OWERCENTERS Uniform Building Code
s %0%04$3 $4 5360 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
Transfer Switches
s !UTOMATIC4RANSFER3WITCH%QUIPMENT Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
ANSI/IEEE C37.81 (1987)
Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS)
Guide for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Metal Enclosed Power
s "ATTERY-ODULES
Switchgear Assemblies
East 47th Street
s 503S
New York, NY 10017-2394
Enclosed Control
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
Safety Switches ANSI/IEEE 344 (1987)
s 'ENERAL$UTY Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E
s (EAVY$UTY Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations
s %LEVATOR#ONTROL-ODULE East 47th Street
New York, NY 10017-2394
Medium Voltage Switchgear
s 4YPE6AC#LAD 7 s 4YPE--63 Newmark, Nathan M. and Rosenblueth, Emilio, (1971),
s -%& s 4YPE-63-%" Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
MV Bus Englewood Cliffs, NJ 01971
s -ETAL %NCLOSED.ON 3EGREGATED0HASE"US
The Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.
Network Protectors
W Flossmoor Rd
s 4YPE#-
Country Club Hills, Il 60478-5795
s 4YPE#-$
Wiegel, Robert L., (editor),
Earthquake Engineering
Medium Voltage Control
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
s !MPGARD4 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 01971
s 3#$RIVES
Substation Transformers
s $RY4YPE
s ,IQUID4YPE
s 5NITIZED$RY4YPE0OWER#ENTERS
Figure 26. Seismic Test Units

This page intentionally left blank.



Eaton Corporation
Electrical Sector
1111 Superior Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44114
United States
877-ETN-CARE (877-386-2273)
Eaton.com
© 2009 Eaton Corporation PowerChain Management is a registered

All Rights Reserved trademark of Eaton Corporation.
Printed in USA
Publication No. SA12501SEE / Z8772 All other trademarks are property of their
August 2009 respective owners.

Earthquake Requirements and Seismic Capabilities For Eatons Electrical Distribution and Control Equipment

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Earthquake Requirements and Seismic Capabilities For Eatons Electrical Distribution and Control Equipment

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Seismic White Paper SA12501SE Effective August 2009

Earthquake requirements and seismic

To properly define the acceptability of the equipment to the

2 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

1 International Code Council, International Building Code.

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 3

5 Wiegel, Earthquake Engineering, p. 31 (Ref. 8).

4 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

12 Newmark, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, p. 217 (Ref. 7).

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 5

no damping, the equipment response amplification at resonance 4

Equipment Response per Unit Input Motion as a Function of Frequency Ratio:

Figure 5. Resonance Curves for Continuous Sine Motion

17 Newmark, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, p. 227.

6 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

Because of these difficulties in universally applying the time history 0.3

applicable portion of the required response spectrum (RRS).

Figure 8. “Q” Curves—Vibration Magnification vs. Percent of

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 7

the bolted enclosure result in increased dissipation of the energy

8 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 9

10 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 11

12 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 13

Figure 16. Response Spectrum Curve—Ground

14 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

Eaton 120% Seismic Envelope V TRS

Figure 19. Test Response Spectrum Curve (Front to Back)

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 15

Resonance search test

Shake Table/ Seismic test input

16 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

MIN = – 0.1921E+01 MAX = 0.1588E+01

Figure 23. Test Input

Figure 25. Typical Equipment Mounting and Installation

1. The test specimens’ structure shall maintain structural

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 17

18 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

b. The equipment manufacturer shall document the require-

Zero Period Acceleration

testing requirements specified. Eaton, however, differs in one impor- .5

of the seismic levels developed for flexible equipment. Eaton’s test

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 19

Low Voltage Metal-Enclosed Switchgear

Switchboards Beer, Ferdinand P. and Johnston, E. Russell, Jr., (1962),

California Building Standards Commission,

Dry Type Transformers International Conference of Building Officials, (1997),

Figure 26. Seismic Test Units

20 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

This page intentionally left blank.

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 21

This page intentionally left blank.

22 EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com

This page intentionally left blank.

EATON CORPORATION www.eaton.com 23

© 2009 Eaton Corporation PowerChain Management is a registered

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi