Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Simulation of Nonstructural Components
bySiavash Soroushian
PhD StudentUniversity of Nevada, Reno
E-Defense WorkshopAugust 17-19, 2011, Japan
Host Institution Funded by
Research Team
2
Manos Maragakis, PI of NEES-GC Keri L. Ryan, PI of NEES TIPSSiavash Soroushian, PhD student
University of Nevada, Reno:
University of Connecticut:
Arash E. Zaghi, Assistant Professor
USG Building Systems:Lee TedescoDennis Alvarez
NSFA
Russ Fleming
Host Institution Funded by
Why are Nonstructural Elements Important?
3
82%
18%
87%
13%
92%
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Office Hotel Hospital
Nonstructural Structural
Nonstructural damage accounts for 79% of the total earthquake damage
• Nonstructural systems are subjected to the dynamic environment of the building
• Seismic damage to nonstructural systems can be triggered at response intensities smaller than those required to produce structural damage
Host Institution Funded by
Types of Nonstructural Systems
Classification according to sensitive response parameter:
• Interstory drift-sensitive elements: masonry walls, partitions, doors, windows
• Acceleration-sensitive elements: suspended ceilings, boilers, ducts, tanks, light fixtures
• Drift and acceleration-sensitive elements: fire sprinklers system, pipes
4
Host Institution Funded by
5
Objectives of System Experiments at E-Defense Site
NEES - UNR Test-bed
Study configurations of Ceiling-Piping-Partition (CPP) systems in full-scale 5-story steel moment frame
building
– Comparative performance of CPP systems for isolated and fixed-base structural configurations.
– Response of the nonstructural components, as part of a system, under large drifts/accelerations.
– Interactions within and between the nonstructural components.
– Interactions between the components and the structure.
5
Location of CPP Nonstructural Systems
NEES - UNR Test-bed
6
Ceilings, Partition Walls, and Sprinkler Piping (CPP) installed on 4th and 5th floorso Highest accelerations expected (2.0g)o Large drifts (near 1%)o Best available open space
Objectives of Nonstructural Testing
NEES - UNR Test-bed
7
Ceiling system
Effect of bracing on large areas of ceiling.
Performance of perimeter seismic clips.
Effect of additional mass such as lighting systems.
Dynamic amplification of ceiling relative to floor.
Host Institution Funded by
8
Ceiling System Design Assumptions
USG Suspended Ceiling material were used for this experiment.
The ceiling grid system were designed based on International Building Code (IBC) category D,E,F.
Area of the ceiling is 970 ft2.
The 5th ceiling system has lateral bracing, there is no bracing at the 4th floor.
Some heavy tiles were placed to represent the additional weight of lighting systems.
7/8” wall closure (angles) were used along with ACM7 Seismic Clip.
The plenum height is 3 ft.
``
``
Ceiling System Perimeter Attachment
9
Unattached Perimeter:- ¾” end grid/ wall clearance - Screw at the middle of clip slot- Partition attach screw through either wings of clip
``
``
Attached Perimeter:- End grid tied to the partitions- Screw at either top holes of the clip- Partition attach screw through either wings of clip
Ceiling System Hangers and Braces
10
Ceiling Hanger Wires:- To transfer the ceiling weight to the deck above.- Hilti X-CW hanger wires at 4’ on center were used.- Hangers installed within 8” of perimeter partitions.
Ceiling Bracing:- To transfer the seismic force of ceiling to the deck above- Composed of :1. Compression post
1.a Pipe section
1.b Steel Stud2. Horizontal restraint within 2" of intersection and splayed 90° apart at 45° angles
2.a Wire2.b Steel stud
Host Institution Funded by
11
Objectives of Nonstructural Testing (Cont.)
NEES - UNR Test-bed
Piping system Behavior of arm over versus
straight drops
Study the “No Gap” and
2 in. oversized ceiling hole
Comparative performance of
flexhose and conventional
drop pipes .
Piping System Configuration (Overall)
NEES - UNR Test-bed
12
Same configuration on 4th and 5th floor
Pipe dimensions:Riser: 3” pipeGrooved fittingMain Run: 2.5” pipeGrooved fittingBranch Line: 1” pipeThreaded fitting
Branch Line 1:- 3 Drops- 22’ Long- 1’ Arm over
Branch Line 2:- 3 Drops- 22’ Long- Straight Drop
Branch Line 3:- 2 Drops- 12’ Long- One flexhose Drop
Piping System Configuration (Brace & Hangers)
NEES - UNR Test-bed
13
1. Pipe Hangers: To transfer the pipe weight to the above deck.
2. Pipe Solid Braces: To transfer the seismic force of piping system to the above deck:-Lateral Brace-Longitudinal Brace
3. Pipe Wire Restrainers:To limit the translational movement of sprinkler heads
Piping System Configuration (Sprinkler Head)
NEES - UNR Test-bed
14
“No Gap” Configuration:No gap exist between the ceiling panels and sprinkler heads
2 in. Gap Configuration:2 in. oversized ring exist between the ceiling panels and sprinkler heads
Host Institution Funded by
15
Objectives of Nonstructural Testing (Cont.)
NEES - UNR Test-bed
Partition system Effect of slip versus fixed
track connection
Behavior of unbraced
self-standing partial
height partitions
Comparative performance of Institutional and commercial corner- and T-connection details.
Influence of openings (doors and windows) on response of partitions.
Host Institution Funded by
16
Partition System Design Assumptions
All the partitions on the fifth floor are Slip Track connection and on the fourth floor Full Connection.
All the partitions except one on the fourth floor have commercial detail.
All the partitions except one on the fifth floor have institutional detail.
Thicker steel stud and track section were used
Stronger corner and T detail were used
Partition Wall Corner and T Connection Detail
19
Institutional Corner Connection
Institutional T Connection Commercial T Connection
Commercial Corner Connection
Partition Wall Full Connection Detail
20
Top Connection- Parallel to the Flutes
Bottom ConnectionTop Connection- Perpendicular to the Flutes
Top Connection- Parallel to the Flutes
Partition Wall Slip Track Detail
21
Top Connection
Bottom Connection
