Authored by: Rimkus Forensic Services Marketing Team
Published 6/12/2026
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA report) classifies data centers as critical infrastructure, stating that “unexpected data center shutdowns would have widespread repercussions to society.”
When an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) module explodes, a cooling system fails during peak load, or a fire suppression system discharges into a live server hall, the technical questions that follow may carry significant financial and legal consequences for the parties involved.
Forensic investigation reconstructs how these failures unfold and develops the technical findings that insurance and litigation outcomes often turn on.
Key takeaways: How data center equipment failure investigations work
Claims managers and litigation attorneys handling data center losses face overlapping technical, financial, and evidentiary challenges.
What matters most
- Data center failures commonly span power, cooling, and fire protection systems with interdependencies that complicate root cause analysis
- Distinguishing construction-phase defects from operational failures is a recurring challenge that may influence liability allocation
- Rolling overwrite cycles may erase digital evidence from building control and monitoring systems if personnel do not preserve it promptly
How investigations typically proceed
- Investigators evaluate physical evidence, digital logs, commissioning records, and maintenance documentation
- Recognized fire-protection, mechanical, and telecommunications standards generally provide technical benchmarks rather than serving to assign legal fault
Contact us to discuss how forensic investigation applies to a specific data center loss.
What is a data center equipment failure?
A data center equipment failure is any malfunction, degradation, or loss of performance in the mechanical, electrical, or fire protection systems that support information technology operations. The term covers malfunctions as narrow as a single UPS module tripping offline and as broad as a cascading loss of cooling that forces a facility-wide shutdown.
Investigating these failures falls to forensic engineering. The American Society of Civil Engineers’ Forensic Engineering Division (ASCE) describes the discipline as the application of engineering science to matters that fall within, or may relate to, the legal and dispute-resolution system.
Why do data center failures carry such high stakes?
A single failure event can generate first-party property and business interruption (BI) claims, subrogation claims against the party whose act or product may have caused the loss, and direct third-party lawsuits. Data center outages may also trigger contingent business interruption (CBI) claims from downstream clients.
BI coverage often involves establishing a causal chain from a covered peril through physical damage to operational interruption, along with the period of restoration. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) documented a 2008 power failure at a federal credential-processing facility that halted card activations for over a month, with the full cost of the failure reported as unknown.
Which systems are most often involved in data center failures?
Data center failures commonly involve interdependent system categories. Because these systems operate in a sequential dependency chain, a failure in one category often triggers cascading effects in the others.
Power distribution and backup power
The power chain follows a defined sequence from utility feed through UPS and automatic transfer switch (ATS) to backup generator. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines a UPS as a device with an internal battery that allows connected devices to run for at least a short time when the primary power source fails. ATS failures generally involve either failure to transfer load to emergency power or failure to re-transfer load after restoration.
Cooling and environmental controls
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Technical Committee 9.9 (TC 9.9) publishes thermal guidelines that establish recommended and allowable operating envelopes for data processing equipment. Operation within the allowable but outside the recommended range may still be permitted, though reliability may be affected.
Fire protection and other mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems
Data center fire protection often relies on preaction sprinkler systems, sometimes double-interlock and normally dry, paired with early-warning detection such as air-sampling smoke detection. High airflow rates can create two distinct detection challenges: dilution of smoke and elevated flow speeds that affect detector response time.
What types of equipment failure do investigations examine?
Forensic investigations commonly distinguish between construction-phase defects and operational failures, a classification that may influence liability allocation.
Construction-phase defects can include installation errors deviating from approved submittals, design deficiencies where a system followed the design but failed to meet specified performance, and documentation failures at handover. A latent construction-phase defect may remain dormant for years until operational conditions trigger its manifestation.
Investigators identify operational failures through indicators such as sensor drift, unauthorized set-point changes, and ad hoc sequence modifications. The National Electrical Code (NEC) recognizes that hazards often arise from improper or absent maintenance of equipment that was initially installed without defect. The commissioning boundary often serves as an evidentiary reference point between construction-phase and operational-phase responsibility.
How is a data center equipment failure investigated?
Forensic investigation of data center failures typically proceeds through phases defined by NIST SP 800-86: collection, examination, analysis, and reporting.
Root cause analysis follows the physical and digital evidence to develop an objective understanding of the failure sequence. Investigators may examine the involved mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems, test failed components against manufacturer specifications, and compare facility conditions against applicable standards.
Preserving and documenting evidence
Evidence preservation is typically the most time-sensitive element of a data center failure investigation. Building management system (BMS) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) platforms commonly store digital records on rolling overwrite schedules, which can permanently delete records unless personnel export them promptly. NIST’s default guidance is that when it is unclear whether evidence needs to be preserved, it generally should be preserved.
When investigators collect physical evidence in data center investigations, they may draw on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1188 and other established forensic protocols for collection, documentation, preservation, and chain of custody.
What standards inform data center failure investigations?
Several standards frameworks commonly serve as analytical references in data center failure investigations, though their applicability varies by jurisdiction and circumstances:
- The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) publishes NFPA 75 (fire protection of information technology equipment) and NFPA 76 (fire protection of telecommunications facilities), which address detection, suppression, and construction requirements
- Data center standards define infrastructure rating levels from Rated-1 through Rated-4, each with a defined vulnerability profile
- ASHRAE TC 9.9 thermal guidelines define recommended and allowable operating envelopes by equipment class
These standards can help evaluate whether a facility’s design, construction, or operation conformed to the applicable standard of care. Investigators generally need to determine the version in effect at the time of design, construction, and failure.
What emerging risks are changing data center failure investigations?
Data center design is evolving quickly, and two trends in particular are reshaping how failures occur and how investigators approach them: the shift to lithium-ion battery energy storage and the rising power density associated with artificial intelligence (AI) workloads. Both change the physical evidence a failure leaves behind and the range of disciplines a single investigation must bring together.
Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly replacing or supplementing traditional lead-acid units in UPS installations and on-site energy storage. Lithium-ion cells can enter thermal runaway, a self-sustaining reaction that may propagate between cells and produce intense, difficult-to-extinguish fires that behave very differently from a conventional electrical fire. NFPA 855 addresses the installation of stationary energy storage systems, including spacing, ventilation, gas detection, and fire protection provisions, and it has become a common analytical reference for these events. Investigations can examine the failure origin at the cell or module level, the propagation path through the array, the timing of any off-gas detection, and whether ventilation and suppression performed as the design intended.
Rising rack power densities, accelerated by AI compute clusters, concentrate far more heat in each cabinet than legacy facilities were built to handle. Many operators are moving from air cooling toward liquid approaches such as direct-to-chip cold plates and full immersion, which introduce failure modes that air-cooled investigations rarely encountered: coolant leaks near energized equipment, fluid compatibility and corrosion issues, and pump, manifold, or fitting failures. Because these systems place a conductive or dielectric fluid in close proximity to high-value electronics, a single leak can raise coupled electrical, thermal, and water-damage questions, and leak-detection logs and containment design often become central pieces of evidence.
These developments tend to widen the scope of an investigation rather than narrow it. Establishing how a modern data center failure unfolded increasingly draws electrical, chemical, fire, and thermal expertise into a single, coordinated analysis, and it places added weight on preserving perishable digital and physical evidence before recovery work alters the scene.
How do investigation findings support litigation and insurance claims?
Forensic investigation findings may support multiple proceedings simultaneously, including first-party claims, subrogation actions, and direct third-party lawsuits. Each often involves identifying the specific failure mechanism and the causal chain to the claimed loss.
The role of expert witness testimony
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 702 and the Daubert/Kumho Tire framework govern expert testimony in data center failure cases. The 2023 amendment to Rule 702 clarified that the proponent of expert testimony must demonstrate admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Courts generally examine both the methodology and its application to the facts of the case.
Forensic findings represent opinions to a reasonable degree of professional certainty. The investigation’s value often lies in its methodology: systematic, traceable to recognized standards, and documented at every stage.
Connecting forensic investigation to data center loss resolution
Data center equipment failures can generate high-value claims that cross multiple engineering disciplines and legal frameworks. Forensic investigation can provide the structured, evidence-based analysis that claims managers and litigation attorneys rely on to evaluate these losses.
Rimkus Forensic Services professionals apply multidisciplinary engineering and investigative expertise to data center equipment failure matters. The team includes professionals who provide expert witness testimony in litigation and arbitration, as well as specialists in fire investigation, mechanical and electrical engineering, and energy, among other areas of expertise. Backed by 40+ years of experience and 900+ experts on staff, Rimkus can support objective evaluation of major complex losses. Contact us to discuss a specific loss or litigation matter.
Frequently asked questions about data center equipment failure
What reduces the risk of data center power outages?
Reducing the risk of IT service interruptions during grid outages often involves a layered power architecture combining redundancy, disciplined operations, and continuous monitoring. Dual utility feeds, enterprise-grade online UPS systems sized to bridge generator startup, automatic transfer switches, regular failover testing, and geographically redundant data centers may help reduce outage exposure.
How do cybersecurity threats contribute to data center downtime?
Cybersecurity threats contribute to data center downtime by exploiting vulnerabilities in operational technology and facility control systems, creating pathways from digital intrusion to physical service disruption. Poor segmentation, ransomware that destroys or encrypts backups, and malicious commands affecting breakers, load balancing, or alarms can increase the scope and duration of outages.
What role does hardware redundancy play in preventing data center outages?
Hardware redundancy may serve as a foundational risk mitigation strategy by allowing data centers to continue operating when individual components fail rather than forcing an immediate shutdown. Common configurations include dual power supplies, RAID or replicated storage, clustered servers, redundant network paths, and designs such as N+1 and 2N, though effectiveness still depends on proper commissioning, maintenance, and operational discipline.
This article is intended to provide general information and insights into prevailing industry practices. It is not intended to constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal, technical, or professional advice. The content does not replace consultation with a qualified expert or professional regarding the specific facts and circumstances of any particular matter.