Manual 21243541

Manual 21243541
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 [1]. Therefore, improving the seismic performance of these components can
lead to important reductions in the economic impact of earthquakes [2]. Along with cost benefits,
important structures like hospitals can be designed to remain fully functional immediately after a
seismic event to handle medical emergencies [3].
Extensive systematic experimental data is required as a supplement to field observation to
improve the available nonstructural design provisions such as the NFPA13 [4], ASTM C754 [5],
and ASTM E580 [6] (Soroushian et al., [7]). 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 [8]. Recent large-scale experiments by Soroushian et al. [9]
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., [10].
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[5].
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 [2] 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 [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., [3]
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 [6]. The descriptions of
UNR ceiling configurations are summarized in Table 1. More details on the test configurations
are provided in Rahmanishamsi et al., [11]. 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 [11] 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 [4] 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 [12] 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., [11].
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 [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., [13]. 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 [9]. 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., [11].
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.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement