10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska SYSTEM-LEVEL EXPERIMENTS ON CEILING/PIPING/PARTITION SYSTEMS AT UNR-NEES SITE E. Rahmanishamsi1, S. Soroushian2, E. M. Maragakis3 ABSTRACT Many critical facilities and buildings, like hospitals and fire stations, need to be used immediately after earthquakes. However, seismic damage to ceiling-piping-partition systems (CPP) can result in prolonged loss of function as seen in previous earthquakes. Moreover, the damage can cause injuries and loss of property. As part of the project titled “NEESR-GC: Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural System” a series of system-level, largescale experiments were conducted at the UNR-NEES site from December 2012 to April 2013. These experiments attempted to investigate the system-level response and failure mechanisms of nonstructural systems, including steel-studded gypsum partition walls, suspended ceilings, and fire sprinkler systems. The results also show how these subsystems interact among themselves as well as with the structural system of a building. Initial observations included: failure of perimeter and in-field connections of ceiling system, damage to the boundaries of partition walls, failure of braced detail in partial height partitions, collapse of free standing partitions, tearing of ceiling tiles because of the interaction between piping and ceiling system, damage to the partition studs, and failure of piping hangers. 1 PhD Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, email: [email protected] 2 Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, email: [email protected] 3 Professor, Dean of College of Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, email: [email protected] Rahmanishamsi, E., Soroushian, S., Maragakis, M. System-Level Experiments on Ceiling/Piping/Partition Systems at UNR-NEES Site. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014. 10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska System-Level Experiments on Ceiling/Piping/Partition Systems at UNRNEES Site E. Rahmanishamsi1, S. Soroushian2, E. M. Maragakis3 ABSTRACT Many critical facilities and buildings, like hospitals and fire stations, need to be used immediately after earthquakes. However, seismic damage to ceiling-piping-partition systems (CPP) can result in prolonged loss of function as seen in previous earthquakes. Moreover, the damage can cause injuries and loss of property. As part of the project titled “NEESR-GC: Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural System” a series of system-level, large-scale experiments were conducted at the UNR-NEES site from December 2012 to April 2013. These experiments attempted to investigate the system-level response and failure mechanisms of nonstructural systems, including steel-studded gypsum partition walls, suspended ceilings, and fire sprinkler systems. The results also show how these subsystems interact among themselves as well as with the structural system of a building. Initial observations included: failure of perimeter and in-field connections of ceiling system, damage to the boundaries of partition walls, failure of braced detail in partial height partitions, collapse of free standing partitions, tearing of ceiling tiles because of the interaction between piping and ceiling system, damage to the partition studs, and failure of piping hangers. Introduction Nonstructural components typically represent between 65% and 85% of the construction cost of commercial buildings. Furthermore, damage to most types of nonstructural components in a building is usually triggered at shake intensities much lower than those required to initiate structural damage . Therefore, improving the seismic performance of these components can lead to important reductions in the economic impact of earthquakes . Along with cost benefits, important structures like hospitals can be designed to remain fully functional immediately after a seismic event to handle medical emergencies . Extensive systematic experimental data is required as a supplement to field observation to improve the available nonstructural design provisions such as the NFPA13 , ASTM C754 , and ASTM E580  (Soroushian et al., ). Several studies have been conducted on the seismic 1 PhD Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, email: [email protected] 2 Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, email: [email protected] 3 Professor, Dean of College of Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, email: [email protected] Rahmanishamsi, E., Soroushian, S., Maragakis, M. System-Level Experiments on Ceiling/Piping/Partition Systems at UNR-NEES Site. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014. response of nonstructural subassemblies and their components, for instance ceiling tiles and piping systems, as early as the 1980s . Recent large-scale experiments by Soroushian et al.  showed that ceiling and piping systems can be significantly vulnerable to seismic loads. However, ceiling-piping-partition systems (CPP) consist of several components, have complex three dimensional geometries, and have complicated boundary conditions that require further full-scale experiments to understand their system-level response. As part of the project titled “NEESR-GC: Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural System” a series of system-level, large-scale experiments were conducted at the UNR-NEES site from December 2012 to April 2013. These experiments attempted to investigate the system-level response and failure mechanisms of nonstructural systems, including steelstudded gypsum partition walls, suspended ceilings, and fire sprinkler systems. Test Specimen (a) (b) Figure 1. 2-story steel braced frame test bed (a) Test Setup (b) Elevation view A Test-Bed structure (a two-story, 2bay by 1-bay steel-braced frame) was designed and constructed to simulate the realistic dynamic environment for the CPP systems. To accommodate large-scale realistic specimens, the Test-Bed was 60 ft. long, 11.5 ft. wide and 24.5 ft. high. This structure was mounted longitudinally over three bi-axial shake tables (Fig. 1). The proposed experimental program aimed to investigate the performance of acceleration and drift-sensitive nonstructural systems. Elastic braces were used in the first phase (linear tests) to obtain high floor acceleration while yielding braces were used in the second phase (nonlinear tests) to achieve large inter-story drift. The fundamental natural period of the structure was 0.23 sec. and 0.36 sec. for the linear and nonlinear Test-Bed structures respectively. Further information about the Test-Bed is provided in Soroushian et al., . Nonstructural Systems Looking at technical documents and major manufacturer’s catalogs, in addition to commonly used construction details, different variables that could affect the seismic performance of CPP systems were identified. Combining these variables, a total of fifteen different configurations of suspended ceiling systems, two configurations of piping systems, and fourteen configurations of partition walls were designed and installed in the Test-Bed. The following subsections describe each nonstructural system. Partition Walls Figure 2 shows the identical layout of partition walls on both floors, with the exception of two additional content rooms installed only on the second floor. To be able to test several configurations (details) of partition walls in each test, the walls were divided in different sections using a 1-ft. gap in between. The considered variables in the wall configurations included the followings: connectivity of the sheathing and studs to the top tracks, presence of return walls, details of wall intersections, height of the partition walls, stud and track thickness (30 mil or 18 mil), direction of walls compared to the excitation direction, and whether an opening was present. All walls were designed per ASTM C754-11. The partition walls were constructed using 5/8-in. gypsum boards and the CEMCO ViperStud drywall framing system (350VS125-18/30 and 350VT125-18/30). Twenty-gauge CH studs (212CH-34) and J runners (212JR-34) with 1/2-in. and 1-in. gypsum boards were utilized to build the shaft walls (P1-F, P7-F, and P8-F in Table 4, experimental observation section). Studs were located 24 in. apart, attached to the gypsum boards by #6 drywall screws spaced 12 in. in the field and 8 in. at boundaries. Partition wall tracks were fastened to concrete slabs using 0.157-in diameter, fully knurled shank Hilti X-U Universal Powder-Actuated Fasteners (PAFs). Three different details were used to attach the partition walls to the top concrete deck: slip track, full connection, and sliding/frictional. In the full connection detail, studs were screwed to the top tracks, while in the slip track, studs were not. The sliding/frictional detail  allows the top tracks to slide in relation to the concrete deck. All the perimeter walls were full-height while others (such as content room walls) were partial height. Based on ASCE7-10 , partitions greater than 6 ft. in height shall be laterally braced to the structure. Therefore, rigid bracing (formed from steel studs) and diagonal wire bracing were utilized to restrain the mid-span and north content room walls, respectively (Fig. 2). For other cases, the walls, which were 6 ft. tall, remained free standing with no lateral restraint. Further information about partition connection details can be found in Davies et al.,  Gap between Partitions Content Room2 with Various Height Mid Span Partitions Gap between Partitions Content Room1 Figure 2. View of partition wall layout of second floor Ceiling Systems Twenty-two ceiling assemblies with fifteen different configurations were designed considering the following variables: area of ceiling systems, type of wall angles, detail of perimeter connections, bracing of ceiling systems, material and weight of ceiling tiles, seismic expansion joints, and interaction with other nonstructural systems. All the assemblies were designed and installed in the test frame per ASTM E580/E580M-11b . The descriptions of UNR ceiling configurations are summarized in Table 1. More details on the test configurations are provided in Rahmanishamsi et al., . The ceiling system was constructed from Armstrong Prelude 15/16 in. exposed tee systems with heavy-duty main runners and 24x24x3/4-in. tiles. The main runners, installed in the longitudinal direction (north-south direction), were braced in some configurations with steel stud compression posts and 45-degree, 12-gauge splay wires. Pop rivets or Armstrong BERC2 seismic clips with tight screws were used to attach the ceiling grids to the wall angles on the north and west side. Alternatively, on the south and east side, grid members were attached with 3/4-in. clearance to the wall angles that allowed the grid members to float freely. In all configurations, the ceilings were suspended 3 ft. from the bottom of the structural deck with 12-gauge Hilti X-CW hanger wires, spaced a maximum of 8 in. from perimeter walls and 4 ft. apart elsewhere. Additional hanger wires were used at the location of gypsum board panels that represented the light fixtures. Table 1. Ceiling description of UNR experiments Test L-1 …* NL-3 Assembly- Config. Floor # # 1-1 … 22-2 1 … 4 Nominal Sizec (ft) 58×10 … 58×10 Panel Perimeter Seismic Bracing Comments Weight (psf) Angle (in.) Separation Joint 1.31 … 1.31 NO … Yes 2 … 7/8+clip NO … NO No bracing … Nonlinear test * Due to space limitation, some of the ceiling configurations are not shown. Please see  for more information. Fire Sprinkler Piping Two fire sprinkler piping systems with different lengths, namely long (Fig. 3) and short systems, were designed per NFPA13  utilizing schedule 40 steel pipes. The long piping system was installed in the first three linear and last two nonlinear tests, while the short piping system was used in the other experiments. The drawing of short piping system is not presented in this paper due to space limitation. Both systems included 4-in. riser pipes, 2.5-4.0-in. main runs, and several branch lines of various lengths and diameters. Considering the geometry limitation, extra mass was added to the end of some branch lines to simulate longer pipe lines. All connections on risers and their connections with main runs were grooved fit, while the rest of the connections were threaded. The piping system was hung from the structure with 3/8-in. all Pipe Hangers & Wire Restraints Additional Mass Pipe Solid Brace Pipe Hanger Main run 4 in. Riser Pipe Solid Brace Figure 3. Overall plan view of long piping system threaded rods that were anchored to the deck with 3/8-in diameter Hilti KH-EZ concrete screw anchors. Lateral resistance was provided by inclined 1-in.-diameter longitudinal and lateral sway braces on the main run near the riser pipe and an additional lateral sway brace at the end of the main run for the long piping system. The ends of the two branch lines were restrained with 45degree, 12-gauge wires to limit the lateral movement. Two types of drop pipes were installed in the piping system: flexible and conventional (rigid). A minimal gap was provided at the locations of sprinkler heads of all the flexible and some of the conventional drops. A 2-in. oversized ring was used in the rest of conventional drops. Excitation Protocol A set of ramp-up table motions were generated using an analytical procedure in order to achieve the target motions on the desired levels. These levels were the second floor, for the first seven motions of the linear tests, and the shake table for other cases (nonlinear tests and the last two motions of linear tests). The AC156  spectrum with the maximum parameters of ARIG-H=2.0g, AFLX-H=4.0g, SDS=2.5g, and z/h=0.5 was considered as the target Table 2. Peak accelerations and story drift ratios spectrum for the full-scale motion. In Acceleration (g) Drift Ratio (%) total, 59 uniaxial motions were applied Test Table 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor in longitudinal direction during eight experiments with PGA (peak average 0.91 0.99 1.52 0.43 0.16 L-1 achieved acceleration on the tables) 1.17 1.39 2.35 0.52 0.25 L-2 ranging between 0.12g to 2.0g. The peak 1.02 1.31 2.27 0.45 0.24 L-3 average achieved floor acceleration 1.03 1.39 2.39 0.45 0.23 L-5 (PFA) varied from 0.14g to 1.59g on the 0.94 1.59 2.47 0.48 0.25 L-6 columns of first floor and 0.16g to 2.47g 2.04 1.22 1.41 2.97 2.34 NL-1 on the columns of second floor. Table 2 1.69 1.09 1.21 2.60 2.15 NL-2 shows the PGA, PFA, and peak inter1.68 0.89 1.06 2.72 2.25 NL-3 story drift ratio for each experiment. Experimental Observations This section describes the observed damage to the nonstructural systems during the UNR experiments with main focus on partition walls, due to space limitation. More information on the performance of ceiling and piping systems is provided in Rahmanishamsi et al., . Partition Walls The observed damage for the partition walls may be categorized as in Table 3. The last three categories (TB, BC, and CP) are assumed to be related to the out-of-plane acceleration, while the others are mainly due to the in-plane drift or a combination of drift and acceleration. Table 4 and 5 show the minimum average inter-story drift and PFA corresponding to each damage definition for the in-plane and out-of-plane performance of partition walls respectively. Some of the damage mechanisms, such as FS, FT, and TS, could not be detected during the experiments because the studs and tracks were covered by gypsum boards. These mechanisms were observed after removing the boards at the end of the tests. Therefore, the floor drift corresponding to the starting point of this damage could not be accurately reported. Damage in partition walls with the full connection detail included pulling out Damage definition Abbr. gypsum screws from the studs, Popping out or rocking of gypsum board screws GS damage in the boundary studs, Damage in connection of studs to top tracks ST and the formation of plastic Tape damage and cracks in the wall corners VJ hinges in the field studs. Figure Cracks at the corners of partition openings (windows or doors) CO 4 depicts the damage pattern of Damage along corner beads and boundary studs BS the full connection detail. Since Crushing of gypsum boards GB the studs are connected to the Damage in flanges of transverse wall top tracks FT top tracks, the upper part of the Damage in field studs including forming plastic hinges FS studs (about 1-ft. from the top) Failure of top/bottom track connections to the concrete slab TS moves with the top floor (x2), Damage in connection of partition braces to top tracks TB while the bottom part moves Failure of brace connections to top tracks BC with the lower floor (x1) (Fig. Collapse of partition walls CP 4a&b). In low-amplitude motions, the studs bend slightly at about 1 ft. from the top to handle the relative displacement. However, brittle gypsum boards cannot deform in the same manner as the studs. As a result, the gypsum screws pull out from the gypsum boards (Fig. 4c), which allows the boards to move independently of the upper part of the studs. Increasing the drift causes damage in the boundary studs (BS) and forms plastic hinges in field studs (FS) (Fig. 4d). Table 3. Partition damage definition Table 4. Drift (%) corresponding to each damage definition for full-height partition walls Partition name Stud Top THK Connection (Ga.) Detail Damage Definition GS ST VJ CO BS Drift (%) 1.05 0.75 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.49 1.49 1.49 2.34 1.40 1.40 - GB 1.05 20 Slip Track P1-F* 25 Full Conn. 0.47 P2-F 0.39 2.09 2.58 20 Sliding P3-F 2.48 20 Sliding P4-F 0.39 2.09 20 Sliding P5-F 0.39 20 Sliding P6-F 2.06 2.97 20 Slip Track P7-F 20 Slip Track P8-F 0.52 1.49 20 Full Conn. P1-S -2.34 2.34 20 Slip Track P2-S 1.40 1.62 1.40 25 Slip Track P3-S 1.40 20 Slip Track P4-S 1.40 1.40 20 Slip Track P5-S 1.62 20 Slip Track P6-S 1.62 20 Slip Track P7-S 1.62 20 Slip Track P8-S 20 Full Conn. P9-S *: -F and –S refer to the first and second floor respectively. D**: This damage was observed after removing the gypsum boards at the end of the test. FT FS TS D** D** D** 2.15 - D** D** D** D** 1.62 - D** 2.15 - In partition walls with the slip track connections, studs are not screwed to the top tracks. Therefore, the studs and the gypsum boards stay connected together and slide inside Damage Definition Partition Height the top tracks (Fig 5a). Although this sliding Bracing TB BC CP name (in.) prevents the bending of the studs, it can lead to PFA(g) the crushing of gypsum boards due to the 93 braced 0.82 1.03 P10-F interaction with structural components (Fig. 93 braced 0.90 P11-F 5c). The boundary studs may also pop out from 93 braced P10-S the top tracks (Fig. 5b). As the boundary studs 93 braced 1.10 1.10 1.39 P11-S slide back towards their initial positions, they 72 unbraced n/a n/a 0.60 P10-F may get caught in track flanges, causing the 72 unbraced n/a n/a 0.60 P11-F studs to pull out from the gypsum boards (Fig 72 unbraced n/a n/a 0.68 P10-S 5d). In the case of partitions with return walls, 72 unbraced n/a n/a 0.68 P11-S the boards and studs of transverse walls cannot slide in out-of-plane direction, and thus the sliding is followed by the separation of gypsum boards at the corners (VJ) (Fig. 5e). In larger drifts, studs of transverse walls may bend the flanges of the top tracks and pop out (FT) to move with the studs of the longitudinal walls (x1) (Fig 5f). In-plane and out-of-plane sliding of the top tracks in the sliding/frictional detail (P3-F to P6-F in Table 4) improves the performance of partition corners by delaying damage VJ and eliminating damage FT. However, in large drifts, due to the space limitation for sliding, the connection works as a full-connection detail and forms the plastic hinges in the studs. For all details, PAFs used for attachment of the wall tracks to concrete base materials performed well with only two minor damage occurrences noted (TS) in test NL-1 and NL-3. No lateral restraint was provided for 6-ft., partial-height partitions as it is allowed by Table 5. PFA corresponding to each damage definition for transverse walls Top track Stud to track screw X2 Stud to track screw Top Floor Gypsum screws X1 Studs Gypsum boards (c) X1 X1 Bottom Floor (a) (b) (d) Figure 4. Full connection walls: (a) partition walls before applying drift, (b) partition walls after applying large drift, (c) popping out of gypsum screws, and (d) forming plastic hinges in field studs ASCE7-10 . However, partitions P10-F, P11-F, P10-S, and P11-S collapsed in low amplitude motions (PFA = 0.60-0.70g) while others (P12-F to P17-F and P12-S to P17-S in Fig. 2) remained damage-free in all experiments. The results suggest that 6-ft., free-standing partitions can be significantly vulnerable to the out-of-plane seismic load if there is no return wall. In addition, even though the bracing improves the performance of partial height partitions, damage in the brace connections may still result in collapse of the wall, as indicated in Table 5. Top track X2 No screw Top Floor Gypsum boards X1 (b) Studs (e) (d) X2 X2 X1 X1 X1 X1 (a) Bottom Floor (c) (f) Figure 5. Slip track partition walls: (a) partition walls after applying large drift, (b) popping out of stud from track, (c) damage GB, (d) damage BS, (e) damage VJ, and (f) damage FT Ceiling Systems Observed damage in ceiling systems can be categorized as in Table 6. More information on damage definition can be found in Soroushian et al., . Table 7 summarizes the PFA corresponding to each damage definition in the UNR experiments. In most configurations, the damage was initiated in the perimeter connections followed by deformation of grid latches. Failure of Table 6. Ceiling damage definition grid latches in larger motions led the ceiling grids and tiles to misalign and fall Damage definition Abbr. down. In the ceiling system with 7/8-in. Misalignment of panels M wall angles and seismic clips, perimeter Falling of panels F damage included grid unseating, seismic Damage (tearing) in panels around sprinkler heads T clip damage, and wall angle crushing. This Failure of pop rivets P damage was likely due to the insufficient Damage in seismic clips and 7/8 in. wall angles S seat length of wall angles . During the Buckling of grids B linear tests, failure of pop rivets was the Damage in grid latches L only damage in perimeter connections of Failure of grid connections C the ceiling systems with 2-in. wall angles. Unseating of grids and damage in 2 in. wall angles U The damage of ceiling systems with 2-in. wall angles, compared to the ceiling with 7/8-in. wall angles, was observed at a higher PFA followed by less extensive damage in larger motions. Moreover, results showed that increasing the weight of the ceiling system (ceilings with larger area or heavier panels) expedited the failure of perimeter connections in both cases. In all configurations, ceiling hanger wires and compression posts were remained intact during the experiments. Further information on observed damage and comparisons of performance of different configurations is provided in Rahmanishamsi et al., (2014). Table 7. PFA (g) corresponding to each damage definition Test L-1 L-1 … NL-3 NL-3 Assembly- Config. Floor # # 1-1 2-2 … 21-1 22-2 1 2 … 15 4 M F T … 0.89 1.01 … 0.89 1.01 1.24 … 0.81 1.01 Damage Definition P S B PFA(g) 0.80 n/a 1.04 n/a 1.52 … … … n/a 0.44 n/a 1.01 - L C U 0.99 1.24 … 0.81 1.01 1.52 … 0.84 1.01 … n/a n/a Fire Sprinkler Piping The piping systems were pressurized to 50 psi to simulate average municipal water pressure and allow observation of any possible leakage. However, no leakage was reported during the UNR experiments. The piping hanger clip next to the longitudinal and lateral sway braces failed at PFA=1.27g (Fig. 8a) in Test NL-1. In the first two experiments (Test L-1 and L2), the connection of the longitudinal brace on 3/8 in rod the second floor slipped off from the main run at PFA=1.23g. The connection was replaced Clips with a different detail in later experiments to eliminate the damage. Interaction between the sprinkler heads, with the conventional arm over, and the ceiling panels knocked out up to 8 in. (in the most extreme case) of the panels (b) (a) (Fig. 6b). This damage was prevented in certain locations, using flexible hose drops. Figure 6. Damage in (a) piping hanger clips Further information on the observed damage and (b) ceiling panels can be found in Rahmanishamsi et al., . Conclusions The following conclusions are based on the observations of the UNR experiments, which may not necessarily be replicated in the field: (1) damage in partitions with the full connection details starts with popping out of gypsum screws followed by significant damage to the field and boundary studs; (2) unbraced 6-ft. tall partitions with no return walls can be highly vulnerable to seismic loads; (3) partition-brace connections need to be carefully designed based on the possible seismic demand; (4) due to unseating of grids in ceiling systems with 7/8-in. wall angles, the first damage initiates at lower PFA, in comparison to the ceiling systems with 2-in. wall angles; (5) larger or heavier ceiling systems are more vulnerable to seismic excitation; and (6) flexible hose drops substantially reduce the piping-ceiling interaction. Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0721399. This Grand Challenge (GC) project to study the seismic response of nonstructural systems is under the direction of E. M. Maragakis from the University of Nevada, Reno and Co-PIs: T. Hutchinson (UCSD), A. Filiatrault (UB), S. French (G. Tech), and B. Reitherman (CUREE). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. The authors recognize and thank the following companies for providing product donations and technical support: Armstrong, Hilti, and CEMCO steel. References 1. Taghavi, S., Miranda, E. Response Assessment of Nonstructural Building Elements. Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2003. 2. Araya-Letelier, G., Miranda, E. Novel sliding/frictional connections for improved seismic performance of gypsum wallboard partitions, The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012. 3. Davies, R. D., Retamales, R., Mosqueda, G., Filiatrault, A. Experimental Seismic Evaluation, Model Parameterization, and Effects of Cold-Formed Steel-Framed Gypsum Partition Walls on the Seismic Performance of an Essential Facility, Technical Report MCEER -11-0005, Buffalo, NY, 2011. 4. NFPA13. Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection Association, 2010 Edition, Quincy, MA, 2011. 5. ASTM C754-11. Standard Specification for Installation of Steel Framing Members to Receive Screw-Attached Gypsum Panel Product, ASTM International, Volume 04.01, 2011. 6. ASTM E580/E580M-11b. Standard Practice for Installation of Ceiling Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-in Panels in Areas Subject to Earthquake Ground Motions, ASTM International, Volume 04.06, 2011. 7. Soroushian, S., Maragakis, E. M., Itani, M., Pekcan, G., Zaghi, A. E. Design of a Test Bed Structure for Shake Table Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Systems, Structures Congress, ASCE, Las Vegas, USA, 2011. 8. ATC. FEMA 461-Interim protocols for determining seismic performance characteristics of structural and nonstructural components through laboratory testing, Redwood City, CA, 2007. 9. Soroushian, S., Rahmanishamsi, E., Ryu, K. P., Maragakis, E. M., Reinhorn, A. M. A Comparative Study of Sub-System and System Level Experiments of Suspension Ceiling Systems, Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, USA, 2014. 10. ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 2010. 11. Rahmanishamsi, E., Soroushian, S., Maragakis, M., Seismic Response of Ceiling/Piping/Partition Systems in NEESR-GC System-level Experiments, ASCE, Structures Congress, Boston, USA, 2014. 12. ICC Evaluation Services, Inc. ICEE-ES AC 156, Acceptance criteria for seismic qualification by shake-table testing of non-structural components and systems, Whittier, CA, 2007. 13. Soroushian, S., Ryan, K., Maragakis, M., Sato, E., Sasaki, T., Okazaki, T., Tedesco, L., Zaghi, A., Mosqueda, G., and Alvarez, D., Seismic Response of Ceiling/Sprinkler Piping Nonstructural Systems in NEES TIPS/NEES Nonstructural/NIED Collaborative Tests on a Full Scale 5-Story Building, ASCE, Structures Congress, Chicago, USA, 2012.
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project