Seismic fragility and importance analysis of communication base station systems based on a T-S fault tree

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.05.0510

Abstract

Abstract:

To solve the limitations of traditional fault trees in accurately capturing the complex correlations among components of communication base station systems, this study proposes a method for seismic fragility and importance analysis based on T-S fault tree. First, a three-subsystem architecture consisting of power supply, machine room, and transmission is constructed, and a T-S fault tree model for post-earthquake functional loss of communication base station systems is established. The functional correlations among components and subsystems are quantified using gate rule tables. Second, the seismic fragility models of communication base station system and the machine room subsystem are comparatively analyzed. Then, the seismic fragility of communication base station system is calculated using traditional fault trees and Monte Carlo simulation, and compared with the results from T-S fault tree. Finally, key impact factors are identified by combining the T-S critical importance analysis, and the weak links of the system are located through the sensitivity analysis of component fragility parameters. The results show that analyzing only the seismic fragility of the machine room subsystem underestimates the risk of system functional loss, and it is necessary to comprehensively analyze the seismic fragility of the communication base station system by integrating the three subsystems. The T-S fault tree method has advantages in describing the fuzzy logic relationships among components, and its results are more reliable than those from traditional fault tree. Cables under the slight damage state and machine room buildings under the severe damage state are the key impact factors. Substations, transmission lines, and machine room buildings have the most significant impact on the system function.

Key words: Takagi-Sugeno(T-S) fault tree, communication base station system, seismic fragility, importance analysis, T-S criticality importance measure

CLC Number:

Wang Wei, Wang Yue, Hou Benwei, Xia Chenhong, Guo Xiaodong. Seismic fragility and importance analysis of communication base station systems based on a T-S fault tree[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2026, 36(5): 287-295.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.4

Table 5

Fig.5

Table 6

Fig.6

Table 7

References 19

[1]	侯本伟, 元明豪, 吴珊, 等. 基于状态树模型的给水处理厂体系震后功能评估[J/OL]. 工程力学:1-11.[2025-04-15]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2595.O3.20240305.0843.002.html.
	Hou Benwei, Yuan Minghao, Wu Shan, et al. Post-earthquake functionality assessment of water treatment plant system based on state tree model[J/OL]. Engineering Mechanics:1-11.[2025-04-15]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2595.O3.20240305.0843.002.html.
[2]	王威, 宋卓, 侯本伟, 等. 震后供水管网剩余能量熵的蒙特卡罗模拟分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(9):188-194.
	Wang Wei, Song Zhuo, Hou Benwei, et al. Monte Carlo simulation analysis on surplus power entropy of water supply network after earthquake[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(9):188-194.
[3]	王威, 龚玉涿, 朱峻佚, 等. 城市建筑群抗震韧性集成评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(4):219-226. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.04.1116
	Wang Wei, Gong Yuzhuo, Zhu Junyi, et al. Integrated evaluation methods of seismic resilience of urban group buildings[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(4): 219-226. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.04.1116
[4]	武佳佳, 王威, 朱强强, 等. 基于QRNN模型的生命年损失概率密度预测[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(5):37-43. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.05.007
	Wu Jiajia, Wang Wei, Zhu Qiangqiang, et al. Lifeyears loss probability density prediction based on QRNN model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(5): 37-43. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.05.007
[5]	李诗尧. 落地通信基站地震易损性及功能失效概率评估[D]. 哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所, 2017.
	Li Shiyao. Seismic vulnerability and functional failure probability assessment of landing communication station[D]. Harbin: Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, 2017.
[6]	毛晨曦, 冯利飞. 基于振动台试验的移动通信节点机房蓄电池组地震易损性分析[J]. 世界地震工程, 2019, 35(3):10-20.
	Mao Chenxi, Feng Lifei. Seismic fragility analysis of storage batteries in mobile communication node room based on shaking table test[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 35(3): 10-20.
[7]	李帆. 通信系统抗震韧性评估方法研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所, 2022.
	Li Fan. Assessment method of seismic resilience of communication system[D]. Harbin: Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, 2022.
[8]	穆志炜. 通信系统震后连通性分析及恢复过程模拟研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所, 2023.
	Mu Zhiwei. Connectivity analysis and recovery process simulation of communication system after earthquake[D]. Harbin: Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, 2023.
[9]	Cardoni A, Borlera S L, Malandrino F, et al. Seismic vulnerability and resilience assessment of urban telecommunication networks[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2022, 77: DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2021.103540.
[10]	白鹏飞, 段倩倩, 张小咏. 地震灾害下通信基础设施损毁的故障树模型研究[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2017, 47(21):1-7.
	Bai Pengfei, Duan Qianqian, Zhang Xiaoyong. Research on fault tree model of communication infrastructure damage under earthquake disaster[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 2017, 47(21):1-7.
[11]	Ke S S, Wu B R, Hsu C H. Damage assessment of mobile communication facilities subjected to major earthquakes[J]. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 2022, 45(6): 501-512. doi: 10.1080/02533839.2022.2078415
[12]	Li Xueming, Wei Yao, Ming Zheng, et al. Reliability prediction and evaluation of communication base stations in earthquake prone areas[J]. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13(1): DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-35841-x.
[13]	Li Fan, Zhai Changhai, Qin Hao. Post-earthquake functional state assessment of communication base station using Bayesian network[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2024, 252: DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2024.110482.
[14]	姚成玉, 陈东宁. T-S故障树理论及其应用[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社,2020:13-80.
	Yao Chengyu, Chen Dongning. T-S fault tree theory and applications[M]. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2020:13-80.
[15]	李波, 郭恩栋, 毛晨曦. 四川长宁县6.0级地震通信系统结构震害调查与分析[J]. 世界地震工程, 2020, 36(2):172-179.
	Li Bo, Guo Endong, Mao Chenxi. Seismic damage survey and analysis of communication system in Changning Ms6.0 earthquake[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 36(2):172-179.
[16]	RISN—TG041—2022 城市工程系统抗震韧性评价导则[S].
	RISN-TG041-2022 Guideline for evaluation of seismic resilience assessment of urban engineering systems[S].
[17]	Barbat A H, Moya F Y, Canas J A. Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 1996, 12(3): 371-394. doi: 10.1193/1.1585889
[18]	刘如山, 闫路鹏, 姜立新, 等. 110 kV及以上变电站地震易损性研究[J]. 中国地震, 2023, 39(2):290-298.
	Liu Rushan, Yan Lupeng, Jiang Lixin, et al. Seismic vulnerability study of 110 kV and above substations[J]. China Earthquake, 2023, 39(2): 290-298.
[19]	GB/T 38591—2020 建筑抗震韧性评价标准[S].
	GB/T 38591—2020 Standard for seismic resilience assessment of buildings[S].

规则	x₁₀	x₁₁	A₃
规则	x₁₀	x₁₁	D_s0	D_s1	D_s2	D_s3	D_s4
1	D_s0	D_s0	1	0	0	0	0
2	D_s0	D_s1	0.55	0.40	0.05	0	0
3	D_s0	D_s2	0.50	0.15	0.30	0.05	0
4	D_s0	D_s3	0.50	0.10	0.05	0.30	0.05
5	D_s0	D_s4	0	0	0	0	1
6	D_s1	D_s0	0.60	0.30	0.10	0	0
7	D_s1	D_s1	0.15	0.70	0.15	0	0
8	D_s1	D_s1	0.10	0.50	0.35	0.05	0
9	D_s1	D_s3	0.10	0.45	0.15	0.25	0.05
10	D_s1	D_s4	0	0	0	0	1
11	D_s2	D_s0	0.25	0.15	0.50	0.10	0
12	D_s2	D_s1	0.05	0.35	0.50	0.10	0
13	D_s2	D_s1	0	0.15	0.70	0.15	0
14	D_s2	D_s3	0	0.10	0.50	0.35	0.05
15	D_s2	D_s4	0	0	0	0	1
16	D_s2	D_s0	0.25	0.05	0.10	0.50	0.10
17	D_s2	D_s1	0.05	0.25	0.15	0.45	0.10
18	D_s2	D_s1	0	0.05	0.35	0.50	0.10
19	D_s2	D_s3	0	0	0.15	0.70	0.15
20	D_s2	D_s4	0	0	0	0	1
21	D_s4	D_s0	0	0	0	0	1
22	D_s4	D_s1	0	0	0	0	1
23	D_s4	D_s1	0	0	0	0	1
24	D_s4	D_s3	0	0	0	0	1
25	D_s4	D_s4	0	0	0	0	1

代号	基本组件	需求参数/g	损伤状态	地震易损性函数参数
代号	基本组件	需求参数/g	损伤状态	e_i/g	β_i
x₁	变电站^[18]	PGA	D_s1	0. 152 3	0. 473 8
			D_s2	0. 268 2	0. 606 8
			D_s3	0. 470 2	0. 442 8
			D_s4	0. 729 4	0. 497 7
x₂	输电线^[16]	PGA	D_s1	0. 280 0	0. 300 0
			D_s2	0. 400 0	0. 200 0
			D_s3	0. 720 0	0. 150 0
			D_s4	1. 100 0	0. 150 0
x₃	柴油发电机^[19]	PGA	D_s4	0. 900 0	0. 400 0
x₄	蓄电池^[6]	PGA	D_s1	0. 397 0	0. 843 0
x₄	蓄电池^[6]	PGA	D_s3	0. 883 0	0. 959 0
x₅	通信机房^[8]	PGA	D_s1	0. 121 0	0. 713 0
			D_s2	0. 235 1	0. 642 5
			D_s3	0. 434 1	0. 605 9
			D_s4	0. 688 9	0. 587 6
x₆	通信机柜^[5]	PGA	D_s1	0. 300 1	0. 301 2
			D_s2	0. 593 3	0. 298 3
			D_s4	1. 258 3	0. 307 2
x₇	电源柜^[16]	PGA	D_s1	0. 150 0	0. 750 0
			D_s2	0. 320 0	0. 600 0
			D_s3	0. 600 0	0. 620 0
			D_s4	1. 250 0	0. 650 0
x₈	走线架^[5]	PGA	D_s1	0. 439 2	0. 413 3
			D_s2	0. 894 7	0. 343 2
			D_s4	1. 228 8	0. 467 4
x₉	空调^[16]	PGA	D_s1	0. 130 0	0. 550 0
			D_s2	0. 260 0	0. 500 0
			D_s3	0. 460 0	0. 620 0
			D_s4	1. 030 0	0. 620 0
x₁₀	50m四方塔^[5]	PGA	D_s1	0. 519 4	0. 361 1
			D_s3	1. 067 9	0. 345 3
			D_s4	1. 320 5	0. 320 1
x₁₁	通信光缆^[8]	PGA	D_s1	0. 240 0	0. 250 0
			D_s2	0. 330 0	0. 200 0
			D_s3	0. 580 0	0. 150 0
			D_s4	0. 890 0	0. 150 0

基本组件	损伤状态	破坏概率P(D_si)	模糊数
基本组件	损伤状态	破坏概率P(D_si)	a	b	c	d
x₁₀	D_s0	0. 765 3	0. 719 4	0. 727 0	0. 803 6	0. 811 2
	D_s1	0. 232 5	0. 218 6	0. 220 9	0. 244 1	0. 246 5
	D_s2	0. 000 0	0. 000 0	0. 000 0	0. 000 0	0. 000 0
	D_s3	0. 002 1	0. 002 0	0. 002 0	0. 002 2	0. 002 2
	D_s4	0. 000 1	0. 000 1	0. 000 1	0. 000 1	0. 000 1
x₁₁	D_s0	0. 020 5	0. 019 3	0. 019 5	0. 021 5	0. 021 7
	D_s1	0. 147 5	0. 138 7	0. 140 1	0. 154 9	0. 156 4
	D_s2	0. 825 4	0. 775 9	0. 784 1	0. 866 7	0. 874 9
	D_s3	0. 006 6	0. 006 2	0. 006 3	0. 006 9	0. 007 0
	D_s4	0. 000 0	0. 000 0	0. 000 0	0. 000 0	0. 000 0

损伤状态	机房子系统		通信基站系统
损伤状态	e_i/g	β_i	e_i/g	β_i
D_s1	0. 174 2	0. 621 9	0. 158 6	0. 741 7
D_s2	0. 362 6	0. 537 3	0. 259 6	0. 669 9
D_s3	0. 554 3	0. 393 4	0. 400 0	0. 519 4
D_s4	0. 693 0	0. 342 6	0. 495 6	0. 439 6

损伤状态	传统故障树		T-S故障树
损伤状态	e_i/g	β_i	e_i/g	β_i
D_s₁	0. 079 8	0. 408 2	0. 158 6	0. 741 7
D_s₂	0. 161 7	0. 424 3	0. 259 6	0. 669 9
D_s₃	0. 288 5	0. 427 1	0. 400 0	0. 519 4
D_s₄	0. 517 8	0. 378 7	0. 495 6	0. 439 6