1 / 34

Seismic Risks of Typical Double Fabs in Taiwan’s Hi-Tech Industry

Y.P. Wang 1 , W.H. Liao 2 and C.L. Lee 2 1 Professor of Civil Engineering 2 Research Assistant Professor of NHMRC National Chiao-Tung University. Seismic Risks of Typical Double Fabs in Taiwan’s Hi-Tech Industry. Motivation.

najwa
Download Presentation

Seismic Risks of Typical Double Fabs in Taiwan’s Hi-Tech Industry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Y.P. Wang1, W.H. Liao2 and C.L. Lee21Professor of Civil Engineering2Research Assistant Professor of NHMRCNational Chiao-Tung University Seismic Risks of Typical Double Fabs in Taiwan’s Hi-Tech Industry

  2. Motivation • Experiencing Unexpectedly High Seismic Loss in Moderate Earthquakes • Anticipating Big Shocks to Occur Nearby Hsinchu and Tainan Science-based Industrial Parks • Increasingly Growing Expense in Industrial Insurance or No Insurance

  3. Sources of Seismic Loss • Interruption due to Power Breakdown • Damage/Dislocation of Process Tools • Damage of Raised Floor • Pounding of Fab with Support Building • Subsequent Operation Interruption

  4. Objectives • Seismic Performance Assessment of An Existing Double Fab Structure – A Case Study • Seismic Retrofit Analysis of the Target Double Fab Structure

  5. Configuration of Standard Fab cleanroom cleanroom

  6. Configuration of Double Fab cleanroom 2 cleanroom 1

  7. Structural Plans Structural plans at 1~2 F (Sub-fabs) Structural plans at 3F and 5F (Clean Rooms) Lateral Stiffness Reinforcement Only in the Peripheral Frame!

  8. Potential Problems of Double Fabs • Soft-story and Weak-story in Cleanroom Levels due to Excessive Storydrift and P-D Effects • Excessive Amplification of Floor Acceleration at the Upper Cleanroom (Suffering Greater Loss Than Lower Cleanroom)

  9. Major Design Controversies • Completely following the Ductility Design • Structurally Non-uniform due to Soft-stories • No Plastic Hinges will be Formed in the Waffle Slab for its High Rigidity • Desired Strong-column-weak-beam Condition Assumed in Design is not True • Structurally Non-ductile, Reduction of Base Shear by Code Formula is not Accountable

  10. Major Design Controversies (con’d) • Perform Static Analysis Only • Fail to Verify the Ultimate Strength of the Story Shears Even for the Cleanroom Levels No Peer Review of the Structural Design Has Been Conducted!

  11. FEM Model of the Target Double Fab

  12. Input Ground Motion Ground acceleration measured in Chi-Chi Earthquake (TCU017 station, inside HSBIP)

  13. Seismic Performance Indecies • Storydrifts between All Floor Levels • Accelerations at the Cleanroom Floor Levels • Stress State under Critical Loading Condition by ASD Stability interaction equation

  14. Phase I- Performance assessment under PGA=0.33g (Grade 6 ) Table 1 Floor displacement and story drift ratio (PGA=0.33g)

  15. Phase I- Performance assessment under PGA=0.33g (Grade 6 ) Table 2 Acceleration at cleanroom floors (PGA=0.33g) UBC97 IBC2000

  16. Phase I- Performance assessment under PGA=0.33g (Grade 6 ) Table 3 Maximum internal forces and stress check of column C6 (PGA=0.33g)

  17. Phase II- Performance assessment under PGA=0.50g (Grade 7 ) Table 4 Floor displacement and story drift ratio (PGA=0.50g)

  18. Phase II- Performance assessment under PGA=0.50g (Grade 7 ) Table 5 Floor acceleration (PGA=0.50g) UBC97 IBC2000

  19. Phase II- Performance assessment under PGA=0.50g (Grade 7 ) Table 6 Maximum internal forces and stress check of column C6 (PGA=0.50g)

  20. Seismic Retrofit Analysis • Metallic Yielding Damper • Temperature-independent • Maintenance-free • Cost-effective • Durable

  21. Seismic Retrofit Analysis 90 Units of Metallic Yielding Damper to be Implemented

  22. Seismic Retrofit Analysis Figure 9(a) Comparison of displacement responses (3F & 5F)-PGA=0.33g

  23. Seismic Retrofit Analysis Figure 9(b) Comparison of acceleration responses (3F & 5F)-PGA=0.33g

  24. Seismic Retrofit Analysis Figure 10(b) Comparison of displacement responses (3F & 5F)-PGA=0.50g

  25. Seismic Retrofit Analysis Figure 10(b) Comparison of acceleration responses (3F & 5F)-PGA=0.50g

  26. Phase I- Performance assessment under PGA=0.33g (Grade 6 ) Table 1 Floor displacement and story drift ratio (PGA=0.33g)

  27. Phase I- Performance assessment under PGA=0.33g (Grade 6 ) Table 2 Acceleration at cleanroom floors (PGA=0.33g) UBC97 IBC2000

  28. Phase I- Performance assessment under PGA=0.33g (Grade 6 ) Table 3 Maximum internal forces and stress check of column C6 (PGA=0.33g)

  29. Phase II- Performance assessment under PGA=0.50g (Grade 7 ) Table 4 Floor displacement and story drift ratio (PGA=0.50g)

  30. Phase II- Performance assessment under PGA=0.50g (Grade 7 ) Table 5 Floor acceleration (PGA=0.50g) UBC97 IBC2000

  31. Phase II- Performance assessment under PGA=0.50g (Grade 7 ) Table 6 Maximum internal forces and stress check of column C6 (PGA=0.50g)

  32. Concluding Remarks • Excessive storydrifts of the double fab are found between the clean room levels under the design earthquake intensity. The concern of the double fab structure to contain soft and weak stories has been confirmed.

  33. Concluding Remarks (Con’d) • The proposed seismic retrofit design using metallic yielding dampers proves to be effective and sufficient under the design earthquake intensity. More dampers are demanded for further improvement of the seismic performance at the earthquake intensity level of PGA=0.5g.

  34. Concluding Remarks (Con’d) • The code specified design values for seismic anchorage of facility are somewhat conservative as compared with the time history responses under the specific earthquake episode with PGA=0.33g. Yet, this does not warrant damage-free and function integrity of the tools from a performance-based design point of view.

More Related