In spite of the names of "building attachments" and "secondary elements" usually given to nonstructural components and equipment, they are far from being secondary in importance. In the worst case of critical facilities, the failure of equipment strongly impacts on the postearthquake functionality, causing the loss of essential services or businesses. Such considerations highlight the need for a seismic qualification of equipment as the essential means to demonstrate its adequacy to perform the required function during the expected earthquake event. In this paper, the authors deal with a new approach to the problem of seismic qualification, in which the seismic demand posed to the component is defined in terms of equipment seismic levels (ESLs), whereas its inherent seismic capacity is classified in terms of equipment qualification categories. The determination of the ESL, which is the subject of this paper, has to satisfy the requirements prescribed by the codes for the seismic design of equipment. A comparative study of the current seismic codes in the USA and in Europe is hence carried out in order to critically assess their provisions and to develop a methodology that can be implemented straightforwardly also by designers not having expertise in the field of earthquake engineering. © 1972-2012 IEEE.

Criteria for the definition of the equipment seismic levels: Comparisons between USA and European codes / Parise, Giuseppe; DE ANGELIS, Maurizio; Reggio, Anna. - In: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS. - ISSN 0093-9994. - STAMPA. - 50:3(2014), pp. 2135-2141. [10.1109/tia.2013.2289947]

Criteria for the definition of the equipment seismic levels: Comparisons between USA and European codes

PARISE, Giuseppe;DE ANGELIS, Maurizio;REGGIO, ANNA
2014

Abstract

In spite of the names of "building attachments" and "secondary elements" usually given to nonstructural components and equipment, they are far from being secondary in importance. In the worst case of critical facilities, the failure of equipment strongly impacts on the postearthquake functionality, causing the loss of essential services or businesses. Such considerations highlight the need for a seismic qualification of equipment as the essential means to demonstrate its adequacy to perform the required function during the expected earthquake event. In this paper, the authors deal with a new approach to the problem of seismic qualification, in which the seismic demand posed to the component is defined in terms of equipment seismic levels (ESLs), whereas its inherent seismic capacity is classified in terms of equipment qualification categories. The determination of the ESL, which is the subject of this paper, has to satisfy the requirements prescribed by the codes for the seismic design of equipment. A comparative study of the current seismic codes in the USA and in Europe is hence carried out in order to critically assess their provisions and to develop a methodology that can be implemented straightforwardly also by designers not having expertise in the field of earthquake engineering. © 1972-2012 IEEE.
2014
earthquake electrical equipment operational continuity seismic design seismic qualification; seismic design; earthquake; electrical equipment; seismic qualification; operational continuity
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Criteria for the definition of the equipment seismic levels: Comparisons between USA and European codes / Parise, Giuseppe; DE ANGELIS, Maurizio; Reggio, Anna. - In: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS. - ISSN 0093-9994. - STAMPA. - 50:3(2014), pp. 2135-2141. [10.1109/tia.2013.2289947]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/533493
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact