Seismic Performance of Nonstructural of Systems Subjected

11/3/2008

1

Seismic Performance of Nonstructural of Systems ySubjected to Full-scale Floor MotionsGilberto MosquedaqAssistant Professor Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering University at Buffalo

Research Collaborators

Professor Andre FiliatraultProfessor Andre FiliatraultProfessor Andrei ReinhornDr. Rodrigo RetamalesRyan Davies, Graduate Student

2

11/3/2008

2

OverviewDefinition and importance of nonstructural components and systems in seismic eventscomponents and systems in seismic eventsCurrent code requirementsUB Nonstructural Component Simulator (UB-NCS)New loading protocols for seismic qualification and fragility assessment of nonstructuraland fragility assessment of nonstructural componentsSeismic performance assessment of a full-scale hospital emergency room

3

Nonstructural ComponentsSystems and elements in a building that are not part of the load-bearing structural systemArchitectural

Cladding, glazingCeilings, partition walls

Mechanical and ElectricalDistribution systems - pipingHVAC ducts and equipment

of the load bearing structural system

HVAC ducts and equipment

ContentsFree-standing and anchored medical equipment, computers, shelves, etc.

4

11/3/2008

3

Investment in Nonstructural Components and Content

5

Role of Nonstructural Components in Earthquakes

Hospital emergency room immediately after the 1994 p g y yNorthridge earthquake

6

11/3/2008

4


2001 Nisqually Earthquake (Filiatrault)q y q ( )

7


In order for a building or facility to remain operational g y pafter an earthquake, both structural and nonstructural systems must remain intactIn past earthquakes

many hospitals and other facilities have survived earthquakes without structural damage, but lost functionality due to nonstructural damage50% of $18 Billion in building damage following 1994 Northridge earthquake was due to nonstructural damage (Kircher 2003)

In addition to structural response, compatible seismic performance of nonstructural components is essential to achieve global performance objectives

8

11/3/2008

5

Code Requirements (ASCE 7-05)

International Building Code references ASCE 7-05 Nonstructural design requirements depend on:

Seismic Design Category of structureA-F, depending on occupancy category and site spectral accelerations at short (SDS) and long period (SD1)

Occupancy Category of structureI – low hazard to human life (storage)II – regular buildingsIII – high hazard to human life (schools, meeting rooms)IV – essential facilities (hospitals, emergency response center)

Nonstructural Importance Factor IP = 1 or 1.5IP =1.5 if component (a) is essential for life-safety; (b) contains hazardous materials; or (c) is required for functionality of Cat. IV structure

9


Equivalent Static Design ForceEquivalent Static Design Force

= component amplification factor (1-2.5)= component importance factor (1-1.5)

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ +=

hz

IRWSa

Fpp

pDSpp 21

/4.0

papI p p ( )

= component response modification factor (1-12)= short period spectral acceleration= component weight= normalized height of component in building

10

pW

p

pRDSS

hz /

11/3/2008

6


Special Certification Requirements for Designated gSeismic Systems (IP =1.5 in Seismic Category C-F)

Active mechanical and electrical equipment that must remain operable following design earthquake shall be certified by supplier as operableComponents with hazardous contents shall be certified by supplier as maintaining containment

Must be demonstrated byAnalysisTesting (shake table testing using accepted protocol)

AC-156Experience Data

11

California Hospitals Requirements

SB-1953 Hospital Seismic Retrofit ProgramSB 1953 Hospital Seismic Retrofit ProgramEvaluate current hospital building stockMeet nonstructural performance standards by 2002Meet structural performance standards for collapse prevention by 2008 (possible extension to 2013)Buildings capable of continued operation after design level event by 2030

ASCE 7-05 Seismic Qualification Requirements apply for mechanical and electrical equipment

12

11/3/2008

7

Testing Protocols for Seismic Qualification of Equipment

ICC-ES AC156 shake table testing protocolTest under non-stationary random excitations matching target floor response spectrum

FLX DSA 1.6S≤

⎛ ⎞

FLX DSzA S 1 2h

⎛ ⎞= +⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠

Force levels consistent with static design force FP

Test unit should remain functional after testing

RIG DSzA 0.4S 1 2h

⎛ ⎞= +⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠

Testing Protocols for Seismic Fragility Assessment

FEMA 461 testing protocols:R ki ( i i ) f di l (d if )Racking (quasi-static) test for displacement (drift) sensitive nonstructural componentsShake table tests for acceleration sensitive components

Objective is to determine mean loading conditions triggering different damage levels

Shaking Intensity Measure

Pro

babi

lity

of

Exce

edin

g a

Dam

age

Sta

te

100%

0%

11/3/2008

8

FEMA 461 testing protocols


g pRacking protocol: low rate cyclic displacements and/or forces selected to match ‘rainflow cycles’ for expected seismic response of buildings

0 02

0.03

0.04

0.05Displacement Loading History

%)

i 1 i

n n

a a1.4a a

+ =

0 2 4 6 8 10 12-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

Step Number

Dis

plac

emen

t Am

plitu

de (%

FEMA 461 testing protocols


g pShake table protocol:

Simulated scaled floor motions to evaluate the response of acceleration sensitive systems (single attachment point)Narrow-band random sweep acceleration matches spectra

11/3/2008

9

HVAC E i t M t d

Application of Testing Protocol

HVAC Equipment Mounted on Vibration Isolation/Restraint Systems

PI: A. FiliatraultSponsor: MCEER/ASHRAEIndustry Partner: ASHRAE

11/3/2008

10

Research ObjectivesImprove experimental testing capabilities for more realistic seismic performance assessmentmore realistic seismic performance assessment of nonstructural components, systems and equipment located within multistory buildings

Develop a new testing facility capable of subjecting NSC’s to realistic full-scale floor motionsDevelop a testing protocol suitable for qualification and fragility assessment of nonstructural componentsand fragility assessment of nonstructural componentsDemonstrate performance of equipment and protocol through seismic testing of a composite hospital room

19

Nonstructural Component Simulator (UB-NCS)

Modular and versatile two-level platform for experimental seismic performance evaluation of full scale nonstructural componentsof full-scale nonstructural components, systems and equipment under realistic full-scale building floor motions

Rea

ctio

n W

all

Rea

ctio

n W

all

Characteristics:Plan dimensions: 12.5’x12.5’ Displacements: ± 40 inStory height: 14’ Velocities: 100 in/sActuator capacity: 22 kips Accelerations: up to 3gPayload capacity: 5 kips/level Frequency range: 0.2-5 Hz

11/3/2008

11

Replicate recorded or simulated floor motions at

UB-NCS Testing Capabilities

upper levels of multi-story buildings Replicate full scale near-fault ground motions (including large displacement/velocity pulses) Capability to generate data required to better understand behavior of nonstructural components under realistic demandscomponents under realistic demands

Develop experimental fragility curvesDevelop effective techniques to protect equipment in buildings

Objectives:Id tif d i ti d

Performance Evaluation of UB-NCS

Identify dynamic properties and limitations of UB-NCSEvaluate system fidelity for replicating simulated and recorded full scale floor motions

Extensive testing including:Hammer impactWhite noise and sine sweep tests Transient floor motionsNew protocols under development

11/3/2008

12

UB-NCS dynamic properties limit frequency


UB NCS dynamic properties limit frequency range of operation to 5 Hz

Dynamic property Frequency (Hz)

Actuator vertical bow-string frequency 8.7-9.2 Actuator horizontal bow-string frequency 6.6 Actuator oil-column frequency 12.3-13.6 Frame transverse direction frequency 38 9 39 3Frame transverse direction frequency 38.9-39.3Platform dish mode frequency 19.1-20.0

Tapered sinusoidal test examples


test examples

0

5Displacement History Testa11

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

) Act AAct BAct CAct D

Testa11: f=1 Hz, A=±4 in.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20-5

Time (sec)R l i Di l Hi T 11

11/3/2008

13

Simulated seismic response of building


of building Existing medical facility in the San Fernando Valley, Southern California4-story steel framed building with non uniform distribution of mass and stiffness

Input for UB-NCS Top Level

Floor motions obtained from nonlinear numerical analysis Synthetic ground motions with seismic hazard of 10%/50yrs

Input for UB-NCS Bottom Level

Simulated building seismic


Simulated building seismic response

0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

0

10

Ti ( )

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)

Comparison Desired and Observed Displacement. Top Level

ObservedDesired

Time (sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

0

10

Comparison Desired and Observed Displacement. Bottom Level

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)

11/3/2008

14

Simulated building seismic 5

6Comparison Desired and Observed Floor Response Spectra Top Level

DesiredObserved


Simulated building seismic responseAccuracy of test machine measured by comparing

Response spectrumInterstory drift history

4.5Comparison Desired and Observed Floor Response Spectra Bottom Level

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

Frequency (Hz)

SA (g

)

0 5 10 15 20 25-2

-1

0

1

2

Time (sec)

Drif

t (in

)

Comparison Desired and Observed Interstory Drift

ObservedDesired

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Frequency (Hz)

SA (g

)

DesiredObserved

Recorded building seismic response 1992 Landers M =7 4


response, 1992 Landers Mw=7.4 52-story office building in LAConcentrically braced steel frame core with outrigger moment frames

(CSMIP)

11/3/2008

15

Reproduction of recorded seismic response


Reproduction of recorded seismic response

0 50 100 150 200 250-20

-10

0

10

20

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)Comparison Desired Versus Observed Displacement at Top Level

ObservedDesired

Comparison Desired Versus Observed Displacement at Bottom Level

0 50 100 150 200 250-20

-10

0

10

20

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

) ObservedDesired

Applied iterative

0.25Comparison DRS and ORS Top Level

Desired


Applied iterative corrections to input in order to match

desired response spectrumInterstory drift

0 5Comparison Desired and Observed Interstory Drift 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Frequency (Hz)

FRS

(g)

ObservedLimit

0 50 100 150 200 250-0.5

0

0.5

Time (sec)

Drif

t (in

)

DesiredObserved

11/3/2008

16

Testing Protocol for UB-NCSCurrent testing protocols focus either on di l t l ti itidisplacement or acceleration sensitive nonstructural components (NSC’s):

Nonstructural systems may be sensitive to bothProposed Protocol

Replicate seismic demands expected on distributed nonstructural systems in multistory buildingsnonstructural systems in multistory buildingsPair of displacement histories for bottom and top levels of UB-NCS that simultaneously match:

(i) target floor acceleration response spectrum (FRS) ii) inter-story drift spectrum

31

Allows testing of systems with multiple attachment points and sensitive to both displacements and accelerations

Testing Protocol for UB-NCS

and sensitive to both displacements and accelerations (e.g. piping systems) Different versions for seismic qualification and fragility assessmentProvides code compatible loading

Considers location along building height h/HI i i d d tibl ith ASCE7Imposes seismic demands compatible with ASCE7 (characterized by spectral parameters SDS and SD1) and FEMA450 Floor spectra

Simple loading patterns given by a set of closed-form equations

32

11/3/2008

17

Testing Protocol ModelInput characterized by hazard consistent x

ζ T ζ Tp ypower spectral density function Continuous beam model and Random Vibration Theory (RVT) considered for estimating:

Absolute accelerations along building heightGeneralized drifts along building height

Parameters for building model:

k

cH

mu (h,t)ss

s

s

GA EIζp, Tp, ζs, Ts

GAHEI

α =

Primary system periods: Tp=0.1-5 secSecondary system periods: Ts=0-5 secDamping for primary and secondary systems: ζp= ζs =5%Parameter controlling building deformation pattern: α=0, 5 and 10

u(x,t)

u (t)g..

h

Testing Protocol Input

Example Probabilistic Seismic Hazard with a probabilityExample Probabilistic Seismic Hazard with a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 (USGS)

1

1.2

1.4

1.6USGS Hazard Consistent Ground Response Spectrum

ratio

n S

a (g)

USGS DataBest Fit USGS Data

Period T (sec) Spectral Amplitude (g)

0.0 0.63 0.1 1.22 0.2 1.51

USGS Spectral Acceleration Amplitudes for a SH with PE 10%/50yrs

SDS

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Period T (sec)

Spe

ctra

l Acc

eler 0.3 1.34

0.5 0.96 1.0 0.50 2.0 0.22

DS

SD1

11/3/2008

18

Testing Protocol DemandsResulting three dimensional Floor Response Spectra

(FRS) for α=5 as a function of Tp and Ts(FRS) for α 5 as a function of Tp and Ts

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at Ground Level

Tp (s)

Abs

olut

e A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at 0.2H

Tp (s)

Abs

olut

e A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)


Tp (s)

Abs

olut

e A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at Roof Level

Tp (s)

Abs

olut

e A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

35

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)


Tp (s)

Abs

olut

e A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

2

4

6

8

10

12

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)


Tp (s)

Abs

olut

e A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

2

4

6

8

10

12

Testing Protocol Demands84th percentile FRS’s and mean 84th percentile FRS along

building heightbuilding height

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

884th Percentile FRS for Building with αo=0

Period Secondary System Ts (sec)

FRS

(g)

4

6


RS

(g)

3

4

5

6Mean 84th Percentile FRSs along Building Height

RS

(g)

Groundh=0.1Hh=0.2Hh=0.3Hh=0.4Hh=0.5Hh=0.6Hh=0.7Hh=0.8Hh=0 9H

Quotients between peak FRS’ values along building height and peak Sa are calculated

36

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2


FR

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6



FRS

(g)

Ground h=0.1H h=0.2H h=0.3H h=0.4H h=0.5H h=0.6H h=0.7H h=0.8H h=0.9H Roof

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2


F h=0.9HRoof

11/3/2008

19

Distribution of Seismic Demands along Building Height

Variation of peak mean 84th % FRS’ l b ildi h i ht

Variation mean 84th % generalized d ift l b ildi h i htFRS’s along building height

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Variation of Peak FRS / Peak Sa Rates along Building Height

h/H

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Variation of Mean 84th% Generalized Drift along Building Height

orm

aliz

ed B

uild

ing

Hei

ght h

/H

DataBest FitProposed

drift along building height

37

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.1

0.2

Peak FRS / Peak Sa Rate

DataBest Fit

2 3

Factorh h h hFRS 1 10 19.4 12.4H H H H

⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞= + − +⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.40

0.1

0.2

Generalized Drift δ (%)N

o

2 0.55

h1.09 0.3Hh

H 1 h 6 h h hsin 7 1.9 0.34 H 5 H H H

δ

⎧ ≤⎪⎪⎛ ⎞ = ⎨⎜ ⎟ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎝ ⎠ ⎪ − + >⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎪ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎩

UB-NCS Testing ProtocolMean 84th percentile FRS along building height

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6Comparison Floor Response Spectra at h=0.3H


FRS

(g)

4

6Comparison Floor Response Spectra at h=0.7H

g)

38

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2


FRS

(g

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6Comparison Floor Response Spectra at Roof Level


FRS

(g)

RVTBest FitAC156

11/3/2008

20

Testing Protocol for Seismic Qualification

0

20

p (in

)

Bottom Displacement History

• Closed-form equation for bottom level of UB-NCS:

( ) ( )( ) ( )Bottom DS D1 DS D1 Factorh h hx t , ,S ,S t , ,S ,S f t cos t w t FRSH H H

βα ϕ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-20

0

Time (sec)

Dis

p

0

1

Protocol Interstory Drift HistoryD

rift (

%)

• Closed-form equation for interstory drift:

39

( )( ) ( )2

dt tD1

D1 NCSSh ht , ,S h e cos t w t

H 0.5g HσΔ δ ϕ−⎛ ⎞−⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-1

Time (sec)

Top DS D1 Bottom DS D1 D1

h h hx t, ,S ,S x t, ,S ,S t, ,SH H H

Δ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞= +⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

• Closed-form equation for top level of UB-NCS:

Testing Protocol for Seismic QualificationExample 1: SDS=1.283g, SD1=0.461g and h/H=1 (Northridge, Soil Class B)

0

20

sp (i

n)

Bottom Displacement History

1

1.5Interstory Drift History

4.5

5Comparison Floor Response Spectra

Target FEMA450 FRSBottom levelTop level

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-20

Time (sec)

Dis

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-50

0

50

Time (sec)

Velo

c (in

/sec

)

Bottom Velocity History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-1

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc

(g)

Bottom Acceleration History

20Top Displacement History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

Time (sec)

Inte

rsto

ry D

rift (

in)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Period Secondary System (sec)

FRS

(g)

pMean

40

50

60Number of Cycles Imposed on Displacement Sensitive Components

Protocol

10

20

30

40

50

No C

ycle

s N

50

Number of Cycles with A>0.5AMax Induced on Acceleration Sensitive Components

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-20

0

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-50

0

50

Time (sec)

Velo

c (in

/sec

)

Top Velocity History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-1

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc

(g)

Top Acceleration History

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

λ

No o

f Cyc

les

Nλ

Mean FloorMotions

84th% FloorMotions

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

Frequency Secondary System (Hz)

N

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150

Frequency Secondary System (Hz)

No C

ycle

s N

10

Number of Cycles with A>0.1AMax Induced on Acceleration Sensitive Components

Mean Floor Motions

84th% Floor MotionsProtocol

Peak Displacements Peak Interstory Drift Peak Velocities Peak Accelerations DMax Bot

(in) DMax Top

(in) ΔMax (in)

δMax (%)

VMax Bot (in/s)

VMax Top (in/s)

AMax Bot (g)

AMax Top (g)

18.8 20.0 1.21 0.79 26.6 28.0 0.55 0.58

11/3/2008

21

Seismic Performance of Emergency Room

Demonstrate effects of earthquakes on typicalDemonstrate effects of earthquakes on typical medical equipment and other nonstructural components in hospitals

Research emphasis is on partition walls and wall mounted patient monitors

Compare loading protocol developed at UB with p g p psimulated floor motionsVerify performance capabilities of UB-NCS with realistic payload

41

Nonstructural components include


Nonstructural components includeSteel-stud gypsum partition wallLay-in suspended ceiling systemFire protection sprinkler piping systemMedical gas linesMedical equipment

Free-standingAnchored

42

11/3/2008

22

Experimental seismic performance assessment of full-scale emergency roomTesting protocol for SDS = 1.51g, SD1 = 0.5g, and h/H = 1Simulted Response of 4-story hospital building subjected to 10%/ in 50


Detailed performance analysis conducted on partition walls and wall mounted monitors

Monitor 1Cabinet

Gurney & Dummy

Monitor 4

Pole 1

Monitor 315x18x18in

15x18x18in

13x16x7 in

26x28x76

Pole 2

10'-8

1 2"

1'-1

078"

3'-5

38"

5'-4

1 4"

5'-1134" 95

16" 3'-8" 2'-1" 2'

14'-618"

Monitor 215x18x18in

2'-4

"

2'-012"

Cart

43

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) Dummy sitting on gurney, poles with IV pumps, video rack, cart and monitor; (b) Medical gas piping, outlets and monitor; (c) Video rack; (d) Surgical lamp; and (e) Sprinkler runs

1'-538" 2'11'-03

4" Photo ER Lateral view ER Layout ER

Loading Protocol

Use protocolUse protocol developed at UB

(h/H=1.0)Preliminary tests at 10%, 25% and 50% of design levelDesign Basis Earthquake DBE (100%)( %)Maximum Considered Earthquake MCE (150%)

44

Peak Displacements Peak Interstory Drift Peak Velocities Peak Accelerations DMax Bot

(in) DMax Top

(in) ΔMax (in)

δMax (%)

VMax Bot (in/s)

VMax Top (in/s)

AMax Bot (g)

AMax Top (g)

16.3 17.6 1.31 0.87 30.5 32.6 0.73 0.77

gm2

Slide 44

gm2 Inseert table by Rodriog on peak driftsGilberto Mosqueda, 10/11/2007

11/3/2008

23

Seismic Performance of Emergency RoomProtocol loading histories – Design Level

Protocol loading histories – Design Level


11/3/2008

24

Seismic Performance of Emergency RoomSimulated building floor motions

Simulated building floor motions


11/3/2008

25


Seismic Performance of Partition WallsDrift Ratio

(%) Observed Damage

0.09 : No visible damage in specimen 0.23 : Minimum level of damage observed

Incipient hairline cracks along base of cornerbeads and gypsum panel jointsIncipient hairline cracks along base of cornerbeads and gypsum panel joints0.47 : Raised areas and small cracks around screws near bottom and top tracks

Hairline cracks all along of corner beads Vertical cracks t 1 16"≤ along wall boundary panel joints Small hairline cracks around door fenestration

1.42 : Widespread pop-out of screws around wall boundaries Tape covering vertical wall boundaries completely damaged Permanent gaps1 16" t 1 4"≤ ≤ along cornerbeads, some horizontal gypsum panel joints, and door fenestration

1.77 : Widespread pop-out of screws in the whole specimen Tape covering vertical wall boundaries completely damaged Permanent gaps1 16" t 1 4"≤ ≤ along cornerbeads, horizontal gypsum panel joints, and door fenestrationSome permanent gaps t 1 4"≥ along cornerbeads Initiated gypsum panel detachment from steel studded frame

2.22 : Generalized pop-out of screws in the whole specimen Tape covering vertical wall boundaries completely damaged Permanent gaps t 1 4"≥ and crushing of joint compound along cornerbeads, horizontal gypsum panel joints, and door fenestration Gypsum panel detached from steel studded frame

2.67 : Damage total of specimen Most of gypsum panels are detached of steel studded frame Extensive crushing of gypsum along panel joints and cornerbeads

11/3/2008

26

Seismic Performance of Partition Walls and Fragility of Patient Monitors

Best Fit Parameter for Monitor Base Acceleration (g) Damage Measure Damage State

Associated θ β

-10

0

10

20

30Ensemble Histeresis Loops Emergency Room

Forc

e (K

ips)

10% Protocol25% Protocol50% Protocol100% Protocol150% Protocol200% Protocol (QS)

0 4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Fragility Curve for Wall-Mounted patient Monitor

ty o

f Col

laps

e (%

)

DataBest Fit

Peak acceleration at base of monitor

Monitor’s supporting

device failure 1.35 0.20

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3-30

-20

Interstory Drift (%)

200% Protocol (QS)250% Protocol (QS)300% Protocol (QS)350% Protocol (QS)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Horizontal Acceleration at Equipment Base (g)

Pro

babi

li

ConclusionsA Nonstructural Component Simulator (UB-NCS) has been commissioned to subject nonstructural components to realistic full-scale building floor motionsgThe UB-NCS provides improved experimental capabilities for seismic qualification and fragility assessment of nonstructural components and building contentsNonstructural systems with multiple attachments sensitive to acceleration and/or drifts can be rigorously evaluated under realistic loading conditionsThe experimental program verified the capabilities of the UB-NCS to reproduce full scale floor motions and loading protocols imposingreproduce full-scale floor motions and loading protocols imposing similar demands. The experimental methods presented can be used for the seismic qualification or fragility assessment of nonstructural components

11/3/2008

27

Thank You!

Questions?

Documents

Seismic Performance of Nonstructural of Systems Subjected