Appropriate Seismic Reliability for Critical Equipment Systems

122 Pages·2001·6.08 MB·English

III1111111111111111111111111111
PB99-157265
MULTIDISCIPLINARYCENTERFOREARTHQUAKEENGINEERINGRESEARCH
ANationalCenterofExcellenceinAdvancedTechnologyApplications
SSN1520-295X
Appropriate Seismic Reliability for Critical
Equipment Systems:
Recommendations Based on Regional Analysis
of Financial and Life Loss
by
K. Porter, C. Scawthorn, C. Taylor and N. Blais
EQE International
1111 Broadway, 10th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
Technical Report MCEER-98-0016
~overnber10, 1998
This research was conducted at EQE International and was supported in whole or in partby the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS 90-25010 and other sponsors.
REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE
NATIONALTECHNICAL
INFORMATIONSERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA22161
NOTICE
This reportwas preparedbyEQEInternationalas aresultofresearchsponsored
by the MultidisciplinaryCenterfor Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER)
through a grantfrom the NationalScienceFoundation and othersponsors. Nei
therMCEER,associatesofMCEER,itssponsors,EQEInternational,noranyper
sonactingontheirbehalf:
a. makesanywarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttotheuseofanyinfor
mation, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such
usemaynotinfringeuponprivatelyownedrights;or
b. assumesany liabilitiesofwhatsoever kind withrespect to theuse of, orthe
damage resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or
processdisclosedin this report.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those ofthe author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the viewsof
MCEER,theNationalScienceFoundation,orothersponsors.
Appropriate Seismic Reliability for Critical Equipment Systems:
Recommendations Based on Regional Analysis ofFinancial and Life Loss
by
K. Porter', C. Scawthorn2 C. Taylor3 and N. Blais4
,
PublicationDate: November 10, 1998
Submittal Date: July 31, 1998
Technical Report MCEER-98-0016
NCEERTaskNumbers 94-6201 and 95-6201
NSF Master ContractNumberBCS 90-25010
1 PrincipalEngineer, EQEInternational, Oakland, California
2 Vice President, EQEInternational, Oakland, California
3 President, NaturalHazards ManagementInc., Torrance, California
4 SeniorProjectEngineer, EQEInternational, Oakland, California
MULTIDISCIPLINARYCENTERFOREARTHQUAKEENGINEERINGRESEARCH
University atBuffalo, State University ofNew York
Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, NY 14261
PROTECTED UNDERINTERNATIONALCOPYRIGHT
ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
NATIONALTECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE

.
50272-101
REPORTDOCUMENTATION 1. ReportNo. 2. 3.Recipient'sAccessionNo.
PAGE MCEER-98-0016
4.TitleandSubtitle 5.ReportDate
AppropriateSeismicReliabilityforCriticalEquipmentSystems: RecommendationsBasedonRegionalAnalysisof November10,1998
Financialand LifeLoss
6.
7.Authors 8.PerformingOrganizationReportNo.
K. Porter, C. Scawthorn, C.Taylorand N. Blais
10.ProjectlTaskIWorkUnitNo.
94-6201 and95-6201
9.PerformingOrganizationNameandAddress 11.Contract(ClorGrant(G)No.
EQEInternational, 1111 Broadway, 10thFloor, Oakland, California 94607 (C)BCS90-25010
(G)
12.SponsoringOrganizationNameandAddress 13.TypeofReport&PeriodCovered
MultidiscipllinaryCenterforEarthquakeEngineering Research Technicalreport
StateUniversityofNewYorkatBuffalo
RedJacketQuadrangle, Buffalo, NY14261
14.
15.SupplementaryNotes
Thisresearch wasconductedatEQEInternationalandwassupportedinwholeorinpartbytheNational ScienceFoundationunderGrantNo.BCS90-
25010andothersponsors.
16.Abstract(limit200words)
Thisstudyrecommendsaminimumseismicreliabilitylevelforcriticalequipmentsystemslocatedinseismicallyvulnerablefacilities. Itdescribesa
methodologytoachievecost-effectiveriskmitigationandappliesthatmethodologytoatestcaseinvolvinganautomaticsprinklersysteminahigh-risk
building. Thestudybuildson previouslypublishedworksinthisareathatprovideguidelinesforidentifyingequipmentsystemsthatareimportantfor
eitherthenormaloperationofafacilityorforlifesafetyprotection. Bymaking itpossibletocalculatequantitativeriskscores,themethodologyprovidesa
basisbothforevaluatingtheseismicadequacyofequipmentsystemsandformakingcost-effectiveequipmentretrofitdecisions. Themethodologyis
primarilyforuseinareasofhighseismicity. Inadditiontothisreport, an inventoryoftaxablehigh-risebuildingsin San Francisco(asofJanuary1997)in
spreadsheetformat(Excel97andLotus1-2-3version 3, leaf"Inventory"or"B", respectively)islocatedinthePublicationssectionofMCEER'swebsite
(http://mceer.buffalo.edu/pubs.html).
17.DocumentAnalysis a.Descriptors
Earthquakeengineering. Reliabilityassessment. Criticalequipment. Criticalfacilities. Nonstructuralsystems. Lifesafetyequipment. Watersprinklers.
Highrisebuildings. Costbenefitanalysis.
b.Identifiers/Open-EndedTerms
c.COSATIField/Group
18.AvailabilityStatement 19.SecurityClass(ThisReport) 21.No.ofPages
Releaseunlimited. Unclassified
111
20.SecurityClass(ThisPage) 22.Price
Unclassified
(seeANSU39.18)
...
,
,
Preface
TheMultidisciplinaryCenterforEarthquakeEngineeringResearch(MCEER)isanationalcenterof
excellenceinadvancedtechnologyapplicationsthatisdedicatedtothereductionofearthquakelosses
nationwide. Headquarteredat the University at Buffalo, State University ofNew York, the Center
wasoriginallyestablishedastheNationalCenterforEarthquakeEngineeringResearch(NCEER)by
the National Science Foundation in 1986.
Comprising a consortium ofresearchers from a range of disciplines and over a dozen academic
institutions and research organizations throughout the United States, the Center's mission is to
reduceearthquakelossesthroughresearchandtheapplicationofadvancedtechnologiesthatimprove
engineering,pre-earthquakeplanningandpost-earthquakerecoverystrategies.Towardthisend,the
Centercoordinatesanationwideprogramofmultidisciplinaryteamresearch,educationandoutreach
activities.
MCEER'sresearchisconductedunderthesponsorshipoftwomajorfederal agencies: theNational
ScienceFoundation(NSF)andtheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA),andtheStateofNew
York. Significant support is derived from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
other state governments, academic institutions, foreign governments andprivate industry.
The Center'sNSF-sponsored researchis focused aroundfourmajorthrusts, as showninthefigure
below:
• quantifying building and lifeline performance in future earthquake through the estimation of
expected losses;
• developing cost-effectiveperformance-basedrehabilitation technologies forcritical facilities;
• improving response and recovery through strategicplanning andcrisis management;
• establishing and operating two user networks, one in experimental facilities and computing
environments and the otherin computational and analytical resources.
..
I.PerformanceAssessmentoftheBuiltEnvironment
using
LossEstimationMethodologies
!
IV.UserNetwork
II.RehabilitationofCriticalFacilities
• FacilitiesNetwork using
• ComputationalNetwork AdvanceTechnologies
!
..
III.ResponseandRecovery
using
AdvanceTechnologies
iii
This study recommends aminimum seismic reliability levelfor critical equipmentsystems located
in seismically vulnerable facilities. It describes a methodology to achieve cost-effective risk
mitigationandappliesthatmethodologytoatestcase involvingan automaticsprinklersystemina
high-rise building. The study builds on previously published works in this area that provide
guidelinesfor identifying equipmentsystems thatare importantfor eitherthe normaloperation of
afacilityorfor lifesafetyprotection. Bymaking itpossible tocalculatequantitative riskscores, the
methodologyprovides a basisbothfor evaluating the seismicadequacy ofequipmentsystemsand
formakingcost-effectiveequipmentretrofitdecsions. Themethodologyisprimarilyforuseinareas
ofhigh seismicity.
Inadditiontothisreport, aninventoryoftaxablehigh-risebuildingsinSanFrancisco(asofJanuary
1997) in spreadsheet format (Excel 97 and Lotus 1-2-3 version 3, leaf "Inventory" or "B",
respectively) islocatedinthe PublicationssectionofMCEER'sweb site(http://mceer.buffalo.edu/
pubs.html).
iv
ABSTRACT
This study recommends minimum seismic reliability levels for critical equipment
systems (CES) in critical facilities subject to seismic risk. Seismic reliability refers to the
probability that an equipment system will perform its required function after an
earthquake. Forexample, this studyrecommends thata fire detection and alarmsystem
in a California office building should be expected to survive the 475-year earthquake
and remain operational afterwards, with a probability of99.9%, which is equivalent to a
0.1%probabilityofnotoperating after the 475-yearearthquake.
Simple tools for identifying CES and evaluating their current reliability are provided in
a companion study by Johnson, Sheppard, Quilici, and others (1998), entitled Seismic
Reliability Assessment of Critical Facilities: A Handbook. The Handbook provides
worksheets and computational tools to evaluate risk operational failure of an existing
CES subjected to the design-basis earthquake (DBE). Using these tools, a facility
operator evaluates a scalar risk score 5, typically on the order of0 to 6, for each existing
CES. A higher scoreindicating a lower failure probability (P 10'5giventhe DBE).
""
f
The score should be compared with institution reliability goals to determine adequacy.
However, in cases where the institution has not set minimum performance goals, the
minimum risk scores recommended here can be employed. If the operator calculates a
riskscorebelow the tolerable minimum, this indicates the advisability of seismic retrofit
or further, more detailed analysis. If the calculated risk score is greater than the
tolerable minimum, then the CES is estimated to meet or exceed comparable reliability
standards for other building components. Minimum risk scores depend on facility type
and CES life-safetyrole, and are summarizedinthe tablebelow.
Appropriate levels of seismic reliability for CES were evaluated based on modeling in
the highlyseismicSanFranciscoBayArea. The modelinginvolves computer simulation
of CES in the inventory of high rise buildings for the region, and examination of
potential life and financial losses undervaryingcriteria.
The use of the combined methodology offers facility operators a rapid visual screening
technique to evaluate the seismic adequacy of equipment, in a way similar to structural
screening techniques such as ATC-21. It also provides insight into the main
contributors to CES seismic risk, and thus to cost-effective remedies. It produces a
comprehensible, quantitative measure of CES seismic risk - namely, probability of
operational failure - that is comparable with other, more familiar risk sources. Finally,
it offers decision-makers a basis for judging the tolerability of current CES seismic risk
inlightofcurrentpractice.
Facility class Life-safetyCES OperationalCES
Essential (emergencyresponse) 4 3
Ordinary 3 2
*Ascoreof4indicates10-4or0.01%maximumtolerableprobabilityoffailure intheDBE;3indicates0.1%;2
indicates1%failureprobability.
v