PONE-D-21-17828

Rapid evaluation method on seismic damage state of substation in strong earthquake area

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Che,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

1. The manuscript written English and fashion do not meet the standard of PLOS ONE. The manuscript needs substantial copyediting.
2. Any abbreviation should be defined first, including those abbreviations used in the abstract i.e., incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) and peak ground acceleration (PGA).
3. Referencing style is inconsistent. In the text, the citation style is APA, however, in the reference section, they are sorted according to numbers. PLOS uses “Vancouver” style. Please follow Plos One referencing guidelines.
4. Please correct and follow the Plos One author's guideline for submission of your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahad Javanmardi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC0809404)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC0809404)"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

4. We note that Figure(s) 11, 12, 15, and 16  in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 11, 12, 15, and 16 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review Comments: This paper presents a methodology to assess the damage state of electrical substations after a seismic event provided that the vulnerability curve of the substation for different damage states is already developed. The approach seems good but the followings should be checked and modified:

The authors claim the method as rapid evaluation, but it's not like that as the vulnerability curve should be developed at first which includes incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), development of PSDM, application of reliability theory for the development of substation vulnerability curve from elemental vulnerability.

The manuscript should be checked thoroughly to modify several errors. These include-

a) Tables and Figures should be always addressed and described in text before they appear (e.g. Fig. 8, 9, 10 are not addressed or described in text).

b) Table No. and Figure No. described in text are not matched with actual Table No. and Figure No., respectively (e.g. it is described in text that Table 9 represents Records of PGA, but it is actually in Table 7; actually Figure 14 represents Magnitude-Frequency Curve while in text it is wrongly mentioned Figure 13.).

c) Reference list contains many styles that should be unified and some references should be checked, e.g. in line 174 though Baker is not included in the author list Lin et al. 2011, why author says "Baker recommended)?

Abstract:

As PGA depends not only on distance but also on soil significantly, interpolation for PGA attenuation will not give good or reliable results.

In the flowchart (Fig. 2), as the materials, geometric parameters, etc. are collected for the selected single facility; so, algorithm should be "single power facility > materials, geometric parameters > FEM....".

(3.1.1)

a) Is there any reference for the design manual mentioned in line 139?

b) In Table 1, Number 6- Poisson's ratio- It should not be in Pa rather unitless.

c) For finite element modeling seismic damage characteristics is not required, only geometric and material properties are needed (line 139-140).

d) It will be more suitable to define the four vulnerability parts as key vulnerability parameters (e.g. top displacement of high-voltage bushing, max principal stress at the root of medium-voltage bushing).

e) In Table 2 (which must be addressed in text), it seems that the damage limit states are defined as reverse. micro cracks are defined for complete damage while parts separated and bushing broke off completely are defined for slight damage.

f) As the height of medium-voltage bushing is significantly smaller than the high-voltage bushing, why same displacement limit (e.g. 600 mm for complete damage) is defined for two?

(3.1.2)

a. In Table 4, parameters are not defined clearly, e.g. attribute value 0.7019 refers to characteristic .....(what)?

[may be characteristic period, found later in line 197]

b. It should be clearly mentioned why earthuakes with very low PGA value (0.0180g - 0.0597g) are selected for IDA.

What is the type of magnitude of the earthquakes (Mw, Ms...)?

(3.1.3)

a) In line 197, it is mentioned that the amplitude adjustment ratios are 0.1g, 0.2g, 0.3g,....,1.5g. Is it amplitude adjustment ratios or amplitudes?

b) In Fig. 4, what is meant by [Ug/m], [Sg/MPa], [Uz/m], [Sz/m]?

c) In Fig. 4c, why >0.2m is marked while the limit is defined as 0.6m (in Fig. 4a >0.6m is marked for same limit state value)?

(3.1.4)

a) Parameters in equation 4 should be defined clearly

b) In line 229, though there is no section as 3.3.2 it mentioned as... simulation results from 3.3.2.

(3.2.1)

c) There is no description about the experts evaluation. The importance weights in Table 6 (addressed as Table 8 in text) should be checked.

(3.2.2)

d) What parameters are considered for nine different facilities and What are the limit state for those vulnerable parameters for different damage states?

(4.1)

e) The magnitude of 2008 Wuqia earthquake (Richter M 6.8) should be converted to Ms value as in the attenuation equation (eqn 1), it is denoted that magnitude should be in Ms.

(4.2.1)

a. In equation 10, N(>=M) denotes, rate of earthquake i.e. number of earthquakes per year with magnitude greater or equal M. This should be described correctly and also must be applied in the development of Magnitude-Frequency relationship.

b. The completeness of data can be checked by the plot of Cumulative No. of earthquakes Vs Time (Year) as per the simplified approach by Mulargia et al. (1987), or even by the method of Stepp (1972).

c. In the Magnitude-Frequency curve, vertical axis (earthquake frequency) should be plotted in log scale to represent the linear relationship.

d. It is not clear why the occurrence rate or frequency of maximum magnitude earthquake is 1, i.e. No. of earthquake per year is 1 [N(>=M)=1].

In conclusion it can be suggested that the article should be modified with application of recalculated values of various parameters as well as should be checked thoroughly to improve the write up.

Authors may consult with the following papers to improve the current state of the manuscript:

1. Hassanzadeh, R., Nedović-Budić, Z., Razavi, A. A., Norouzzadeh, M., & Hodhodkian, H. (2013). Interactive approach for GIS-based earthquake scenario development and resource estimation (Karmania hazard model). Computers & geosciences, 51, 324-338.

2. Okazaki, K., Villacis, C., Cardona, C., Kaneko, F., Shaw, R., Sun, J., ... & Tobin, L. T. (2000). RADIUS: Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters. In RADIUS: Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters (pp. 38-38).

3. Mazumder, R. K., & Salman, A. M. (2019). Seismic damage assessment using RADIUS and GIS: A case study of Sylhet City, Bangladesh. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 34, 243-254.

4. Applied Technology Council (ATC), ATC-13: Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Applied Technology Council, Washington, DC., 1985.

Reviewer #2: This paper study the seismic damage of the substation using rapid evaluation method. There is some question need to be clearly justified by the authors before it can be proceed for the next round.

Abstract need to rewrite as the current abstract too general. Please add the characteristic of substation, study area, number of ground motion etc. Most of the important info should be written in this section.

1. Why using PGA as the main IM in this study. As we know, Peak ground acceleration PGA, probably the most common IM today through which most of today's regulations define the design seismic forces (including EC8), was not indicated to be an efficient IM for both types of structural system and both types of soil. Most of the previous study found that, peak ground velocity PGV is nominated as a universal IM that could be used instead of the PGA. PGV obtained for all the analyzed cases, has almost twice smaller dispersion, which means four times the smaller number of earthquakes to achieve the same reliable estimation of seismic response. Also, the use of spectral response values Sa(T1), Sv(T1) and Sd(T1) has given very good results but we should bear in mind that their calculation is more complicated because they depend on the dynamic characteristics of the structure.

2. Need to add more recent references in this study.

3. In page 3, line 71, "..aimed at proposing a method for rapidly evaluating the damage state..". This is need further justify, either this study want to propose a method or to evaluate the damage state?.

4. In the introduction, author should highlight the research gap and new contribution in this field compare to other researcher.

5. Should have schematic diagram of the substation. Material used, strength etc.

6. Table 2 is suitable to use for substation?

7. Table 3 need to further justify about the limit state.

8. PEER is not an appropriate source of ground motion compare to COSMOS or other databases.

9. Justify the attribute value in page 8

10. What the main criteria in the selection of the ground motions as mentioned in Table 5.

11. Line 183 - 195 can be removed as this is well-known method in this field

12. Case study seem not reflect the main objective of this study. from my personal opinion, if we removed this section it wont give any affect to the findings and the main conclusion. Please justify.

13. In the title it mentioned about "rapid evaluation method" however the discussion about this method cannot be found in this study. Please justify.

13. Appropriate title should more related to "fragility assessment..."

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-17828.pdf

Evaluation method on seismic risk of substation in strong earthquake area

PONE-D-21-17828R1

Dear Dr. Che,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahad Javanmardi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please correct the word "Peek" in the abstract. It should be Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you to the authors for considering my comments for improving their manuscript. The authors have addressed all of my comments satisfactorily. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No