The International Workshop on the Seismic Performance of

Non-structural Elements (SPONSE)

August 29-31, 2014
Harbin, China

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS:
SEISMIC CAPACITY AND DEMAND

G. Magliulo, C. Petrone, G. Manfredi

University of Naples Federico II

Harbin, 31 August 2014

Outline

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Motivations
• Seismic capacity of nonstructural components
• Shake table tests on innovative plasterboard partitions

AND DEMAND
• Shake table tests on hollow brick partitions
• Shake table tests on hospital building contents
• In-plane quasi static tests on high plasterboard partitions
• Shake table tests on ceiling systems
• Seismic demand on nonstructural components
• Floor response spectra in RC frame structures designed
according to Eurocode 8
• Code-oriented evaluation of the seismic demand on light
acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components
[2]
• Conclusions
Motivations of the study

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Non structural component damage causes:
• Downtime
• Dollars

AND DEMAND
• Deaths

(Ikuta and Miyano, 2011)

[3]

(Taghavi and Miranda, 2003)

Shake table test on innovative plasterboard
partitions
Test setup definition

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Drift sensitive – in plane
• Acceleration sensitive – out of plane

AND DEMAND
• Steel setup with:
• Realistic mass
• Realistic stiffness
• Parametric study

[5]

G. Magliulo, C. Petrone, V. Capozzi, G. Maddaloni, P. Lopez, G. Manfredi. Seismic performance evaluation of

plasterboard partitions via shake table tests. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2014; 12(4): 1657-1677.
Specimen

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Non-interacting to moderate drift level (~0.5%)
Guides fixed along the perimeter Studs housed into guides

AND DEMAND
Plasterboards attached only to studs – Gap filled with acrylic
0.8cm gap is left silicone

[6]
Input definition – AC 156

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• “Baseline” accelerogram (30 sec):
• Build and decay phase (5sec) and strong motion phase
(20sec)

AND DEMAND
• frequency range – [1.3Hz, 33.3Hz]
• Matching by RSP Match Program (Hancock et al., 2006)
• Filtering & scaling at different intensity levels

[7]
 NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY
[8]

AND DEMAND
Video
Test results – Hysteresis

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

40 40
In plane dir. Out of plane dir.

top acceleration [m/s2]

top acceleration [m/s2]

20 20

AND DEMAND
0 0

-20 -20
test 11 test 8
test 8 test 6

-40 test 6 -40 test 4

-20 0 20 -20 0 20

relative displacement [mm] relative displacement [mm]

• Linear trend up to 0.5% drift

• Sudden increase of stiffness
• No influence in the out of plane direction [9]

G. Magliulo, C. Petrone, V. Capozzi, G. Maddaloni, P. Lopez, R. Talamonti, G. Manfredi. Shake Table Tests On Infill
Plasterboard Partitions. The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal – 2012. 6, (Suppl 1-M10): 155-163
Exhibited damage

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• DS1, DS2 and DS3 correlation with IDR (EDP)

AND DEMAND
DS1 – DS1 –
0.58% 0.58%

DS2 – DS2 –
0.98% 0.98% [10]
Shake table test on hollow brick partitions
Test setup

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Very spread in Europe
• Specimen reproduces realistic conditions

AND DEMAND
Test no. [-] 1 2 3 4 5 [12]
SDS = F0 ag [g] 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
 [13]

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND
Video
 Test results

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Stiffness reduction as the damage increases
• Significant damage for IDR < 0.5%

AND DEMAND
20
transfer function [-]

infilled

top acceleration [m/s2]

30 10
bare
20
0
10
-10
0 test 5
2 4 6 8 10 12 test 3
frequency [Hz] test 1
-20
bare setup

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

relative displacement [mm] [14]

C. Petrone, G. Magliulo, G. Manfredi. Shake table tests for the seismic assessment of hollow brick internal partitions.
Engineering Structures. 2014; 72: 203-214
Analysis of the test results

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

7 150
H&M Test Frame

Base Shear [kN]

6 TC Partitions
Bare 100
f [Hz]

AND DEMAND
5
50
4

3 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Test Test ID

test no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
IDR [%] 0.12 0.21 0.34 0.66 0.97 1.18
Damage State DS0 DS1 DS2 DS2 DS3 DS3
[15]
Shake table test on hospital building contents
 [17]

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND
Test setup – video of the construction phase
Test program

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Unidirectional
input motion
• Different mass

AND DEMAND
distribution
• 63 shakings at
Tests 100-200-300 Tests 400-500-600
increasing
intensities

[18]

Tests 100-400 Tests 200-500 Tests 300-600

 [19]

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND
Video
 DS – EDP correlation

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

Damage state 1 Damage state 2 Damage state 3
Need to replace the whole
Need to replace damaged part of
Damage typology Operational interruption component and/or threat for
the components
life safety
Residual Displacement larger
- -
displacement than 2cm

AND DEMAND
Collapse of more than one
Screw loosening Collapse of one support
Cabinet

support
Residual displacement
Collapse Permanent displacement in
in shelves less than Shelves collapse
shelves larger than L/500
L/500
Window opening Window locking Window collapse
Overturning Rocking Hammering (with damage) Overturning
Residual Displacement larger
- -
displacement than 4cm
Desk

Collapse of more than one

Screw loosening Collapse of one support
support
Collapse
Desk collapse or
Drawer opening Drawer slipping out of rail
overturning
Content

- Displacement Collapse (less than 10%) Collapse (more than 10%)

Test group DS1 DS3 [20]

100-400 0.371 g 1.103 g
200-500 0.491 g 0.974 g
300-600 0.486 g 1.099 g
 Analysis of the results

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Fragility curve evaluated according to Porter et
al. (2007)

AND DEMAND
1
P[DMdm|PFA=pfa] [-]

0.8
Empirical DS1
0.6 Fitted DS1
xm=0.45g xm=1.06g Modified DS1
fit=0.16 fit=0.07 Empirical DS3
0.4 Fitted DS3
mod=0.30 mod=0.26
Modified DS3
0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
PFA [g] [21]

E. Cosenza, L. Di Sarno, G. Maddaloni, G. Magliulo, C. Petrone, A. Prota. Shake table tests for the seismic fragility
evaluation of hospital rooms. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. ISSN: 1096-9845, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2456
Numerical modelling

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

Double-window cabinet - tests 1000 - NFFT=1024
16

14

12

Transfer function [-]

10

AND DEMAND
6

0
5 10 15 20 25 30
frequency [Hz]

[22]

L. Di Sarno, C. Petrone, G. Magliulo, G. Manfredi. Dynamic response analysis of typical medical components.
Engineering Structures (under review)
Quasi-static tests on «high» plasterboard
partitions
 Test setup definition

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND
• Definition of a test protocol – FEMA 461

ai  1.39  ai 1
[24]

C. Petrone, G. Magliulo, P. Lopez, G. Manfredi. Seismic fragility evaluation of plasterboard partitions via in-plane quasi-
static tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (under review)
Specimens

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Typical partitions in industrial buildings

AND DEMAND
[25]
 [26]

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND
Video
Test results

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

200
Test 1
150 Test 2

AND DEMAND
Test 3
Test 4
100
Test 5
Test 6

force [kN]
50

-50

-100

-150

-200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

top displacement [mm] [27]

DS – EDP correlation

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

IDR [‰] DS1 DS2 DS3
Test no. 1 3.39 8.74 27.81
Test no. 2 1.56 9.12 29.20
Test no. 3 3.23 8.86 20.45

AND DEMAND
Test no. 4 3.23 11.55 16.14
Test no. 5 2.44 4.22 10.94
Test no. 6 3.42 8.30 25.46
1

Empirical DS1
P[DM dm|IDR=idr] [-]

0.8
Fitted DS1
xm=2.77‰ xm=8.10‰ xm=20.49‰ Modified DS1
0.6  =0.30  =0.34  =0.38 Empirical DS2
fit fit fit
Fitted DS2
 =0.39  =0.42  =0.46
mod mod mod Modified DS2
0.4
Empirical DS3
Fitted DS3
0.2 Modified DS3
[28]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Interstorey Drift Ratio [‰]
Shake table tests on ceiling systems
 Shake table test on ceiling systems - Description

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND
Single frame ceiling (SFC) Double frame ceiling (DFC)

• Acceleration sensitive component

• Test setup requirements:
• Low fundamental period – avoid «cascade»
resonance issues
• Allow mounting the specimen
• Stiff and ligth perimeter restraint – test
the seismic behaviour of ceilings [30]
without considering the interaction
with boundary components
 Results and Discussion (1)
• Dynamic identification: natural frequency equal to

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

30Hz
• Compatibility of the reproduced accelerogram
• On the specimen acceleration larger than 2g are
recorded – absence of «cascade» resonance issues

AND DEMAND
[31]

G. Magliulo, V. Pentangelo, G. Maddaloni, V. Capozzi, C. Petrone, P. Lopez, R. Talamonti, G. Manfredi. Shake Table Tests
For Seismic Assessment Of Suspended Continuous Ceilings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2012; 10 (6):1819-1832.
 Results and Discussion (2)

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• The tests performed on shaking table show, for both single and
double frame ceiling systems, a low fragility, due to:
• continuous nature of the ceiling system
• dense steel grid

AND DEMAND
• large number of hangers
• The study is carried out without considering any interaction with
other components, further studies are needed to investigate this
phenomenon
• Good seismic behaviour with respect to discrete ceilings tested at
Buffalo University

[32]

G. Magliulo, V. Pentangelo, G. Maddaloni, V. Capozzi, C. Petrone, P. Lopez, R. Talamonti, G. Manfredi. Shake Table Tests
For Seismic Assessment Of Suspended Continuous Ceilings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2012; 10 (6):1819-1832.
Seismic demand on NSC in RC frame
structures
Methodology

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• EC 8 RC frame structures with different Nstories
• A lumped plasticity approach is adopted
• Set of accelerograms - EC8 design spectrum

AND DEMAND
?
 3 1 z H  
S a T     S    0.5  g
1  1  T T1 
2


[34]
 Results
Sa,max = 2.5g for PGA = 0.25g

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

60
Floor1
Floor2
50 Floor3 60 60
Floor4 Floor1 Floor1
Floor5 Floor2
40 50 50

40 40
SFa [m/s2]

30

SFa [m/s2]

SFa [m/s2]
30 30

AND DEMAND
20
20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T [s] T [s] T [s]
60 60
8 Floor1 Floor2
Floor2 Floor4
1 story 50 Floor3 50 Floor6
7 2 stories Floor8
3 stories Floor10
spectal acceleration [m/s2]

6 5 stories 40 40
10 stories
SFa [m/s2]

SFa [m/s2]
5 EC8 30 30

4 20 20

3
10 10
2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1 T [s] T [s]
0
[35]
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
spectral displacement [m]
C. Petrone, G. Magliulo, G. Manfredi. Floor response spectra in RC frame structures designed according to Eurocode 8.
Journal of earthquake engineering (under review)
Comparison with EC8

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

 3  1  z H  
Sa (T )    S    0.5  g    S  g
1  1  T T1 
2


AND DEMAND
30 30 30
Floor1 Floor1 Floor1
Floor2 Floor2 Floor2
25 25 25
Floor3 Floor3
Floor4
20 20 Floor5 20

SFa [m/s2]
SFa [m/s2]

SFa [m/s2]

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T [s] T [s] T [s]

• Structural higher modes and ductility not

[36]
included
Discussion

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 1 story 0.7 1 story

2 stories
2 stories
0.6 3 stories 0.6
3 stories
5 stories
z/h

z/h
0.5 0.5 5 stories
10 stories
10 stories

AND DEMAND
0.4 ASCE7 0.4 ASCE7
EC8 EC8
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
Inelastic Inelastic
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
PFA/PGA ap =SFa,max /PFA

• Testing protocol for shake table tests (AC 156)

30
z/h=1 1 story
2 stories
25 3 stories
 z
5 stories
10 stories AFLEX  0.4 S DS 1  2   a p  S a ,max
 h
20
RRS
RRS modified
SFa [m/s2]

15

10
[37]
5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T [s]
 Seismic demand for frequent earthquakes

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Life-Safety Limit State: “…following the
earthquake the building suffered failure and
collapse of the nonstructural components…”,

AND DEMAND
while Damage Limit State: “…structural
components, nonstructural components and
contents exhibit a minor damage level…”
(NTC 2008, SEAOC 1995)
• Displacement-sensitive components - DLS
• Acceleration-sensitive components - LSLS???
Evaluation of the seismic demand according to
[38]
frequent earthquakes
C. Petrone, G. Magliulo, G. Manfredi. Code-oriented evaluation of the seismic demand on light acceleration-sensitive
nonstructural components in ordinary buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (under review)
 Methodology and results

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• A set of frequent earthquakes – NTC 2008
5
Mean Spectrum
Design Spectrum
4 i-th Spectrum

AND DEMAND
SFa [m/s2] 3

0
0 1 2 3 4
T [s]
18 18
18
Floor1 Floor2
Floor1 Floor4
Floor2 Floor2 15
15 15 Floor3 Floor6
Floor3 Floor8
Floor4
12 Floor5 12 Floor10
12

SFa [m/s2]
SFa [m/s2]

9
SFa [m/s2]

9 9

6 6
6

3 3 3
[39]
0 0
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T [s] T [s]
T [s]
Results and discussion

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

Fundamental period  Higher modes 
9 9 9
Floor1 Floor1 Floor1
7.5 Floor2 7.5 Floor2 Floor2
Floor3 7.5 Floor3
Floor4
6 6 6 Floor5

AND DEMAND
SFa [m/s2]
SFa [m/s2]

SFa [m/s2]
4.5 4.5 4.5

3 3 3

1.5 1.5 1.5

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T [s] T [s] T [s]

Floor amplific.  Component amplific. 

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 1 story 0.7 1 story

2 stories 2 stories
0.6 0.6
3 stories 3 stories
z/h

z/h

0.5 5 stories 0.5 5 stories

10 stories 10 stories
0.4 ASCE7 0.4 ASCE7
EC8 EC8
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2 [40]

0.1 0.1
Inelastic Inelastic
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
PFA/PGA ap=S Fa,max/PFA
Proposed methodology

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

SFa

Eurocode8   
Analysis   ap 
ap·PFAp
2 Proposed   S  g  1  z / H        S  g for T  a  T1
 
2

1   a p  1 1  a  T1  
 T 


S Fa , proposed T     S  g  1  z / H   a p for a  T1 <T  b  T1

 

AND DEMAND
1 3

  ap 
PFAEC8
   S  g  1  z / H        S  g for T  b  T1

2

1   a p  1 1  b  T1  
PFAp   T 

a·T1 T1 b·T1 T
10 10 10
Floor1 Floor1 Floor1
Floor2 Floor2 Floor2
8 8 Floor3 8 Floor3
Floor4
Floor5
6 6 6
SFa [m/s2]

SFa [m/s2]
SFa [m/s2]

4 4 4

2 2 2

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T [s] T [s] T [s]
[41]
Fundamental period  Higher modes 
Floor amplification  Component amplification 
Conclusions

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

• Shake table tests on plasterboard partitions
• Shake table tests on hollow brick partitions
• Shake table tests on hospital building contents

AND DEMAND
• In-plane quasi static tests on high plasterboard
partitions
• Shake table tests on ceiling systems
• Floor response spectra in RC frame structures
designed according to Eurocode 8
• Code-oriented evaluation of the seismic
demand on light acceleration-sensitive [42]
nonstructural components
Thank you for your attention!
 Numerical modeling

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

Plasterboards
Silicone & studs

AND DEMAND
• Parameters - minimize the , a, Ediss errors Relative Disp [mm]

0.5 5
Top acc [m/s ]
2

0
Exp
0
Num
Test 6
-0.5 -5
-5 0 5
Relative Disp [mm] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Exp Num time [s]
5
Relative Disp [mm]
Top acc [m/s ]

20
2

0 Exp
Test 11 0
Num
[44]
-5 -20
-20 0 20
Relative Disp [mm]
Exp Num
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time [s]
Analysis of the results

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND
Slight contribution of the Silicone failure at test no.
partition on lateral stiffnes 6/7

[45]
Base shear repartition
Analysis of the test results

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS: SEISMIC CAPACITY

7 150
H&M Test Frame

Base Shear [kN]

6 TC Partitions
Bare 100
f [Hz]

5
50
4

AND DEMAND
0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Test Test ID

14
10

12
8
10

f [Hz]
8 6

6 4

4
2
2

5 10 15 20 25
t [s]

test no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
[46]
IDR [%] 0.12 0.21 0.34 0.66 0.97 1.18
Damage State DS0 DS1 DS2 DS2 DS3 DS3