Seismic performance of buried electrical cables: evidence-based repair rates and fragility functions

The fragility of buried electrical cables is often neglected in earthquakes but significant damage to cables was observed during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand. This study estimates Poisson repair rates, similar to those in existence for pipelines, using damage data retrieved from part of the electric power distribution network in the city of Christchurch. The functions have been developed separately for four seismic hazard zones: no liquefaction, all liquefaction effects, liquefaction-induced settlement only, and liquefaction-induced lateral spread. In each zone six different intensity measures (IMs) are tested, including peak ground velocity as a measure of ground shaking and five metrics of permanent ground deformation: vertical differential, horizontal, maximum, vector mean and geometric mean. The analysis confirms that the vulnerability of buried cables is influenced more by liquefaction than by ground shaking, and that lateral spread causes more damage than settlement alone. In areas where lateral spreading is observed, the geometric mean permanent ground deformation is identified as the best performing IM across all zones when considering both variance explained and uncertainty. In areas where only settlement is observed, there is only a moderate correlation between repair rate and vertical differential permanent ground deformation but the estimated model error is relatively small and so the model may be acceptable. In general, repair rates in the zone where no liquefaction occurred are very low and it is possible that repairs present in this area result from misclassification of hazard observations, either in the raw data or due to the approximations of the geospatial analysis. Along with hazard intensity, insulation material is identified as a critical factor influencing cable fragility, with paper-insulated lead covered armoured cables experiencing considerably higher repair rates than cross-linked polyethylene cables. The analysis shows no trend between cable age and repair rates and the differences in repair rates between conducting materials is shown not to be significant. In addition to repair rate functions, an example of a fragility curve suite for cables is presented, which may be more useful for analysis of network connectivity where cable functionality is of more interest than the number of repairs. These functions are one of the first to be produced for the prediction of damage to buried cables.