Earthquakes and Structures

  • 제19권6호
  • /
  • Pages.471-484
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2092-7614(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2092-7622(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A novel risk assessment approach for data center structures

  • Cicek, Kubilay (Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University) ;
  • Sari, Ali (Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University)
  • 투고 : 2020.09.14
  • 심사 : 2020.12.01
  • 발행 : 2020.12.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Previous earthquakes show that, structural safety evaluations should include the evaluation of nonstructural components. Failure of nonstructural components can affect the operational capacity of critical facilities, such as hospitals and fire stations, which can cause an increase in number of deaths. Additionally, failure of nonstructural components may result in economic, architectural, and historical losses of community. Accelerations and random vibrations must be under the predefined limitations in structures with high technological equipment, data centers in this case. Failure of server equipment and anchored server racks are investigated in this study. A probabilistic study is completed for a low-rise rigid sample structure. The structure is investigated in two versions, (i) conventional fixed-based structure and (ii) with a base isolation system. Seismic hazard assessment is completed for the selected site. Monte Carlo simulations are generated with selected parameters. Uncertainties in both structural parameters and mechanical properties of isolation system are included in simulations. Anchorage failure and vibration failures are investigated. Different methods to generate fragility curves are used. The site-specific annual hazard curve is used to generate risk curves for two different structures. A risk matrix is proposed for the design of data centers. Results show that base isolation systems reduce the failure probability significantly in higher floors. It was also understood that, base isolation systems are highly sensitive to earthquake characteristics rather than variability in structural and mechanical properties, in terms of accelerations. Another outcome is that code-provided anchorage failure limitations are more vulnerable than the random vibration failure limitations of server equipment.

키워드

과제정보

The research described in this paper is part of the M.Sc. dissertation of the first writer and the second writer as advisor at the Istanbul Technical University, Turkey.

참고문헌

  1. Abbati, S.D., Cattari, S. and Lagomarsino, S. (2018), "Theoretically-based and practice-oriented formulations for the floor spectra evaluation", Earthq. Struct., 15(5), 565-581. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.5.565
  2. Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J. and Kamai, R. (2013), "Update of the AS08 ground-motion prediction equations based on the NGA-West2 data set", Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California.
  3. Akkar, S., Sandikkaya, M. and Bommer, J.J. (2014), "Empirical ground-motion models for point-and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 12(1), 359-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4
  4. Alhan, C. and Gavin, H.P. (2005), "Reliability of base isolation for the protection of critical equipment from earthquake hazards", Eng. Struct., 27(9), 1435-1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.04.007
  5. Alhan, C. and Sahin, F. (2011), "Protecting vibration-sensitive contents: an investigation of floor accelerations in seismically isolated buildings", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 9(4), 1203-1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9236-0
  6. ANSI/TIA-942 (2017), Telecommunications Infrastructure Standard for Data Centers, Telecommunication Industry Association: Arlington, V.A.
  7. ASCE 7-16 (2016), Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
  8. ATC (2019), FEMA P58: Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Federal Emergency and Management Agency: Washington, D.C.
  9. Boore, D.M., Stewart, J.P., Seyhan, E. and Atkinson, G.M. (2014), "NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes", Earthq. Spectra, 30(3), 1057-1085. https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M.
  10. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (2014), "NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra", Earthq. Spectra, 30(3), 1087-1115. https://doi.org/10.1193/062913EQS175M.
  11. Chaudhuri, S.R. and Hutchinson, T.C. (2004), "Distribution of peak horizontal floor acceleration for estimating nonstructural element vulnerability", The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancuover, Canada, August.
  12. Chaudhuri, S.R. and Villaverde, R. (2008), "Effect of building nonlinearity on seismic response of nonstructural components: a parametric study", J. Struct. Eng., 134(4), 661-670. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(661).
  13. Chen, P.C., Hsu, S.C., Zhong, Y.J. and Wang, S.J. (2019), "Realtime hybrid simulation of smart base-isolated raised floor systems for high-tech industry", Smart Struct. Syst., 23(1), 91-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/sss.2019.23.1.091.
  14. Dimentberg, M., Lin, Y. and Zhang, R. (1993), "Toppling of computer-type equipment under base excitation", J. Eng. Mech., 119(1), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1993)119:1(145).
  15. Dolce, M. and Cardone, D. (2003), "Seismic protection of light secondary systems through different base isolation systems", J. Earthq. Eng., 7(2), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460309350447.
  16. Ellingwood, B. (1980). "Development of a probability based load criterion for American National Standard A58", 13, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
  17. Fan, Y.C., Loh, C.H., Yang, J.N. and Lin, P.Y. (2009), "Experimental performance evaluation of an equipment isolation using MR dampers", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 38(3), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.844.
  18. Gandelli, E., Taras, A., Distl, J. and Quaglini, V. (2019), "Seismic retrofit of hospitals by means of hysteretic braces: Influence on acceleration-sensitive non-structural components", Front. Built Environ., 5(100). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00100.
  19. GR-63-CORE (2012), NEBS Requirements: Physical Protection, Telecordia Technologies, Inc.: Piscataway, N.J.
  20. Haselton, C.B. (2006), Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, San Francisco, U.S.A.
  21. Huang, Yin-Nan, Andrew S. Whittaker, and Nicolas Luco. (2011), "A probabilistic seismic risk assessment procedure for nuclear power plants:(I) Methodology", Nuclear Eng. Des., 241(9), 3996-4003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.051.
  22. Ishiyama, Y. (1982), "Motions of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning by earthquake excitations", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 10(5), 635-650. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290100502.
  23. Konstantinidis, D. and Makris, N. (2009), "Experimental and analytical studies on the response of freestanding laboratory equipment to earthquake shaking", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 38(6), 827-848. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.871.
  24. Lopez Garcia, D. and Soong, T. (2003a), "Sliding fragility of block-type non-structural components. Part 1: Unrestrained components", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 32(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.217.
  25. Lopez Garcia, D., and Soong, T. (2003b), "Sliding fragility of block‐type non‐structural components. Part 2: Restrained components", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 32(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.218.
  26. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H. and Fenves, G.L. (2006), "The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSEES) user command-language manual".
  27. Medina, R.A., Sankaranarayanan, R. and Kingston, K.M. (2006), "Floor response spectra for light components mounted on regular moment-resisting frame structures", Eng. Struct., 28(14), 1927-1940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.022.
  28. Moeindarbari, H. and Taghikhany, T. (2018), "Seismic reliability assessment of base-isolated structures using artificial neural network: operation failure of sensitive equipment", Earthq. Struct., 14(5), 425-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.5.425.
  29. Nikfar, F. and Konstantinidis, D. (2019), "Experimental study on the seismic response of equipment on wheels and casters in base-isolated hospitals", J. Struct. Eng., 145(3), 04019001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002266.
  30. Oropeza, M., Favez, P. and Lestuzzi, P. (2010), "Seismic response of nonstructural components in case of nonlinear structures based on floor response spectra method", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 8(2), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9139-0.
  31. Petrone, C., Di Sarno, L., Magliulo, G. and Cosenza, E. (2017), "Numerical modelling and fragility assessment of typical freestanding building contents", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 15(4), 1609-1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0034-1.
  32. Petrone, C., Magliulo, G. and Manfredi, G. (2015), "Seismic demand on light acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components in European reinforced concrete buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44(8), 1203-1217. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2508.
  33. Politopoulos, I. and Sollogoub, P. (2005), "Vulnerability of elastomeric bearing isolated buildings and their equipment", J. Earthq. Eng., 9(4), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460509350554.
  34. Porter, K. (2020), "A Beginner's Guide to Fragility, Vulnerability, and Risk", University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO.
  35. Pu, W. and Xu, X. (2019), "Estimation of floor response spectra induced by artificial and real earthquake ground motions", Struct. Eng. Mech., 71(4), 377-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.71.4.377.
  36. Ray Chaudhuri, S. and Hutchinson, T.C. (2011), "Effect of nonlinearity of frame buildings on peak horizontal floor acceleration", J. Earthq. Eng., 15(1), 124-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632461003668046.
  37. SAP2000 (2020), "Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design", Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California.
  38. Sari, A. (2003). Energy Considerations in Ground Motion Attenuation and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Studies, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
  39. Sato, E., Furukawa, S., Kakehi, A. and Nakashima, M. (2011), "Full-scale shaking table test for examination of safety and functionality of base-isolated medical facilities", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(13), 1435-1453. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1097.
  40. Sesetyan, K., Tumsa, D., Betul, M. and Akinci, A. (2019), "Evaluation of the seismic hazard in the Marmara region (Turkey) based on updated databases", Geosciences, 9(12), 489. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9120489.
  41. Sianko, I., Ozdemir, Z., Khoshkholghi, S., Garcia, R., Hajirasouliha, I., Yazgan, U. and Pilakoutas, K. (2020), "A practical probabilistic earthquake hazard analysis tool: case study Marmara region", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00793-4.
  42. Taghavi S. and Miranda E. (2003), "Probabilistic study of peak floor acceleration demands in linear structures", Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, San Francisco, California, U.S.A., July.
  43. TBEC-18 (2018), Turkish Building Earthquake Code, Ministry of Public Works, Ankara, Turkey.
  44. Tena Colunga, A. and Escamilla Cruz, J.L. (2007), "Torsional amplifications in asymmetric base-isolated structures", Eng. Struct., 29(2), 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.036.