seismic safety of nonstructural components and systems in … · 2007-11-06 · seismic safety of...

Seismic Safety of Nonstructural Components and Systems in Medical FacilitiesGilberto MosquedaAssistant Professor Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering University at Buffalo

Research Collaborators

Professor Andre FiliatraultProfessor Andrei ReinhornRodrigo Retamales, PhD CandidateRyan Davis, Graduate Student

2

OverviewDefinition and importance of nonstructural components and systems in seismic eventsCurrent code requirementsUB Nonstructural Component Simulator (UB-NCS)

Capabilities and limitations of new testing apparatus dedicated for testing nonstructural components

Proposed protocol for testing with UB-NCSRecent experiments of composite hospital room to examine seismic safety of medical equipment

3

Nonstructural Components

ArchitecturalCladding, glazingCeilings, partition walls

Mechanical and ElectricalDistribution systems - pipingHVAC ducts and equipment

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

4

Systems and elements in a building that are not part of the load-bearing structural system

Investment in Nonstructural Components and Content

5

Role of Nonstructural Components in Earthquakes

Hospital emergency room immediately after the 1994 Northridge earthquake

6


2001 Nisqually Earthquake (Filiatrault)

7


In order for a building or facility to remain operational after 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

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 Force

= component amplification factor (1-2.5)= component importance factor (1-1.5)= component response modification factor (1-12)= short period spectral acceleration= component weight= normalized height of component in building

10

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ +=

hz

IRWSa

Fpp

pDSpp 21

/4.0

pa

pW

pIpR

DSS

hz /


Special Certification Requirements for Designated Seismic 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

Special Requirements for Hospitals in California

SB-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

Testing protocols for experimental seismic qualification of equipment

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

Force levels consistent with static design force FP

Test unit should remain functional after testing

FLX DSA 1.6S≤

RIG DSzA 0.4S 1 2h

⎛ ⎞= +⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠

FLX DSzA S 1 2h

⎛ ⎞= +⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠

Testing protocols for seismic fragility assessment

FEMA 461 testing protocols: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

Prob

abilit

y of

Ex

ceed

ing

a D

amag

e S

tate

100%

0%

FEMA 461 testing protocolsRacking protocol: low rate cyclic displacements and/or forces selected to match ‘rainflow cycles’for expected seismic response of buildings

0 2 4 6 8 10 12-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05Displacement Loading History

Step Number

Dis

plac

emen

t A

mpl

itude

(%

)

i 1 i

n n

a a1.4a a

+ =


FEMA 461 testing protocolsShake table protocol:

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


HVAC Equipment Mounted on Vibration Isolation/Restraint Systems

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

Application of Testing Protocol

Modular and versatile two-level platform for experimental seismic performance evaluation of full scale acceleration and displacement sensitive nonstructural components under realistic full scale floor motions

University at Buffalo Nonstructural Component Simulator (UB-NCS)

UB-NCS Geometry

12'-6

"

Removable Beam

Removable Beam

Removable Beam

2'2'

2'2'

2' 2' 2' 2'2' 2'

2'2'

HSS8x6x1/2" (TYP)

Removable Beam

9"1'

1'1'

1'1'

1'1'

9"

Holes 1 3/8" (TYP)

9"1'1'1'1'1'1'1'9" 1' 1' 1' 1'

12'-6"

1'1'

1'1'

Plan view & elevation10'

Plate Connection Column to Floor56x32x1"

MTS SwivelModel 249.23

HSS8x8x1/2" (TYP)

26'-5

"

12'-6"

Stopper (TYP)

HSS8x6x1/2" (TYP)

8"8"

EL 148.00

EL 316.00

HSS8x6x1/2" (TYP)

HSS8x8x1/2" (TYP)

Steel base plates 30x30x1"

14'

12'

EL 000.00

12’-6”

12’-6

”

12’

14’

UB-NCS PropertiesGeneral properties

Capable of 2 horizontal DOF (+ 1 vertical when mounted on shaking table)Max. specimen weight: 6 kips/level (27 kN/level)Operating frequency range: up to 5.0 Hz

Activated by 4 high performance dynamic actuators

Force per actuator: 22 kips (100 kN) Peak displacement: ± 40 in (1 m)Peak velocity: 100 in/s (2.5 m/s)Peak acceleration: up to 3g’s

Replicate recorded or simulated floor motions at 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 demands

Develop experimental fragility curvesDevelop effective techniques to protect equipment in buildings

UB-NCS Testing Capabilities

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

Extensive testing including:Hammer impact and white noise testsSine sweep tests Transient floor motionsNew protocols under development

Performance Evaluation of UB-NCS

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 38.9-39.3 Platform dish mode frequency 19.1-20.0


Tapered sinusoidal test examples

Testa11: f=1 Hz, A=±4 in.

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

0

5Displacement History Testa11

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

) Act A

Act BAct C

Act D


Simulated seismic response of building

Existing medical facility in the San Fernando Valley, Southern California4-story steel framed building with non uniform distribution of mass and stiffnessFloor motions obtained from nonlinear numerical analysis Synthetic ground motions with seismic hazard of 10%/50yrs

Input for UB-NCS Bottom Level

Input for UB-NCS Top Level


Simulated building seismic response

0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

0

10

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)

Comparison Desired and Observed Displacement. Top Level

Observed

Desired

0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

0

10

Comparison Desired and Observed Displacement. Bottom Level

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)


Simulated building seismic responseAccuracy of test machine measured by comparing

Response spectrumInterstory drift history

0 5 10 15 20 25-2

-1

0

1

2

Time (sec)

Drif

t (in

)

Comparison Desired and Observed Interstory Drift

Observed

Desired

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

4.5Comparison Desired and Observed Floor Response Spectra Bottom Level

Frequency (Hz)

SA (g)

Desired

Observed

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Comparison Desired and Observed Floor Response Spectra Top Level

Frequency (Hz)

SA (g)

Desired

Observed


Recorded building seismic response, 1992 Landers Mw=7.4

52-story office building in LAConcentrically braced steel frame core with outrigger moment frames

(CSMIP)


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

Observed

Desired

0 50 100 150 200 250-20

-10

0

10

20

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)

Comparison Desired Versus Observed Displacement at Bottom Level

Observed

Desired


Applied iterative corrections to input in order to match

desired response spectrumInterstory drift

0 50 100 150 200 250-0.5

0

0.5Comparison Desired and Observed Interstory Drift

Time (sec)

Drif

t (in

)

Desired

Observed

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25Comparison DRS and ORS Top Level

Frequency (Hz)

FRS

(g)

Desired

ObservedLimit


UB-NCS Testing Protocol

New protocol is being developed toSimultaneously apply displacement and acceleration demands similar to those expected in real buildingsTest systems with multiple attachment points at different floor levels (e.g. piping systems) and sensitive to both displacements and accelerations

Motions for bottoms and top level are determined for a given z/h ratio to match:

Target floor acceleration response spectrumInter-story drift spectrum

32


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

33

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6USGS Hazard Consistent Ground Response Spectrum

Period T (sec)

Spe

ctra

l Acc

eler

atio

n S

a (g)

USGS Data

Best Fit USGS Data

Period T (sec) Spectral Amplitude (g)

0.0 0.63 0.1 1.22 0.2 1.51 0.3 1.34 0.5 0.96 1.0 0.50 2.0 0.22

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

SDS

SD1


Power Spectral Density consistent with seismic hazards is used as input for building modelFloor motion demands computed by considering shear-flexural model with secondary system

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

x

k

c

u(x,t)

u (t)g

H

m

..

u (h,t)ss

s

s

h

GA EI

ζp, Tp, ζs, Ts

34

1 GAH EI

α =

UB-NCS Testing ProtocolResulting three dimensional Floor Response Spectra

(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 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)

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)


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

UB-NCS Testing Protocol84th percentile FRS’s and mean 84th percentile FRS along

building height

36

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8

84th Percentile FRS for Building with αo=0

Period Secondary System Ts (sec)

FR

S (

g)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8



FR

S (

g)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8



FR

S (

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

3

4

5

6Mean 84th Percentile FRSs along Building Height


FR

S (

g)

Groundh=0.1H

h=0.2H

h=0.3H

h=0.4H

h=0.5Hh=0.6H

h=0.7H

h=0.8H

h=0.9HRoof

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

UB-NCS Testing ProtocolExtrapolated mean 84th percentile FRS along building

height

37

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Mean 84th Percentile FRSs along Building Height


FR

S (

g)

Groundh=0.1H

h=0.2H

h=0.3H

h=0.4H

h=0.5Hh=0.6H

h=0.7H

h=0.8H

h=0.9HRoof

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Variation of Peak FRS / Peak S

a Rates along Building Height

Peak FRS / Peak Sa Rate

h/H

Data

Best Fit

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Extrapolated Mean 84th Percentile FRSs along Building Height


FR

S (

g)

Groundh=0.1Hh=0.2Hh=0.3Hh=0.4Hh=0.5Hh=0.6Hh=0.7Hh=0.8Hh=0.9HRoof

2 3

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

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

( )s Factor a s

h hFRS T , , FRS S T ,H H

ξ ξ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

FactorhFRS 0.3 2.59H

⎛ ⎞= =⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠

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

38

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


FR

S (

g)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6Comparison Floor Response Spectra at h=0.7H


FR

S (

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


FR

S (

g)

RVTBest FitAC156


Resulting protocol histories (h/H=0.3)

39

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

-10

0

10

20

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

)

Top Displacement History

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

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Vel

o (in

/sec

)

Top Velocity History

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

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Time (sec)

Acc

(g)

Top Acceleration History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (H

z)

Instant Frequency

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

-10

0

10

20

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

)

Bottom Displacement History

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

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Vel

o (in

/sec

)

Bottom Velocity History

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

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Time (sec)

Acc

(g)

Bottom Acceleration History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (H

z)

Instant Frequency

( ) ( )( ) ( )Bottom Factorh hx t , f t cos t w t FRSH H

βα ϕ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

Top Bottomh h hx t , x t , t ,H H H

∆⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞= +⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠


Protocol histories (h/H=0.3)

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Interstory Drift History

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

4Comparison Floor Response Spectra


FR

S (

g)

Target

Bottom levelTop level

Envelope floor motions testing protocol h H =0.3.

Peak Displacements Peak Interstory Drift Peak Velocities Peak Accelerations DMax Bot

(in) DMax Top

(in) ∆Max (in)

δMax (%)

VMax Bot (in/s)

VMax Top (in/s)

AMax Bot (g)

AMax Top (g)

14.8 16.4 1.65 1.09 21.2 23.2 0.45 0.51

( )( ) ( )2

dt t

NCS

h ht , h e cos t w tH H

σ∆ δ ϕ−⎛ ⎞−⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

( )s Factor a sh hFRS T , , FRS S T ,H H

ξ ξ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠


Protocol histories (h/H=0.3) used to assess the seismic performance of two identical steel studded gypsum partition walls

41Remove this bolt

12.00 127.501.75

13.0

012

0.50

13.0

01.

75 Stud SSMA 362S125-43 18ga @ 16" o.c. typStud fasteners @ 8" o.c.

Track SSMA 362T125-43 18ga (top and bottom)Power driven nails @1' (2 nails @ track end)

5/8" Gypsum board

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

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20Displacement Protocol SH 10%/50yr

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)

Bottom level

Top level


Protocol histories (h/H=0.3)

42 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Interstory Drift (%)

For

ce (

kips

)

Histeresis Loops Partition Walls

North Wall

South Wall

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

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Time (sec)

Wal

l Def

orm

atio

n (in

)

Comparison Wall Deformations

North Wall Diag 1

North Wall Diag 2South Wall Diag 1

South Wall Diag 2

All edges of sheetrock panels crushed.All panels became loose or unstable. Permanent gaps (~1/2-3/4”) in all joints between sheetrock panels.

:3.31

Widespread pop-out of screws in the whole wall.Screws in all edges of all panels are disconnected. Edges of sheetrock panels continue crushing.Small dimension sheetrock panels totally loose.Permanent gaps (~1/4-1/2”) in most joints between sheetrock panels.

:2.21

Widespread pop-out of screws in the whole wall.Edges of sheetrock panels crushed.Small dimension sheetrock panels become loose.Permanent gaps (~1/8-1/4”) in most joints between sheetrock panels.Increased crushing of wall corners.

:1.64

Widespread pop-out of screws in the interior of sheetrock panels.Cracks along most of tape covering sheetrock panel joints.Permanent gaps (~1/16-1/8”) in joints between sheetrock panels.Increased crushing of wall corners.

:1.10

Initial pop-out of screws at and near bottom and top tracks.Cracks along tape covering sheetrock panel joints.Vertical “cracks” at top and bottom ends of corner beads are propagated.Incipient crushing of wall corners.

:0.52

Raised areas and small cracks around screws at and near bottom and top tracks.

Vertical “cracks” at top and bottom ends of corner beads.

:0.47

Damage observedDrift (%)

All edges of sheetrock panels crushed.All panels became loose or unstable. Permanent gaps (~1/2-3/4”) in all joints between sheetrock panels.

:3.31

Widespread pop-out of screws in the whole wall.Screws in all edges of all panels are disconnected. Edges of sheetrock panels continue crushing.Small dimension sheetrock panels totally loose.Permanent gaps (~1/4-1/2”) in most joints between sheetrock panels.

:2.21

Widespread pop-out of screws in the whole wall.Edges of sheetrock panels crushed.Small dimension sheetrock panels become loose.Permanent gaps (~1/8-1/4”) in most joints between sheetrock panels.Increased crushing of wall corners.

:1.64

Widespread pop-out of screws in the interior of sheetrock panels.Cracks along most of tape covering sheetrock panel joints.Permanent gaps (~1/16-1/8”) in joints between sheetrock panels.Increased crushing of wall corners.

:1.10

Initial pop-out of screws at and near bottom and top tracks.Cracks along tape covering sheetrock panel joints.Vertical “cracks” at top and bottom ends of corner beads are propagated.Incipient crushing of wall corners.

:0.52

Raised areas and small cracks around screws at and near bottom and top tracks.

Vertical “cracks” at top and bottom ends of corner beads.

:0.47

Damage observedDrift (%)

Composite Hospital Room Tests

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

Research emphasis is on partition wallsCompare loading protocol developed at UB with simulated floor motionsVerify performance capabilities of UB-NCS with realistic payload

43

Composite Hospital Room Tests

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

Free-standingAnchored

44

Partition wall

Main emphasis of researchGypsum panels on steel stud frameLayout based on quasi-static test conducted at UC San Diego

45

12 ft

10 ft

Ceiling system

Suspended ceiling with lay in tiles, including light and sprinkler

46

Piping System

Horizontal U-shaped run at top level with single sprinkler headVertical run connecting both levels

47

Medical Gas Piping System

Two copper lines connected to wall outletsHorizontal run supported by trapeze

48

Medical Equipment - attached

Wall mounted monitorAnchored to three stud assembly in wall 4 locations including one faulty installation

Ceiling mounted surgical lamp

Supported by steel frame connected to platform

49

Medical Equipment – free standing

Gurney with dummy, IV poles with pumps, Large cabinet on casters with video equip.

50

Loading Protocol

Use 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%)

51

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-20

-10

0

10

20

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

)

Top Displacement History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-40

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Vel

o (in

/sec

)

Top Velocity History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Time (sec)

Acc

(g)

Top Acceleration History

Peak Displacements Peak Interstory Drift Peak Velocities Peak Accelerations DMax Bot

(in) DMax Top

(in) ∆Max (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

Simulation using protocol - MCE

Simulation using protocol - DBE

Thank you

56

seismic safety of nonstructural components and systems in … · 2007-11-06 · seismic safety of...

Documents