1. Simulation of Nonstructural Componentsby
Siavash Soroushian
PhD Student
University of Nevada, Reno 1
E-Defense Workshop
August 17-19, 2011, Japan

2. Research Team University of Nevada, Reno:
Manos Maragakis, PI of NEES-GC
Keri L. Ryan, PI of NEES TIPS
Siavash Soroushian, PhD student
University of Connecticut:
Arash E. Zaghi, Assistant Professor
USG Building Systems:
Lee Tedesco
Dennis Alvarez
NSFA
Russ Fleming 2

3. Why are Nonstructural Elements Important?
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 3

4. 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

5. Objectives of System Experiments at E-Defense Site
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.
NEES - UNR Test-bed 5

6. Location of CPP Nonstructural Systems
Ceilings, Partition Walls, and Sprinkler Piping (CPP) installed on 4th and 5th floors
Highest accelerations expected (2.0g)
Large drifts (near 1%)
Best available open space
NEES - UNR Test-bed 6

7. Objectives of Nonstructural Testing
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.
NEES - UNR Test-bed 7

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.

9. Ceiling System Perimeter Attachment
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 `` `` `` `` 9

10. Ceiling System Hangers and Braces
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 Stud
2. Horizontal restraint within 2" of intersection and splayed 90° apart at 45° angles
2.a Wire
2.b Steel stud 10

11. Objectives of Nonstructural Testing (Cont.)
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 .
NEES - UNR Test-bed

12. Piping System Configuration (Overall)
Branch Line 1:
- 3 Drops
- 22’ Long
- 1’ Arm over
Same configuration on 4th and 5th floor
Pipe dimensions:
Riser: 3” pipe
Grooved fitting
Main Run: 2.5” pipe
Branch Line: 1” pipe
Threaded fitting
Branch Line 3:
- 2 Drops
- 12’ Long
- One flexhose Drop
Branch Line 2:
- 3 Drops
- 22’ Long
- Straight Drop
NEES - UNR Test-bed 12

13. Piping System Configuration (Brace & Hangers)
2. Pipe Solid Braces:
To transfer the seismic force of piping system to the above deck:
-Lateral Brace
-Longitudinal Brace
1. Pipe Hangers:
To transfer the pipe weight to the above deck.
Pipe Wire Restrainers:
To limit the translational movement of
sprinkler heads
NEES - UNR Test-bed 13

14. Piping System Configuration (Sprinkler Head)
“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
NEES - UNR Test-bed 14

15. Objectives of Nonstructural Testing (Cont.)
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.
NEES - UNR Test-bed

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

17. Partition Wall Configurations (Fifth floor)17

18. Partition Wall Configurations (Fourth floor)18

19. Partition Wall Corner and T Connection Detail
Institutional Corner Connection
Commercial Corner Connection
Institutional T Connection
Commercial T Connection 19

20. Partition Wall Full Connection Detail
Top Connection- Parallel to the Flutes
Top Connection- Parallel to the Flutes
Top Connection- Perpendicular to the Flutes
Bottom Connection 20

21. Partition Wall Slip Track Detail
Top Connection
Bottom Connection 21

22. Instrumentation Plan Summary (Ceiling)22

23. Instrumentation Plan Summary (Piping)23

24. Instrumentation Plan Summary (Partitions)24

25. Thank You