A data center fire operation analysis method

Abstract

This invention belongs to the field of data center fire protection technology and relates to a method for analyzing data center fire protection operations. This invention constructs a digital twin model to dynamically deduce the fire extinguishing sequence chain and sequentially executes a two-stage verification process involving alarm signals and manual confirmation. For verification failure points, a dual identity and video verification process is further initiated, triggering alternative confirmation signals when necessary. Finally, by comprehensively considering fire extinguishing coverage, verification status, and confirmation results, the system's safety status is determined based on multiple criteria, and weak points are automatically located and reinforcement markers are generated. This method solves the problems of traditional simulations ignoring human factors, difficulty in consistently assessing emergency plan upgrades, and inability to automatically locate root causes. It achieves a panoramic and quantitative assessment of the operational safety of the fire protection system, significantly improving assessment reliability, system adaptability, and risk resistance.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of fire protection operation simulation technology and relates to a data center fire protection operation analysis method. Background Technology

[0002] With the rapid development of information technology infrastructure, data centers, as critical information infrastructure, carry massive amounts of business data and core applications. Their safe and stable operation faces numerous challenges, among which fire, due to its suddenness, rapid spread, and destructive nature, constitutes one of the most severe threats. Traditional data center fire simulations typically employ static design and isolated testing methods for safety verification, but this approach has significant limitations.

[0003] Existing simulation methods often treat the physical response of facilities and equipment as a deterministic process, while treating key aspects related to personnel operation, such as signal verification and authorization decisions, as static premises or ignoring them. This makes the simulation assessment unable to reflect the actual fire situation. Due to factors such as personnel judgment time, misoperation, or communication delays, the specific interference and delays caused to the timing of issuing key intervention commands and the sequence of subsequent actions lead to insufficient reliability of safety simulation conclusions.

[0004] Furthermore, because existing methods generally treat fire response as a static or simplified process, traditional simulation methods struggle to coherently simulate escalation steps in emergency plans, such as higher-level authorization or cross-verification of multiple information sources, after a process interruption. These models cannot describe the specific execution process of the escalation, quantify its required time and the likelihood of further failure, nor can they integrate such complex results into a unified evaluation framework, thus blurring the true performance boundaries of the system under abnormal conditions.

[0005] Finally, existing assessments are mostly based on performance ratings or compliance assessments of individual modules, making it difficult to automatically determine the root cause of delays in final handling—whether it's an inherent flaw in the initial information transmission process, a loophole in the mid-term decision-making logic, or an issue with the allocation of resources in the later stages. This leaves the formulation of improvement measures without a clear and direct basis. Summary of the Invention

[0006] In view of this, in order to solve the problems mentioned in the background technology, a data center fire protection operation analysis method is proposed.

[0007] The objective of this invention can be achieved through the following technical solution: a data center fire protection operation analysis method, comprising: constructing a digital twin model that maps the physical space of the data center, the layout of equipment and fire protection facilities and their relationships.

[0008] Using the location of the fire source as the trigger condition, the fire extinguishing process is dynamically simulated based on a digital twin model, and the output includes a fire extinguishing time sequence chain containing time series and coverage area.

[0009] Alarm verification is performed based on the fire extinguishing sequence chain. Alarm events are processed sequentially according to the order of receipt, and a two-stage verification process of detection signal verification and manual confirmation verification is performed. If any stage of verification fails, the system enters a degraded operation mode and records the verification failure node in the digital twin model.

[0010] Based on the verification failure node, a dual verification process including operator identity and video is initiated; if this process fails, an alternative verification signal is triggered.

[0011] By comprehensively analyzing the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the verification status of each link, and the confirmation results, the overall safety status of the system is determined. The system is considered safe only when the fire extinguishing process is under control, all alarm events pass the dual-link verification, and there is no confirmation failure. Otherwise, weak points are located and marker signals for reinforcement are generated.

[0012] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: (1) The present invention solves the problem of human factors being ignored in traditional static simulation by constructing a digital twin model that maps physical space and fire-fighting facilities, combined with dynamic simulation of fire source triggering and a dual-stage verification mechanism. This method can accurately quantify the impact of operation delay and signal verification timing on the overall response process, making the safety assessment closer to the real scenario, effectively identifying system vulnerabilities caused by human factors, and significantly improving the reliability and practicality of fire simulation assessment.

[0013] (2) This invention overcomes the limitations of traditional simulations in coherently evaluating the escalation steps of emergency plans by designing a dual confirmation process for verifying failure nodes and an alternative confirmation signal generation mechanism. This scheme can completely simulate the entire process transition from primary verification to advanced confirmation, accurately calculate the time required for escalation confirmation and its reliability, quantitatively evaluate the impact of multiple verification mechanisms on system resilience, provide data support for formulating hierarchical emergency strategies, and significantly improve the adaptability of fire protection systems under complex and abnormal working conditions.

[0014] (3) This invention solves the problem of traditional assessments being unable to pinpoint the root cause by comprehensively analyzing the fire extinguishing sequence chain, verification status, and confirmation results, and making safety judgments based on three criteria. This mechanism can automatically identify the specific links and failure modes that lead to safety risks, accurately distinguish whether it is an information transmission, decision-making logic, or execution resource allocation problem, thereby generating targeted reinforcement signals and significantly improving the overall reliability and risk resistance of the data center fire protection system. Attached Figure Description

[0015] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0016] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram showing the connections of various modules in a data center fire protection operation analysis method according to the present invention.

[0017] Figure 2 This is a flowchart of the method for obtaining the fire extinguishing sequence chain in this invention.

[0018] Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating the process of initiating a dual verification procedure involving both operator identity and video verification in this invention. Detailed Implementation

[0019] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0020] Please see Figure 1 As shown, the present invention provides a data center fire protection operation analysis method, including: S1, constructing a digital twin model that maps the physical space of the data center, the layout of equipment and fire protection facilities and their relationships.

[0021] Considering the complexity of the physical space layout of data centers and the dynamic correlation between equipment and fire protection facilities, it is necessary to construct a digital twin model that can accurately reflect the physical space structure, equipment distribution and control logic relationship, so as to provide basic data support for subsequent fire fighting process simulation and safety assessment.

[0022] In one specific embodiment, the method for constructing the digital twin model is as follows: based on the building floor plan and equipment layout plan of the data center, a three-dimensional topological structure including spatial area division, geometric dimensions and connectivity is established using BIM tools;

[0023] Key equipment such as server racks and power supply equipment, as well as fire protection facilities such as fire extinguishers, sprinkler heads, smoke detectors, and alarm controllers, are treated as physical objects and added to the corresponding spatial positions in the three-dimensional topology according to the coordinate positions marked in the equipment layout diagram.

[0024] Configure an associated parameter set for each entity object, the parameter set including at least static attributes for simulation, real-time updated state data, and control logic relationships with other objects;

[0025] Then, a set of associated parameters is configured for each entity object. Static attributes, such as equipment size and the spray range of fire protection facilities, are determined by querying the equipment technical manual. Real-time updated status data, such as equipment operating temperature and standby / active status of fire protection facilities, are collected through the existing monitoring system interface of the data center. The control logic relationship with other objects, such as the logic of triggering the sprinkler system after the smoke detector is triggered, is determined based on the fire protection system design document.

[0026] Finally, a digital twin model is constructed by integrating the three-dimensional topological structure, all entity objects and their parameter sets.

[0027] It should be noted that in the digital twin model, a fire compartment of the data center is pre-divided into multiple independent non-fire protection sub-areas, each of which corresponds to an independent non-fire protection power cut-off logic; the fire extinguishing sequence chain and alarm verification process are simulated and evaluated based on the non-fire protection sub-areas.

[0028] S2. Using the location of the fire source as the trigger condition, dynamically deduce the fire extinguishing process based on the digital twin model, and output a fire extinguishing time sequence chain that includes the time series and the coverage area.

[0029] When a fire occurs in a data center, the order, timing, and coverage of firefighting actions directly affect the effectiveness of the firefighting efforts. If the firefighting actions are delayed or the coverage is incomplete, the fire may spread to critical equipment areas, causing serious damage. Furthermore, subsequent alarm verification requires the time sequence of the firefighting actions as a reference.

[0030] Therefore, it is necessary to accurately simulate the fire extinguishing process based on a digital twin model to clarify the temporal logic and spatial coverage of the fire extinguishing actions.

[0031] Please see Figure 2 As shown, in one specific embodiment, the method for obtaining the fire extinguishing sequence chain is as follows: mapping the actual fire source location coordinates that may cause a fire to the corresponding three-dimensional spatial nodes in the digital twin model, as the initial trigger point for simulation.

[0032] By analyzing the static attributes and control logic relationships of each fire protection facility entity in the digital twin model, an initial fire extinguishing action sequence is generated through a process orchestration algorithm. This sequence clarifies the activation order of the fire extinguishing equipment and assigns a preset execution time point to each action based on its equipment technical parameters.

[0033] For example, for a fire source located at node "Computer Room A" in the digital twin model, the generated initial fire extinguishing action sequence may be as follows: the smoke detector in this area is first simulated to be activated (denoted as time t0); then, the alarm controller linked to it responds after a preset processing delay (e.g., t0+2 seconds); next, the control logic triggers the main nozzle of the gas extinguishing system in this zone to start (e.g., t0+5 seconds); finally, the nearby manual fire extinguishing device is set to enter standby mode (e.g., t0+10 seconds).

[0034] Considering that the initial plan may not be able to cope with the dynamic development of the fire, the above initial fire extinguishing action sequence is input into the simulation module integrated in the digital twin environment to drive the model to perform dynamic simulations according to the time step.

[0035] A fire spread model is run simultaneously. This model, based on fundamental principles or empirical formulas such as heat transfer, combustion rate, and spatial ventilation conditions, calculates the expected spread range of flames and smoke at each simulated time point. Simultaneously, the three-dimensional spatial area covered by each fire extinguishing action is recorded.

[0036] Subsequently, the integrity of coverage and time constraints were verified: First, it was determined whether the coverage area of ​​the fire extinguishing action at each time point in the simulation completely included the corresponding fire area calculated by the fire spread model, and whether there were any key areas omitted.

[0037] At the same time, it is determined whether the simulated completion time from the start of the first action to the complete extinguishment of the fire is earlier than the critical moment of fire spread. This critical moment is determined by designing multi-scenario simulation experiments.

[0038] If both the coverage integrity verification and the time constraint verification pass, the initial fire extinguishing action sequence and its corresponding time sequence, as well as the spatial markers of the coverage areas for each action, are output, together forming a valid fire extinguishing time sequence chain; otherwise, the coverage path replanning process is triggered.

[0039] Furthermore, the coverage path replanning process includes: based on the three-dimensional topology of the digital twin model, recalculating the activation path and order of the fire extinguishing equipment using a path planning algorithm (such as A*, Dijkstra, or RRT algorithm), adjusting its action time points, thereby updating the fire extinguishing action sequence. The aforementioned path planning algorithms are all existing technologies in the field and will not be further limited or elaborated upon.

[0040] Based on the updated fire extinguishing action sequence, the aforementioned dynamic simulation and dual verification process of coverage and time are re-executed. The above replanning and verification steps are repeated until the generated fire extinguishing action sequence can simultaneously meet the conditions that the coverage area is complete and the fire extinguishing completion time is earlier than the critical time of fire spread.

[0041] Finally, the time series and coverage area markers corresponding to the fire extinguishing action sequence obtained after this iteration are output to form the updated fire extinguishing time sequence chain.

[0042] It should be noted that if the number of replanning attempts reaches the preset limit, such as 10-20 times, and the coverage integrity and time constraints are still not met, the simulation will be terminated and a planning failure prompt signal will be output.

[0043] S3. Based on the fire extinguishing sequence chain, perform alarm verification, process alarm events in the order of receipt, and perform dual verification of detection signal verification and manual confirmation verification. If any verification fails, enter the degraded operation mode and record the verification failure node in the digital twin model.

[0044] In the simulation of the fire extinguishing process, considering the possibility of false alarms, detection signal failures, etc., a single alarm confirmation method is prone to misjudgment. Moreover, the validity of the alarm event is directly related to the reliability of the subsequent safety status assessment. At the same time, the processing order of the alarm event must be consistent with the time logic of the fire extinguishing action to ensure the relevance of the verification results.

[0045] Therefore, by synchronously simulating the alarm event sequence generated during the fire extinguishing simulation in the digital twin model, and using the time sequence in the fire extinguishing time sequence chain as a reference, the system performs a two-stage verification process of automatic detection signal verification and manual remote confirmation for each alarm event according to the actual triggering time order, records the verification results and verification failure nodes, and provides data support for the system safety status assessment.

[0046] In one specific embodiment, the step of performing alarm verification based on the fire extinguishing time sequence chain and processing alarm events sequentially according to the order of receipt includes: when the fire extinguishing process is dynamically simulated in the digital twin model, multiple alarm events triggered in time sequence are synchronously generated based on the fire spread model and the equipment linkage logic.

[0047] Using the time sequence corresponding to the fire extinguishing action sequence in the fire extinguishing time sequence chain as a reference, a queue of alarm events to be processed is formed according to the triggering time order of each alarm event, and the dual-step verification is performed sequentially for each alarm event in the queue.

[0048] Furthermore, the dual-step verification of the detection signal verification and manual confirmation verification includes: automatically verifying the validity of the detection signal corresponding to the currently processed alarm event: if the strength of the detection signal is greater than or equal to the preset strength threshold in the digital twin model, and the signal duration exceeds the preset minimum duration, it indicates that the detection signal has valid physical characteristics and is not caused by instantaneous interference, and the detection signal is determined to pass the automatic verification; otherwise, it indicates that the signal may be noise, fault, or false trigger, and the automatic verification of the detection signal is determined to fail.

[0049] The intensity threshold is set as the minimum signal strength that ensures a detection probability of no less than 95% under standard test fire source conditions; the minimum duration is set as a critical value greater than the duration of 99% false alarm signals, typically 5-15 seconds, and can be set according to specific circumstances.

[0050] If the detection signal passes the automatic verification, a manual remote confirmation request for the alarm event is sent to the monitoring system, and a timer is started.

[0051] If a valid confirmation instruction is received from the operator before the timer expires, the alarm event is considered to have passed verification.

[0052] If the automatic verification of the detection signal fails, or if a valid confirmation instruction is not received before the timer expires, the alarm event is deemed to have failed verification.

[0053] When an alarm event of verification failure occurs, the control system enters a degraded operation mode and records the location of the digital twin model corresponding to the alarm event as a verification failure node.

[0054] The downgraded operation mode refers to the safe operating state that the system automatically switches to when it detects a verification failure. Specifically, it restricts the execution authority of the automatic fire extinguishing function, strengthens the requirements for manual confirmation, and increases the monitoring level of the area. This mode continues until the system fault is resolved or restarted, so as to avoid the risk of malfunction while ensuring basic safety protection capabilities.

[0055] The manual remote confirmation request is triggered by a manual confirmation button device installed in the fire control room or on site; the condition for the manual confirmation verification to pass is that, in the simulation, the fire linkage control host must simultaneously receive the fire alarm signal and the manual confirmation signal from the manual confirmation button device.

[0056] S4. Based on the verification failure node, initiate a dual verification process that includes operator identity and video verification; if the process fails, trigger an alternative verification signal.

[0057] Considering that the failure of verification nodes may be due to objective factors such as detection equipment failure or signal interference, and is not necessarily due to a lack of actual alarm requirements, ignoring them directly may cause safety hazards. Therefore, it is necessary to further confirm them through a more comprehensive verification method.

[0058] Meanwhile, the legitimacy of the operator's identity can prevent unauthorized personnel from making mistakes, and the intuitive verification of on-site video can make up for the limitations of signal verification.

[0059] Please see Figure 3As shown, in one specific embodiment, the step of initiating a dual confirmation process including operator identity and video based on the verification failure node includes: considering that the system's automatic linkage to the verification failure node area has been suspended in the downgraded operation mode, a further security confirmation mechanism is needed to avoid misoperation or confirm the real fire situation.

[0060] Therefore, the three-dimensional spatial coordinates of the verification failure node are extracted from the digital twin model and mapped back to the actual physical location of the data center.

[0061] For this actual physical location, perform the following dual verification simultaneously:

[0062] Identity verification: Collect and verify the identity credentials of the person currently requesting confirmation, such as the employee ID password, biometric identification, or physical access card information, and compare it with the preset authorization information in the system that records the emergency operation permissions for this area; if the credential information matches the authorization record in the authorization information, the identity verification is considered to be successful.

[0063] Video verification: The system retrieves a real-time video stream pointing to the actual physical location. In the simulation, it uses the viewpoint of the surveillance camera linked to that location in the digital twin model or a simulated video stream. An image recognition module integrated into the system analyzes the video footage in real time to identify any visual features matching the type of alarm event triggered.

[0064] For example, the image recognition module analyzes consecutive frames in the video stream by calling a pre-trained fire recognition model. For smoke alarms, the recognition module detects whether there are grayscale change areas and motion vectors in the image that match the characteristics of smoke diffusion; for thermal imaging video streams associated with temperature alarms, it identifies whether there are consecutive pixel areas exceeding a set temperature threshold. When the confidence level of the identified features exceeds a preset threshold, it is determined that matching visual features exist.

[0065] The image recognition can employ feature extraction and classification algorithms based on computer vision, which are well-known to those skilled in the art and will not be further limited or elaborated upon.

[0066] If the identity verification is successful, it indicates that the operator is legitimate, and the video verification confirms the existence of the aforementioned visual characteristics, thus providing on-site visual evidence. This indicates that the alarm event has been rigorously reviewed and confirmed to be genuine and valid, and therefore the double verification process is deemed successful.

[0067] Otherwise, if identity verification fails (i.e., the operator lacks authorization) or video verification fails to find matching visual characteristics (i.e., there is a lack of on-site evidence), it indicates that the review cannot support the authenticity of the alarm, and the process is deemed to have failed.

[0068] Furthermore, the alternative confirmation signal specifically refers to the system still needing a definite logical state to complete the subsequent security assessment process after the double confirmation process fails, in order to avoid the process being interrupted due to the inability to obtain confirmation. Therefore, a virtual confirmation instruction is automatically generated.

[0069] This instruction is treated as a confirmed logical signal in subsequent security status assessments, but it will be recorded that the reason for its triggering is the failure of the double confirmation process, thus distinguishing it from normal manual confirmation in the assessment report.

[0070] The virtual confirmation instruction is a flag or data record generated by the system's internal logic and lacks actual operational authorization or supporting evidence. Its core function is to act as a placeholder in the logical chain of the simulated evaluation, ensuring that the judgment process can continue to be executed until completion, while recording any abnormal states of this step.

[0071] S5. By comprehensively analyzing the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the verification status of each link and the confirmation results, the overall safety status of the system is determined; the system is deemed safe only when the fire extinguishing process is under control, all alarm events pass the dual-link verification and there is no confirmation failure; otherwise, weak points are located and marker signals to be reinforced are generated.

[0072] Considering that system safety assessment needs to take into account fire extinguishing effectiveness, alarm reliability, and failure handling, a multi-dimensional comprehensive analysis is required to ensure the accuracy of the assessment. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment is made based on criteria one, two, and three by integrating the integrity of the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the dual-stage verification status of each alarm event, and the final confirmation results of each verification failure node.

[0073] In one specific embodiment, the comprehensive analysis of the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the verification status of each link, and the confirmation results to determine the overall safety status of the system includes: integrating the integrity of the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the dual-link verification status of each alarm event, and the final confirmation results of each verification failure node.

[0074] The following three criteria will be used for comprehensive judgment:

[0075] Criterion 1: Check whether the fire extinguishing sequence chain is executed completely and whether the fire extinguishing action covers the complete area. If this condition is met, it indicates that the control logic of the fire protection system can be fully triggered in the simulation, and the preset fire extinguishing capacity is sufficient to cover the fire development range in space. In other words, the fire extinguishing plan is effective in both logic and space.

[0076] Criterion 2: Check whether all alarm events have passed automatic validity verification and remote manual confirmation. If so, it indicates that all initial alarm signals have been confirmed in the simulation, the alarm input channel and manual response link are functioning normally, and the alarm processing chain is reliable.

[0077] Guideline 3: Check if there are any verification failure nodes. If so, further check whether they have passed the dual confirmation process or have been marked by the alternative confirmation signal.

[0078] If this condition is met, it indicates that even if an initial verification anomaly occurs in some stages, the verification can be completed through the dual confirmation of identity and video, or the evaluation process can be continued by automatically generating alternative confirmation signals. In other words, the system has a complete follow-up handling path and process fault tolerance capability for verification anomalies.

[0079] If and only if criteria one, criteria two, and criteria three are satisfied simultaneously, it indicates that the system's fire extinguishing logic, alarm response, and anomaly handling are all normal and coordinated and effective in the simulated fire scenario. Therefore, the overall safety status of the system is determined to be safe.

[0080] Furthermore, the process of locating weak points and generating marker signals to be reinforced specifically involves: when the overall security status of the system is determined to be unsafe, it indicates that a functional defect or logical loophole has been discovered in this simulation evaluation. Therefore, by tracing back to determine the root cause of the failure, the specific link that caused the failure of any criterion is directly located as the system's weak point.

[0081] For example, if criterion one fails, the vulnerability may be related to a fire extinguishing device entity in the digital twin model (such as insufficient nozzle protection radius) or a control logic relationship (such as excessive linkage delay).

[0082] If criterion 2 fails, the weakness may be related to a detector entity (such as an improperly set sensitivity threshold) or the manual verification process.

[0083] If criterion 3 fails, the weakness may be related to the configuration of the double confirmation process or the triggering conditions of the alternative logic.

[0084] In the digital twin model, for the entity objects or logical relationships corresponding to the identified weaknesses, highlighted and annotated reinforcement marker signals are generated, thereby providing intuitive and accurate positioning information for subsequent targeted optimization.

[0085] In summary, this invention solves the problem of static simulation ignoring the influence of human factors and process sequence by constructing a digital twin model that maps physical space, equipment, and fire protection facilities, dynamically simulating the fire extinguishing process and generating a fire extinguishing time sequence chain based on the location of the fire source. On this basis, the invention performs a two-stage verification of alarm events in chronological order, involving both detection signals and manual confirmation. For verification failure nodes, a dual verification process involving identity and video is further initiated, and an alternative confirmation mechanism is triggered when necessary. This enables coherent simulation and evaluation of emergency plan upgrade steps.

[0086] Ultimately, by comprehensively analyzing the integrity of fire suppression coverage, alarm verification status, and confirmation results, the overall safety status of the system is assessed based on the judgment criteria, and weak points are accurately located to generate visual reinforcement markers, thereby achieving automatic location of the root causes of safety risks.

[0087] This invention enables a comprehensive and quantitative assessment and optimization guidance for the operational safety of data center fire control systems, effectively improving the reliability and risk resistance of fire protection systems in complex scenarios.

[0088] The above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, by software, hardware, firmware, or any other combination thereof. When implemented using software, the above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, in the form of a computer program product.

[0089] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the algorithmic steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementations should not be considered beyond the scope of this application.

[0090] In addition, the functional modules in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing module, or each module can exist physically separately, or two or more modules can be integrated into one module.

[0091] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope of the claims.

[0092] Finally, the above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A data center fire protection operation analysis method, characterized in that, include: Construct a digital twin model that maps the physical space, equipment, and fire protection facilities layout and their relationships within the data center; Using the location of the fire source as the trigger condition, the fire extinguishing process is dynamically simulated based on a digital twin model, and the output includes a fire extinguishing time sequence chain containing time series and coverage area; Alarm verification is performed based on the fire extinguishing sequence chain. Alarm events are processed sequentially according to the order of receipt, and a two-stage verification process of detection signal verification and manual confirmation verification is performed. If any stage of verification fails, the system enters a degraded operation mode and records the verification failure node in the digital twin model. Based on the verification failure node, initiate a dual verification process that includes operator identity verification and video verification; If the process fails, an alternative confirmation signal is triggered; Based on a comprehensive analysis of the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the verification status of each link, and the confirmation results, the overall safety status of the system is determined. The system is considered safe only when the entire fire extinguishing process is under control, all alarm events pass dual-link verification, and there are no confirmation failures. Otherwise, weak points are located and marker signals for reinforcement are generated. The method for constructing the digital twin model is as follows: Based on the building floor plan and equipment layout plan of the data center, establish a three-dimensional topology that includes spatial area division, geometric dimensions and connectivity relationships; Key equipment and fire protection facilities are treated as entity objects and added to their corresponding spatial locations in the three-dimensional topology. Configure an associated parameter set for each entity object, the parameter set including at least static attributes for simulation, real-time updated state data, and control logic relationships with other objects; A digital twin model is constructed by integrating a three-dimensional topological structure, all entity objects and their parameter sets.

2. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The method for obtaining the fire extinguishing sequence chain is as follows: Map the location of the fire source to the corresponding spatial node in the digital twin model; Based on the static attributes and control logic relationships of fire protection facilities in the digital twin model, an initial fire extinguishing action sequence is generated; The fire extinguishing process is dynamically simulated based on the initial fire extinguishing action sequence, and the coverage area at each time point is calculated by combining the fire spread model. Verify coverage integrity and time constraints: If the coverage area is complete and the fire extinguishing completion time is earlier than the critical time of fire spread, output the initial fire extinguishing action sequence and the corresponding time sequence and coverage area marker to form a fire extinguishing time sequence chain. Otherwise, trigger the coverage path replanning process.

3. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The coverage path replanning process includes: Firefighting paths are replanned based on the three-dimensional topology of the digital twin model, and the firefighting action sequence is updated. The dynamic simulation and verification were re-executed based on the updated fire extinguishing action sequence until the coverage area was complete and the fire extinguishing was completed before the critical moment of fire spread. Output the final fire extinguishing action sequence, along with the corresponding time sequence and coverage area markers, forming an updated fire extinguishing time sequence chain.

4. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The alarm verification based on the fire extinguishing sequence chain processes alarm events sequentially according to the order of receipt, including: When the digital twin model dynamically simulates the fire extinguishing process, it synchronously generates multiple alarm events that are triggered in chronological order. Using the time sequence corresponding to the fire extinguishing action sequence in the fire extinguishing time sequence chain as a reference, the two-stage verification is performed on each alarm event in sequence according to the triggering time order of each alarm event.

5. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The two-stage verification process, which involves both detection signal verification and manual confirmation verification, includes: For the detection signal corresponding to the currently processed alarm event, the validity is automatically verified: if the strength of the detection signal is greater than or equal to the preset strength threshold in the digital twin model, and the signal duration exceeds the preset minimum duration, the detection signal is determined to pass the automatic verification; otherwise, the automatic verification of the detection signal is determined to fail. If the detection signal passes the automatic verification, a manual remote confirmation request for the alarm event is sent to the monitoring system, and a timer is started. If a valid confirmation instruction is received from the operator before the timer expires, the alarm event is deemed to have passed verification. If the automatic verification of the detection signal fails, or if a valid confirmation instruction is not received before the timer expires, the alarm event is deemed to have failed verification. When an alarm event of verification failure occurs, the control system enters a degraded operation mode and records the location of the digital twin model corresponding to the alarm event as a verification failure node.

6. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The process of initiating a dual verification procedure, which includes both operator identity verification and video verification, based on the verification failure node, includes: Locate and verify the actual physical location of the failure node from the digital twin model; For this actual physical location, perform the following dual verification simultaneously: Identity verification: Collect and verify the identity credentials of the current operator and match them with the preset authorization information; Video verification: Retrieve the real-time video stream from the actual physical location and analyze the video footage for visual features that match the alarm event. If the identity verification is successful and the video verification confirms the presence of the visual features, the double verification process is considered successful; otherwise, the process is considered to have failed.

7. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 6, characterized in that, The alternative confirmation signal is specifically a virtual confirmation instruction that is automatically generated after the double confirmation process fails. It is used to be regarded as having passed confirmation in subsequent security status determination, and its triggering reason is recorded as confirmation process failure.

8. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The comprehensive analysis of the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the verification status of each link, and the confirmation results determines the overall safety status of the system, including: The integrity of the fire extinguishing sequence chain, the dual-stage verification status of each alarm event, and the final confirmation results of each verification failure node are integrated. The following three criteria will be used for comprehensive judgment: Guideline 1: Check whether the fire extinguishing sequence chain is fully executed and whether the fire extinguishing actions cover the complete area; Guideline 2: Verify that all alarm events have passed both automatic validity verification and remote manual confirmation; Rule 3: Check if there are any verification failure nodes. If so, further check whether they have passed the double confirmation process or have been marked by the alternative confirmation signal. The overall security status of the system is determined to be secure if and only if criteria one, criteria two, and criteria three are satisfied simultaneously.

9. The data center fire protection operation analysis method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The specific steps of locating weak points and generating marker signals to be reinforced are as follows: When the overall security status of the system is determined to be unsafe, the link that caused the determination to fail is directly identified as the system's weak point. In the digital twin model, a marker signal to be reinforced is generated for the entity object or logical relationship corresponding to the weak point.

Images