Análisis y Diseño de Elementos No Estructurales

19
Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 Introduction Importance of Nonstructural Elements General Physical Characteristics General Response Characteristics Modeling of Nonstructural Elements Methods of Analysis
Background Floor Response Spectrum Method Alternative Methods Design-Oriented Simplied Method
19.7 Design Provisions in Building Codes

Overview Uniform Building Code NEHRP Provisions
19.8 General Design Considerations

Architectural Elements Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
Roberto Villaverde
19.9 Role of Nonstructural Elements in Performance-Based Design 19.10 Future Challenges 19.11 Summary
19.1 Introduction
Nonstructural elements are those systems and components attached to the oors and walls of a building or industrial facility that are not part of the main or intended load-bearing structural system for the building or industrial facility. Although not part of the main structural system, they may nevertheless also be subjected to large seismic forces and depend on their own structural characteristics to resist these seismic forces. In general, nonstructural elements may be classied into three broad categories: (1) architectural components, (2) mechanical and electrical equipment and (3) building contents. Examples of the rst category are elevator penthouses, stairways, partitions, parapets, heliports, cladding systems, signboards, lighting systems and suspended ceilings. Some of the second are storage tanks, pressure vessels, piping systems, ducts, escalators, smokestacks, antennas, cranes, radars and object tracking devices, computer and data acquisition systems, control panels, transformers, switchgears, emergency power systems, re protection systems, boilers, heat exchangers, chillers, cooling towers and machinery such as pumps, turbines, generators, engines and motors. Among some of those in the third category are bookshelves, le cabinets, storage racks, decorative items and any other piece of furniture commonly
2004 by CRC Press LLC
19-2
Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering
Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014
found in ofce buildings and warehouses. Alternative names by which these elements are also known are appendages, nonstructural components, building attachments, architectural, mechanical, and electrical elements, secondary systems, secondary structural elements and secondary structures. The name that best describes their nature is secondary structures, since it reects the fact that they are not part of the main structure but must possess, nevertheless, structural properties to maintain their own integrity. This chapter will describe why the survival of nonstructural elements is an important necessity in the event of a strong earthquake and why they are particularly vulnerable to the effect of earthquakes. It will review, in addition, the methods that are available for their seismic analysis and introduce in detail two such methods. In like manner, it will introduce the provisions contained in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the NEHRP provisions for the seismic design of nonstructural elements and illustrate the use of these provisions by means of a numerical example. The chapter will also present some general design recommendations and preventive measures that have been proven effective in improving the seismic resistance of some architectural elements and mechanical and electrical equipment. Finally, it will examine the role nonstructural elements play in the performance-based design of buildings, and identify the research needed to advance current efforts to protect nonstructural elements against the effects of earthquakes and to develop methods and techniques to achieve this goal in a practical and economical way.
19.2
Importance of Nonstructural Elements
Despite the fact that they are not part of the main structure, nonstructural elements are far from being secondary in importance. It is nowadays widely recognized that their survival is essential to provide emergency services in the aftermath of an earthquake. Experiences from past earthquakes have shown that the failure of equipment and the debris caused by falling objects and overturned furniture may critically affect the performance of re and police stations, emergency command centers, communication facilities, power stations, water supply and treatment plants, food treatment and cold storage plants, hospitals and collective transportation systems. For example, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles, CA, area, several major hospitals had to be evacuated, not because of structural damage, but because of (1) water damage caused by broken water lines and water supply tanks; (2) the failure of emergency power systems and heating, ventilation and air conditioning units; and (3) damage to suspended ceilings and light xtures and some broken windows (Hall, 1994, 1995). Along the same lines, it is now recognized that damage to nonstructural elements represents a threat to life safety, may seriously impair a building`s function and may result in major direct and indirect economic losses. Understandably, the collapse of suspended light xtures, hung ceilings or partition walls; the fall of cladding components, parapets, signboards, ornaments or pieces of broken glass; the overturning of heavy equipment, bookshelves, storage racks and pieces of furniture; and the rupture of pipes and containers with toxic materials are all capable of causing serious injury or death. Figure 19.1 through Figure 19.8 show a few examples of the failure of nonstructural elements during past earthquakes and vividly illustrate how these failures can cause serious injury and death. A most unfortunate demonstration that the failure of a nonstructural element indeed represents a threat to life safety was the death of a student who was struck by a falling precast panel while walking out of a parking structure during the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake in California (Taly, 1988). In like fashion, it is easy to visualize how the normal activities that take place in a building may be critically disrupted when some essential equipment fails, or when debris from failed architectural components gets in the way. Typical examples that illustrate the consequences of such an event are the unwanted solidication of a melted metal in an industrial facility, the inaccessibility of nancial records in a timely manner in a banking institution and the failure to ll pending orders in a manufacturing plant. In regard to the economic impact caused by the failure of nonstructural elements, there is nowadays plenty of evidence that shows that because of the loss of the nonstructural components themselves, loss of inventory and loss of business income, the cost of such failures may easily exceed the replacement cost of the building (EERI, 1984). And in todays highly technological environment, this
19-3
FIGURE 19.1 Collapse of signboard on street of Kobe, Japan, during the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake. (Photo courtesy of Chris Arnold/Building Systems Development, Inc.)
FIGURE 19.2 Collapse of pipe originally suspended from below oor system of parking structure during the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake. (Photo courtesy of S.S. Rihal/Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.)
19-4
FIGURE 19.3 Failure of hospital penthouse during the 1985 Mexico earthquake.
cost may be even accentuated as a result of the widespread use of electronic and computer equipment and dependence of industry on this type of equipment. It is thus clear that nonstructural elements should be the subject of a rational and careful seismic design in much the same way as their supporting structures are.
19.3 General Physical Characteristics

Several physical characteristics make nonstructural elements in buildings particularly vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes. Some of these physical characteristics are: 1. Most nonstructural elements are attached to the elevated portions of a building, and thus they are subjected not to the ground motion generated by an earthquake, but to the amplied motions generated by the dynamic response of the building. 2. Their weight is light in comparison with the weight of the structure to which they are connected, and their stiffness is also much smaller that that of the structure as a whole. As a result, it is likely that their natural frequencies are close to the natural frequencies of the structure, and hence their dynamic response to the motion at their supports may be extraordinarily high.
19-5
FIGURE 19.4 Failure of window frame in school building during the 1973 Orizaba, Mexico, earthquake.
FIGURE 19.5 Fallen precast element from parking garage, responsible for death of a student during the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake in Los Angeles, CA, area. (Photo courtesy of Narendra Taly/California State University, Los Angeles; reproduced with permission of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.)
3. Their damping ratios may be quite low, much lower than those for the structure, and thus they do not possess the damping characteristics that are necessary for protection against sharp resonant motions. 4. They may be connected to the structure at more than one point and therefore they may be subjected to the distortions induced by the differential motion of their supports.
19-6
FIGURE 19.6 Collapse of buildings exterior wall during the 1994 Northridge, CA, earthquake. (Photo courtesy of Yousef Bozorgnia.)
5. They are designed to perform a function other than to resist forces. As such, they are built with materials that are far from the ideal materials to resist seismic forces and they may possess parts that are sensitive to even the smallest level of vibration.
19.4
General Response Characteristics
The special physical characteristics described above make nonstructural elements not only susceptible to earthquake damage, but also respond to earthquake ground motions differently from the way building structures do. That is, the response of a nonstructural element exhibits characteristics that are not common in the response of a conventional structure. The following are a few of such characteristics: 1. The response of a nonstructural element depends on the response of the structure to which it is connected, and thus it depends not only on the characteristics of the ground motion that excites the base of the structure, but also on the dynamic characteristics of the structure. 2. The response of a nonstructural element depends on its location within the structure. As a result, identical elements may respond differently to the effects of an earthquake if they are located at different levels of the supporting structure. 3. There may be a signicant interaction between a nonstructural element and its supporting structure. That is, the motion of the nonstructural element may modify the motion of its supporting structure, and vice versa. In such cases, therefore, one cannot predict the response of the nonstructural element without knowing in advance the dynamic properties of both the nonstructural element and the supporting structure.
19-7
FIGURE 19.7 Dislocation of library bookshelves during the 1987 Whittier Narrows, CA, earthquake. (Photo courtesy of Narendra Taly/California State University, Los Angeles; reproduced with permission of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.)
FIGURE 19.8 Collapse of 17-ton scoreboard at Anaheim Stadium (black object below stadiums A logo and surrounded by billboards) during the 1994 Northridge, CA, earthquake.
19-8
4. When a nonstructural element is connected to the structure at more than one point, the elements supports are excited by motions that are different and out of phase. 5. Since the damping in a nonstructural element is much lower than the damping in the supporting structure, the damping in the system formed by the structure and its nonstructural elements, which is the system that characterizes the response of a nonstructural element, is not uniform. This means that the response of nonstructural elements is governed by the response of a system without classical modes of vibration; that is, the response of a system whose natural frequencies and mode shapes are complex valued. 6. Since, as mentioned earlier, it is likely that some of the natural frequencies of a nonstructural element may be close in value to some of those of the supporting structure, the combined structurenonstructural system may result in a system with closely spaced natural frequencies. As such, the response of a nonstructural element may be dominated by its response in two or more of its modes of vibration, as opposed to a single mode, which is the case for many low-rise and regular building structures. 7. The response of a nonstructural element is affected by its own yielding as well as the yielding of its supporting structure.
19.5 Modeling of Nonstructural Elements

As may be inferred from the examples given in Section 19.1, and in contrast to building structures, there exists a vast variety of nonstructural elements. Therefore, there are no general rules or accepted standards for the modeling of nonstructural elements. What is more, in many situations, the modeling is left to the manufacturer of the particular element in question, who, in the majority of the cases, is the only one in a position to be able to identify the dynamic properties and signicant characteristics that need to be considered in a mathematical model of the element. In general, however, it can be said that as far as their modeling is concerned, nonstructural elements can be considered as belonging to three broad categories: rigid, exible, and hanging from above. If a nonstructural element is rigid, then its dynamic properties will depend primarily on the exibility and ductility of its anchors. In this case, the nonstructural element may be modeled as a single-degree-of-freedom system with a mass equal to the total mass of the element and stiffness and ductility equal to the stiffness and ductility of the anchors. Examples of these types of nonstructural elements are engines and motors attached to the oors of a structure by means of steel brackets and bolts. If, on the other hand, a nonstructural element is exible, then it is necessary to model the element as a multi-degree-of-freedom system with distributed mass, stiffness and ductility, in much the same way as a building structure is normally modeled. In this regard, it should be noted that, unlike a building structure, a nonstructural element may be attached to multiple points of its supporting structure and that it is important to consider these multiple attachments in the modeling of the nonstructural element. Typical examples of exible nonstructural elements are signboards and pipelines, the latter also being an example of a nonstructural element with multiple points of attachment. Finally, if the nonstructural element hangs from above, then the element behaves and may be modeled as a singlemass pendulum. Ordinarily, however, hanging nonstructural elements are not analyzed since these elements are seldom damaged by earthquakes. The exception is when the nonstructural element may impact its supporting structure or any other nearby object as a result of the large oscillations it may be subjected to during an earthquake. In these cases, an analysis should be performed to investigate the amplitude of such oscillations. Examples of hanging secondary structures are lighting systems, cable trays and some decorative items such as chandeliers.
19.6
Methods of Analysis
19.6.1 Background
A great research effort has been devoted over the last three decades to develop rational methods for the seismic analysis of nonstructural elements. For the most part, this effort has been fueled by the need to
19-9
guarantee the survivability of critical equipment such as piping and control systems in nuclear power plants. Therefore, many methods of analysis have been proposed as a result of this research effort, some of them with a strong empirical base, and others based on rigorous principles of structural dynamics. Up to now, however, none of these methods has become the industry standard or the one that is preferred by most analysts. In the development of methods of analysis for nonstructural elements, it is generally recognized that they are difcult to analyze accurately and efciently. It is always possible to consider them in conjunction with the analysis of their supporting structures, but a combined structurenonstructural system generally results in a system with an excessive number of degrees of freedom and large differences in the values of its various masses, stiffnesses and damping constants. As a consequence, the conventional methods of analysis become expensive, inaccurate and inefcient. For example, a modal analysis exhibits difculties in the computation of natural frequencies and mode shapes, and a step-by-step integration method becomes extraordinarily sensitive to the selected integration time step. Likewise, the analysis of a combined system may be too impractical since during the preliminary design of the nonstructural element, the supporting structure would have to be reanalyzed every time a change is introduced in some of the parameters of the nonstructural element. Considering that normally structures and nonstructural elements are designed by different teams at different times, this approach would also bring serious problems of schedule and efciency. Thus, most of the methods proposed for the analysis of nonstructural elements have been the result of an effort to avoid the analysis of a combined system and overcome the aforementioned difculties. The majority of the methods available for the analysis of nonstructural elements are based on concepts not covered in introductory courses on structural dynamics and, hence, beyond the scope of this discussion. Therefore, only two methods of analysis will be described in this chapter. One is the oor response spectrum method, and the other is a design-oriented approximate method. Although with some limitations, these methods are easy to understand and thus useful to introduce the reader to a difcult problem and illustrate some of the fundamental concepts involved. A brief description of the concepts on which some other methods are based will also be presented.
19.6.2 Floor Response Spectrum Method

One of the rst simplied methods used in the analysis of nonstructural elements is the so-called systemsin-cascade, in-structure response spectrum, or oor response spectrum method. In this method, rst the excitation at the base of a nonstructural element is dened in terms of a response spectrum in much the same way as in the case of a building structure. Then, the nonstructural element is analyzed, also as in the case of a conventional structure, using such a response spectrum. Since, in general, the response spectrum for the excitation at the base of a nonstructural element is different from the response spectrum of the ground motion that excites its supporting structure, the former is called oor response spectrum or in-structure response spectrum to distinguish it from the latter. Note also that a oor response spectrum is needed for each of the points or oors of the structure where there is a nonstructural element attached to it. The obvious reason is that the motion may be markedly different at different points or oors of a structure. Ordinarily, a oor response spectrum is obtained by means of a time-history analysis. That is, given a ground acceleration time history, a step-by-step integration analysis is carried out to determine the acceleration time history of the point or oor to which the nonstructural element under consideration will be attached. Then, this time history is used to generate a response spectrum using any of the conventional methods currently in use. Since the use of a single time history is not acceptable for design purposes, it is necessary to generate oor response spectra for several different ground acceleration time histories and use an average or envelope to all these spectra. As this is a time-consuming process that requires lengthy numerical integrations, an alternative commonly employed in practice is the use of an articial ground acceleration time history that is tted to envelop a given ground design spectrum, such as the design spectrum specied by a building code. However, caution should be exercised with this alternative since such an articial time history is not uniquely dened. That is, different time histories
19-10 Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering
10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Acceleration (m/s2)
Mass Stiffness (Gg) (MN/m) 0.179 62.47 0.170 59.26 0.161 56.14 0.152 53.02 0.143 49.91 0.134 46.79 0.125 43.67 0.116 40.55 0.107 37.43 0.098 34.31
2 1 0 1 2 3 0 10 20 30 Time (sec) 40 50 60
(a)
6
(b)
70 Spectral Acceleration (m/s2) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 Frequency (Hz) 10 100
Acceleration (m/s2)
4 2 0 2 4 6 0 10 20 30 40 Time (sec) 50 60
(c)
(d)
FIGURE 19.9 (a)Ten-story building considered in Example 19.1. (Note: Gg = 68, 525 slugs; 1 MN/m = 737.5 kips/ ft); (b) EW component of ground acceleration recorded at the Foster City station during the 1989 Loma Prieta, CA, earthquake. (Note 1 m/s2 = 3.28 ft/s2); (c) Acceleration response for roof level of building considered in Example 19.1 under EW Foster City accelerogram. (Note 1/ms2 = 3.28 ft/s2); (d) oor response spectrum for roof level of building considered in Example 19.1 under EW Foster City accelerogram. (Note: 1 m/s2 = 3.28 ft/s2).
may envelop the target design spectrum but give signicantly different results. Another alternative is to use one of the several methods that are now available to generate oor response spectra directly from a specied ground response spectrum or a design spectrum without utilizing a time-history analysis. These methods use as input a specied ground response spectrum and the dynamic properties of the structure. Examples are the methods proposed by Biggs and Roesset (1970), Amin et al. (1971), Kapur and Shao (1973), Peters et al. (1977), Vanmarcke (1977), Atalik (1978) and Singh (1980). Example 19.1 Analysis of nonstructural element by oor response spectrum method A piece of equipment is mounted on the roof of the 10-story shear building shown in Figure 19.9a. This piece of equipment can be modeled as a single-degree-of-freedom system with a natural frequency of 2.0 Hz. Determine, using the oor response spectrum method, the maximum acceleration of the piece of equipment when the base of the building is subjected to the East-West component of the ground acceleration recorded at the Foster City station during the 1989 Loma Prieta, CA, earthquake (see Figure 19.9b). Assume that the buildings damping matrix is proportional to its stiffness matrix and that the damping ratio in its fundamental mode is 2%. Similarly, assume a damping ratio of 0.5% for the piece of equipment. Solution: The rst step in using the oor response spectrum method for the solution of this problem is the generation of the oor spectrum corresponding to the roof of the building and the given earthquake ground motion. For this purpose, rst a time-history analysis of the building is carried out. Then, using the time history corresponding to the acceleration response of the building at its roof level, the desired oor response spectrum is generated.
19-11
4.0 mass ratio, re = 0 ACCELERATION/G 3.0 re = 1/50
2.0 re = 1/10 1.0 re = 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Frequency (RAD/SEC)
FIGURE 19.10 Floor response spectra for fourth oor of six-story building in Figure 19.11 corresponding to different nonstructural to structural mass ratios. (Adapted from Singh, M.P. and Surez, L.E., Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15, 871888, 1987. With permission.)
The acceleration time history of the buildings roof and the corresponding oor response spectrum obtained are shown in Figure 19.9c and Figure 19.9d, respectively. From this oor response spectrum, it can be seen that the ordinate corresponding to a frequency of 2 Hz is equal to 14.4 m/sec2 (47.2 ft/sec2). Therefore, the acceleration of the piece of equipment when the building is subjected to the given excitation is approximately equal to 1.47 g. Floor response spectrum methods have been proven accurate for nonstructural elements whose masses are much smaller than the masses of their supporting structure and natural frequencies that are not too close to the natural frequencies of the structure. However, these methods may yield overly conservative results for nonstructural elements that do not have these characteristics. (Toro et al., 1989, report that errors may be signicant when nonstructural to structural mass ratios are greater than 10-3.) The reason for this overconservatism is that in oor response spectrum methods nonstructural elements are considered separately from their supporting structure, without due consideration to the fact that the response of a nonstructural element may signicantly affect the response of its supporting structure and vice versa. That is, oor response spectrum methods neglect the dynamic interaction between a structure and a nonstructural element. An additional reason is that oor response spectrum methods cannot account for the fact that the masses of the structure and the nonstructural element vibrate out of phase, an effect that arises because, in general, the combined system does not possess classical modes of vibration. There is now ample analytical evidence that demonstrates that ignoring these two effects may lead to gross errors in the response calculation of some nonstructural elements (see, for example, Igusa and Der Kiureghian, 1985a, and Chen and Soong, 1988).
6 5 4 3 2 1 Mass Stiffness Story (Gg) (MN/m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 70 70 50 50 40 40 500 500 400 400 350 350 Natural Mode Frequency (rad/s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 23.87 61.53 97.35 133.15 153.59 171.00
FIGURE 19.11 Properties and natural frequencies of six-story shear building considered in study of interaction and nonclassical damping effects. (Note: 1 Gg = 68,525 slugs; 1 MN/m = 737.5 kips/ft.)
Another problem with oor response spectrum methods is that they cannot be rationally applied for the analysis of nonstructural elements with multiple points of attachment (Wang et al. 1983). This is so because these methods cannot consider that the motions at different attachment points are normally different from one another and out of phase. Attempts have been made to overcome this problem, but for the most part these attempts have been in the form of empirical or ad-hoc procedures. For example, it has been proposed to determine the maximum response of a multiply supported nonstructural element by calculating rst the maximum responses that result from using (one at a time) the oor spectra obtained for each of its supports. Then, these maximum responses are combined in an empirical way to estimate the systems true maximum response (Lin and Loceff, 1980; Shaw, 1975; Thailer, 1976). Common among these empirical procedures is the selection of the largest of all the response maxima, or a combination of them on the basis of the square root of the sum of their squares. Other techniques use a spectrum obtained by enveloping the oor spectra for all the nonstructural elements supports, or that of including a pseudo-static component of the response, determined in terms of the difference between the peak displacements at the various attachment points. It is now recognized, nevertheless, that these techniques are often too crude and in many cases may lead to overly conservative results. The oor response spectra shown in Figure 19.10 illustrate the accuracy involved in the use of the oor response spectrum method. These oor response spectra have been obtained for the fourth oor of the six-story shear building depicted in Figure 19.11, using as input an ensemble of 75 synthetically generated ground motions and considering a damping ratio of 6% for the fundamental mode of the building. The curve corresponding to a 0 mass ratio is obtained using the traditional procedure that is used to generate oor response spectra; i.e., ignoring the dynamic interaction between the structure and the nonstructural element. The other curves are obtained for different mass ratios but fully considering this interaction. The mass ratio identied in each of these curves is determined by dividing the total mass of the considered nonstructural element by the total mass of the structure.
TABLE 19.1 Absolute Acceleration Response (Expressed as a Fraction of g) of Single-Degree-ofFreedom Nonstructural Element Mounted on Fourth Floor of Structure Depicted in Figure 19.11 When the Nonclassical Damping Nature of the Combined System is and is Not Taken Into Accounta
Nonstructural Element Natural Frequency (rad/sec) 24 42 62 97 134 154 162 171 Mass Ratio 0.00156 Classical Damping 2.556 0.446 0.612 0.335 0.281 0.258 0.254 0.252 Nonclassical Damping 3.149 0.451 0.312 0.315 0.309 0.257 0.254 0.252 Error (%) 18.8 1.0 95.8 6.4 8.9 0.5 0.0 0.1 Classical Damping 4.317 0.449 0.879 0.291 0.386 0.295 0.256 0.252 0.000156 Nonclassical Damping 3.063 0.453 0.313 0.407 0.320 0.258 0.255 0.254 Error (%) 41.0 1.0 180.6 28.6 20.4 14.4 0.3 0.7
a Damping ratio in fundamental mode of structure = 6%; damping ratio of nonstructural element = 1%.
Source: Singh, M.P. and Surez, L.E. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15, 871888, 1987. With permission.
It may be noted from the curves in Figure 19.10 that neglecting the interaction is always conservative, although in some cases it may be grossly conservative. It may also be noted that the interaction effect becomes important when the mass ratio is not too small and the natural frequency of the nonstructural element is close to one of the dominant natural frequencies of its supporting structure. In like fashion, Table 19.1 and Table 19.2 illustrate the importance of considering nonclassical damping effects in the analysis of nonstructural elements. In these two tables, the absolute acceleration responses
19-13
4 PSA inelastic/PSA elastic 3 2 1
Floor response spectrum ratio, Taft =4 =2
Floor #1 PSA inelastic/PSA elastic
Floor response spectrum ratio, Mitchell Lake =4 =2
Floor #5
0 0.1
1 (a)
10
100
0 0.1
1 (b)
10
100
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
FIGURE 19.12 Floor response spectrum ratios (inelastic structure/elastic structure) corresponding to oor accelerations of ve-story shear building with rst-oor interstory ductilities of 2 and 4: (a) ratios for rst oor when building is subjected to 1952 Taft acceleration record; (b) ratios for fth oor when building is subjected to 1982 Mitchell Lake acceleration record. Vertical lines identify the natural frequencies of the structure. (Adapted from Sewell, R.T., Damage Effectiveness of Earthquake Ground Motion: Characterizations Based on the Performance of Structures and Equipment, PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1988. With permission.)
TABLE 19.2 Absolute Acceleration Response (Expressed As a Fraction of g) of Single-Degree-ofFreedom Nonstructural Element Mounted on Fourth Floor of Structure Depicted in Figure 19.11 When the Nonclassical Damping Nature of the Combined System Is and Is Not Taken into Accounta
Nonstructural Element Natural Frequency (rad/sec) 24 42 62 97 134 154 162 171 Mass Ratio 0.00156 Classical Damping 2.070 0.451 0.667 0.283 0.252 0.231 0.228 0.225 Non-classical Damping 2.460 0.459 0.299 0.320 0.271 0.231 0.228 0.226 Error (%) 15.9 1.7 122.3 11.7 6.9 0.0 0.1 0.4 Classical Damping 4.267 0.455 1.135 0.190 0.359 0.283 0.232 0.225 0.000156 Non-classical Damping 2.766 0.463 0.301 0.388 0.288 0.234 0.230 0.227 Error (%) 54.3 1.7 276.8 51.2 24.7 21.4 0.9 0.8
a Damping ratio in fundamental mode of structure = 8%; damping ratio of nonstructural element = 0.5%.
Source: Singh, M.P. and Surez, L.E. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15, 871888, 1987. With permission.
of a single-degree-of-freedom nonstructural element are compared when this element is analyzed considering the nonclassical damping character of the combined system and when it is analyzed assuming that this combined system is classically damped. Table 19.1 summarizes the results for the case when the damping ratios in the fundamental mode of the structure and the nonstructural element are 6 and 1%, respectively, while Table 19.2 summarizes those when these damping ratios are 8 and 0.5%. It may be noted from these tables that some large errors may be possible if the nonclassical damping effects in question are not accounted for. It is also noted that, in general, such an effect becomes important when the nonstructural to structural mass ratio is small, the natural frequency of the nonstructural element is close to one of the dominant frequencies of the structure and the difference between the damping ratios of the structure and the nonstructural element is large. Furthermore, it is noted that the
discrepancy between the results for the cases with classical and nonclassical damping becomes consistently larger as the nonstructural to structural mass ratio becomes smaller. Finally, it should also be noted that traditionally oor response spectra are obtained under the assumption that a structure and its nonstructural elements behave as linear systems. As is well known, however, conventional structures are designed to resist strong earthquakes by incurring into their nonlinear range of behavior. Similarly, many nonstructural components have the capability to resist inelastic deformations. Hence, it is likely that a structure and its nonstructural elements will undergo inelastic deformations during a severe earthquake, and that this nonlinear behavior will inuence the response of the nonstructural elements signicantly. At present, there is no clear understanding as to how structural nonlinearity may affect a oor response spectrum. In general, response reductions are expected for nonstructural components with natural frequencies equal to or greater than the fundamental natural frequency of the structure. These reductions result from two main factors: (1) an increase in the damping ratio of the structure as a result of its nonlinear behavior (hysteretic damping) and (2) a shift of the fundamental natural frequency of the structure away from the natural frequency of the nonstructural element. A further reduction is attained if the nonstructural element itself is allowed to go nonlinear in much the same way as is observed in a typical nonlinear response spectrum. Some numerical studies have shown, however, that oor response spectrum ordinates for a nonlinear structure may actually increase in comparison to those obtained when the structure is assumed to remain linear at all excitation levels. Moreover, these studies have also shown that this increase is particularly noticeable at high frequencies; that is, at frequencies higher than the structures fundamental natural frequency. Figure 19.12 illustrates the contrasting effect of structural nonlinearity in a oor response spectrum. This gure shows oor response spectrum ratios for a nonlinear ve-story shear structure, where these ratios are obtained by dividing the oor response spectrum for the nonlinear structure by the corresponding oor response spectrum when the structure is assumed to have a linear behavior. Two values of the ductility factor m are considered for the structures rst story: m = 2 and m = 4. All other stories are assumed to remain in their linear range of behavior. Figure 19.12a shows the aforementioned ratios for the rst oor of the structure when the structure is excited by the S69E component of the ground motion recorded at Taft Lincoln School during the 1952 Kern County, CA, earthquake. Figure 19.12b shows those for the fth oor of the structure when the structure is excited by the N28E component of the ground motion recorded at Mitchell Lake Road during the 1982 New Brunswick, Canada, earthquake. Note that in these gures a ratio of less than 1 represents a reduction in oor response spectrum ordinate due to the structural nonlinearity. Conversely, a ratio of more than 1 represents an increase. It can be seen from these gures that in one case (Figure 19.12a) there is a considerable amplication in the high frequency range of the spectrum due to the nonlinearity of the structure. In the other case (Figure 19.12b) a reduction is observed over the entire frequency range of the spectrum. Worthwhile to note too is the fact that in both cases the structural nonlinearity produces, as expected, a reduction for frequencies that are near the fundamental natural frequency of the structure.
19.6.3 Alternative Methods

In view of the limitations of the oor response spectrum methods and the impracticality of a direct analysis of the combined structuralnonstructural system, several alternative methods have been developed that take into account not only the aforementioned interaction and nonclassical damping effects, but also overcome the practicality problems associated with such a direct analysis. In general two approaches have been followed. In one of these approaches, in recognition of the convenience and exibility of the oor response spectrum method and its wide use in the nuclear power industry, corrections are introduced to this method to account for, in an approximate manner, interaction and nonclassical damping effects. Examples of these methods are those proposed by Lee and Penzien (1983), Gupta (1984), Igusa and Der Kiureghian (1985b), Singh and Sharma (1985), Asfura and Der Kiureghian (1986), Gupta and Jaw (1986b), Burdisso and Singh (1987) and Surez and Singh (1987a, 1989). In the other approach, the response of the nonstructural element is obtained on the basis of an approximate
19-15
modal or random vibration analysis of the combined structuralnonstructural system, but using, through a modal synthesis, the dynamic properties of its separate components. This approach eliminates the main source of error inherent in the oor response spectrum method since by considering the two subsystems together as a single unit, the interaction between the two subsystems and the different and out-phase support motions are automatically taken into account. This approach is also a practical one. By formulating the analysis in terms of the dynamic properties of independent subsystems, one avoids the numerical difculties associated with the large differences in the values of the parameters of the structure and the nonstructural element when conventional methods of analysis are used. Furthermore, one avoids solving a large eigenvalue problem, the need to generate intermediary oor response spectra (since the earthquake input is dened at the ground level) and the need to reanalyze the structure every time changes are made to the parameters of the nonstructural element. Conceptually, the idea of determining the response of a nonstructural element in terms of an analysis of the combined system it forms with its supporting structure, but utilizing only the properties of the individual components, is a simple one. Its implementation, however, is not free of complications and difculties. For example, if one wants to analyze such a combined system by means of the response spectrum method, one needs to rst determine its natural frequencies, mode shapes, damping ratios, and maximum modal responses. Then, one needs to combine these modal responses using a modal combination rule. However, the system that results from combining two subsystems with such a drastic difference in the values of their masses, stiffnesses and damping constants is a system without classical modes of vibration and with closely spaced natural frequencies. This means that the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the system are complex valued and that the combination of its modal responses requires, and highly depends on, an accurate rule to combine the modal responses of a system with nonclassical damping and closely spaced natural frequencies. Notwithstanding such difculties and complications, several methods that use this technique have been proposed throughout the years methods that basically differ in the way the dynamic properties of the components are synthesized to obtain the dynamic properties of the combined system, and in the assumptions made to simplify the procedure. In chronological order, some of these methods are those suggested by Newmark (1972), Sackman and Kelly (1979), Newmark and Villaverde (1980), Der Kiureghian et al. (1983), Hernried and Sackman (1984), Gupta (1984), Igusa and Der Kiureghian (1985c), Gupta and Jaw (1986a), Villaverde (1986a, 1986b), Singh and Suarez (1987), Surez and Singh (1987b), Muscolino (1990), Villaverde (1991), Saudy et al. (1994) and Gupta (1997). All the methods referred to above have been derived specically for linear nonstructural elements mounted on linear structures. However, as shown above and as pointed out by Lin and Mahin (1985), Aziz and Ghobarah (1988), Toro et al. (1989), Sewell et al. (1989), Igusa (1990), Singh et al. (1993), Schroeder and Backman (1994) and Adam and Fotiu (2000), the nonlinear behavior of a nonstructural element and that of its supporting structure may signicantly affect the behavior of the nonstructural element, either in the form of an increase or a reduction over its linear response. These methods, therefore, may lead to either nonconservative or uneconomical designs. Recognizing the importance of such nonlinear behavior, a few investigators have made an effort to derive simplied methods that incorporate structural and nonstructural nonlinearity. Given, however, the difculties in obtaining explicit solutions for such a complex problem, most of the effort has been directed toward the development of reduction and amplication factors by which a linear oor spectrum should be modied to approximately take into account such nonlinearity (Kawakatsu et al., 1979; Lin and Mahin, 1985; Viti et al., 1981). Exceptions are the works of Villaverde (1987) and Igusa (1990). Villaverde (1987) developed a method based on the use of nonlinear ground response spectra for the analysis of linear multi-degree-of-freedom nonstructural elements mounted on an elastoplastic multidegree-of-freedom building structure. Igusa (1990) derived an analytical solution for the response of a two-degree-of-freedom structuralnonstructural system with small nonlinearities, using random vibration theory and equivalent linearization techniques. For a description of the difference between the methods of analysis cited above, the reader is referred to the state-of-the-art reviews made by Singh (1990) and Soong (1994), as well as the book by Gupta (1990).
vpk lk wpk wpj wpj lj lj
vp (a) (b)
vpj
FIGURE 19.13 Assumed mode shapes for nonstructural elements with one and two points of attachment.
19.6.4 Design-Oriented Simplied Method

A procedure to determine in a conservative but simple way equivalent static lateral forces for the seismic design of nonstructural elements attached to buildings is presented next. This procedure is derived on the basis of a modal synthesis and the introduction of simplifying assumptions comparable to those employed in the development of the static method for the seismic design of buildings. It is intended to be valid for the design of nonstructural elements connected to a structure at one or two points, and those that together with their supporting structure form a system with nonclassical damping. It takes into account the dynamic interaction between the two subsystems, the level above the base of the structure of the point or points of the structure to which the nonstructural element is attached, the number of such attachment points and the nonlinear behavior of the structure and nonstructural elements. It uses, in addition, the design spectra specied by building codes for the design of the structure to also dene the earthquake input to the nonstructural element. The derivation of the procedure is lengthy and tedious, so it will not be shown here. Interested readers may nd this derivation in some of the authors publications (Villaverde 1991, 1997, 2000). The following are some of the major assumptions made in the derivation of the procedure: 1. The total response of the combined structuralnonstructural system is approximately given by the response in the two modes of the system that correspond to the fundamental natural periods of the two independent subsystems. 2. The fundamental natural period of the nonstructural element coincides with the fundamental natural period of the structure; that is, the fundamental mode of the nonstructural element is in resonance with the fundamental mode of the structure. 3. The fundamental mode shape of the structure varies linearly from 0 at its base to a maximum value at its top. 4. The fundamental mode of the nonstructural element varies linearly along its height. In the case of a single point of attachment, it varies from 0 at its point where it is connected to the structure to a maximum value at its other end. In the case of two points of attachment, it varies from 0 at the two attachment points to a maximum value at the point where it attains its maximum displacement when each of its masses is subjected to a static force equal to its own weight (see Figure 19.13). 5. The generalized masses in the fundamental modes of the structure and the nonstructural element are equal to their respective total masses. 6. The damping ratios in the fundamental modes of the structure and the nonstructural element are equal to 5 and 0%, respectively.
19-17
7. Both the structure and nonstructural element exhibit elastoplastic behavior and this behavior is characterized by an initial stiffness and a yield strength. 8. The input response spectrum for the combined structuralnonstructural system is the elastic response spectrum specied for the design of the structure. The procedure involves the calculation of equivalent static lateral forces whose values are intended to be greater than or equal to the maximum values of the lateral forces that may be generated on the masses of a nonstructural element by a specied design earthquake. These forces are determined according to F pj = w pj l j
w
j=1
Vp l
(19.1)
pj j
where Fpj = force acting at the center of the jth mass of the nonstructural element. wpj = weight of the jth mass of the nonstructural element. lj = distance from attachment point to jth mass of nonstructural element in the case of a nonstructural element with a single attachment point (see Figure 19.13a), or distance from the lower or upper attachment point to the jth mass of the nonstructural element in the case of a nonstructural element with two attachment points. The lower attachment point is selected when such jth mass is located below the point at which the element attains its maximum deection when each mass is subjected to a lateral force equal to its own weight; otherwise, the upper attachment point is selected (see Figure 19.13b). n = total number of masses in the nonstructural element. Vp = base shear or sum of the shears at the supports of the nonstructural element (see Figure 19.13), calculated according to Vp = IC I pC p w p l (19.2)
in which, if f is the fundamental natural frequency of the structure, if f 2 Hz m eq if 2 < f < 8 Hz l= 2m eq - 1 33 - f 1 + 2m eq - 1 - 1 if 8 f 33 Hz 25
(19.3)
and meq is an equivalent ductility factor calculated according to m eq = [ N n 1 ( + )]-1 N + n m m p (19.4)
where m is the ductility factor specied for the structure, mp is the ductility factor specied for the nonstructural element, N is the number of oors in the building and n is the number of resisting elements in the nonstructural system. In addition, I = importance factor specied for the structure
Ip wp Cp
= spectral ordinate, expressed as a fraction of the acceleration of gravity, corresponding to the fundamental natural period of the structure in the response or design spectrum specied for the design of the structure = importance factor for nonstructural element (specied by local code or arbitrarily selected by designer) = total weight of nonstructural element = amplication factor given by Cp = 1 0.0025 w | 2 | p 2 W F0 12.5 F0 (19.5)
where W = total building weight and F0 = Whav (19.6)
i=1
Wi hi
in which hi = elevation above grade of buildings ith oor hav = average of elevations above grade of points of the building to which the nonstructural element is attached Wi = weight of buildings ith oor As noted earlier, this procedure is valid only for the case when a nonstructural element is attached to the structure at no more than two points. However, a nonstructural element with more than two attachment points can still be analyzed with this procedure by breaking it up into a series of subsystems with one or two attachment points each, and by considering each of these subsystems separately. For example, a nonstructural element rigidly attached to the 4th, 7th and 10th oors of a supporting building (see Figure 19.14) may be considered as composed of two independent subelements with two attachment points each, one attached to the 4th and 7th oors and the other attached to the 7th and 10th. As noted earlier, too, the procedure is based on the assumption that the fundamental natural period of the nonstructural element is in resonance with the fundamental natural period of the supporting structure; i.e., that the values of these two periods are equal or are very close to one another. Although this assumption offers the advantage of not having to know the natural periods of the nonstructural element to carry out its seismic design, it may be nonetheless overly conservative for those cases in which two such natural periods are signicantly different from one another. As a means to reduce the conservatism involved in the procedure for such cases, the amplication factor Cp may be replaced by a modied amplication factor Cm that varies linearly with the period ratio Tp/T, between the maximum value Cp, when this ratio is close to 1, and the minimum F0, when such a ratio is substantially different from 1.0. In this period ratio, Tp represents the fundamental natural period of the nonstructural element and T the fundamental natural period of the structure. The variation of the modied amplication factor Cm is shown in Figure 19.15, together with the limits of the period ratio beyond which the amplication factor for the nonstructural element should be considered equal to F0, and the limits that dene the range for which the structure and the nonstructural element should be considered in resonance with one another. In this gure, b is dened as b =
1 2
F0 w p / W
(19.7)
19-19
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
FIGURE 19.14 Example of nonstructural element connected to multiple points of supporting structure.
Cm Cp b b
0 0.618 1.0 1.618
Tp /T
FIGURE 19.15 Variation of modied amplication factor with natural period ratio.
6 5 6 @ 3.3 m 4 3 2 1
3@7m
FIGURE 19.16 Building and nonstructural element considered in Example 19.2. (Note 1 m = 3.28 ft.)
Note, thus, that if the fundamental natural period of the nonstructural element is known, the graph in Figure 19.15 may be used to reduce, in terms of the aforementioned natural period ratio, the magnitude of the amplication factor Cp in Equation 19.2 and, as a result, the magnitude of the seismic forces determined with Equation 19.1.
Example 19.2. Lateral forces for design of nonstructural element using simplied procedure Using the simplied procedure presented above, determine the lateral forces on the masses of the nonstructural element shown in Figure 19.16, when, as indicated in this same gure, the nonstructural element is rigidly connected to the fourth and sixth stories of a six-story ofce building. The building is located over a deposit of stiff soil in the city of Irvine, CA, and is structured with steel moment-resisting frames. A ductility factor of 6 is specied for the design of these moment-resisting frames. The buildings weight per oor is 2200 kN (494.6 kips) and its total weight is thus equal to 13,200 kN (2967.6 kips). The fundamental natural period of the building is 0.6 sec. The nonstructural element, an ordinary architectural xture for which its importance factor may be considered equal to 1.0, is modeled as a three-degree-of-freedom shear beam with four equal segments, each with a length of 1.65 m (5.41 ft). Each of its three masses weighs 4.4 kN (0.99 kips), and hence its total weight is 13.2 kN (2.97 kips); i.e., 0.1% of the total weight of the building. Its fundamental period is estimated to be 0.5 sec when its two ends are considered xed. A ductility factor of 2 may be considered in its design. Use the 1997 version of the UBC to dene the earthquake input to the building. Solution: For the case under consideration, the average of the elevations aboveground of the nonstructural elements two attachment points is equal to16.5 m (54.1 ft). Hence, substitution of this value and the oor weights given above into Equation 19.6 leads to W hav 13200(16.5) = 1.43 2200(3.3 + 6.6 + 9.9 + 13.2 + 16.5 + 19.8)
F0 =
W h
i=1
i i
Similarly, by substitution of this value of F0 and the given total weights of the structure and the nonstructural element into Equation 19.5, one obtains 1 0.0025 wp 2 | | 2 W F0 1 13.2 0.0025 2 13200 1.43 2
Cp =
= 33.5
which exceeds the limit of 12.5F0 = 12.5(1.43) = 17.87. Therefore, the amplication factor Cp will be considered equal to CP = 17.87 However, since in this case the fundamental natural frequencies of both the structure and the nonstructural elements are known, it is possible to use a reduced value of this amplication factor using the graph in Figure 19.15. To this end, note that the corresponding period ratio is given by Tp T = 0.5 = 0.833 0.6
Note, too, that according to Equation 19.7, in the case under consideration the value of the parameter b in such a graph is equal to b =
1 2
F0 w p / W = 1 2 (1.43) 13.2 / 13, 200 = 0.023
19-21
Consequently, from Figure 19.15 the reduced amplication factor becomes C m = 1.43 + 0.833 - 0.618 (17.87 - 1.43) = 11.3 0.977 - 0.618
Now, by substitution of the specied ductility factors of 6 for the structure and 2 for the nonstructural element into Equation 19.4, and by considering that for the building and nonstructural element under analysis N = 6 and n = 4, the equivalent ductility factor for the structuralnonstructural system results as m eq = [ 1 1 6 4 -1 N n ( + )]-1 = [ ( + )] = 3.33 6+ 4 6 2 N + n m m p
In like fashion, for a structural frequency of 1/0.6 = 1.667 Hz, Equation 19.3 yields l = m eq = 3.33 Also, according to the 1997 version of the UBC, for the building under consideration one has that C a = 0.44N a = 0.44(1.0) = 0.44 C v = 0.64N v = 0.64(1.2) = 0.77 Ts = Cv 0.77 = = 0.7 sec. 2.5C a 2.5(0.44)
and hence, the spectral acceleration for the design of the building may be considered equal to C = 2.5C a = 2.5(0.44) = 1.10 Finally, note that for an ofce building the UBC species an importance factor I equal to 1.0. Thus, after substitution of the values found above for l, C and Cm and the values specied for I and Ip, Equation 19.2 leads to Vp = IC (1.0)(1.10) (1.0)(11.3)w p = 3.7w p = 3.7(13.2) = 48.8 kN (11.0 kips) I pC m w p = l 3.33
Now, to distribute this force of 48.8 kN (11.0 kips) among the three masses of the nonstructural element, one needs to rst determine its point of maximum deection under lateral forces equal to the weight of its masses and dene the distances lj that appear in Equation 19.1. It may be noted, however, that in this case the nonstructural element is symmetric in mass and geometry and that consequently such a point of maximum deection is located at its geometric center. By inspection, therefore, it can be determined that l1 = l3 = 1.65 m (5.4 ft) and l2 = 3.3 m (10.8 ft), where l1, l2 and l3 correspond, respectively, to the lower, middle and upper masses. As a result, Equation 19.1 gives F p1 = w p1 l1 Vp= 4.4(1.65) (48.8) = 0.25(48.8) = 12.2 kN (2.75 kips) 4.4(1.65 + 3.30 + 1.65)
w
j=1
pj j
F p2 =
w p2 l 2
w
j=1
Vp=
pj j
4.4(3.30) (48.8) = 0.50(48.8) = 24.4 kN (5.50 kips) 4.4(1.65 + 3.30 + 1.65)
F p3 =
w p3 l3
w
j=1
Vp=
pj j
4.4(1.65) (48.8) = 0.25(48.8) = 12.2 kN (2.75 kips) 4.4(1.65 + 3.30 + 1.65)
19.7
Design Provisions in Building Codes
19.7.1 Overview
Several building codes and seismic provisions give recommendations for the seismic design of equipment and other nonstructural elements. In the United States, some of these include the UBC (1997), issued by the International Conference of Building Ofcials; the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings (2000), issued by the Building Seismic Safety Council; the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (1990), issued by the Structural Engineers Association of California; the International Building Code (IBC, 2000); the Tri-Services Manual (Departments of the Navy, Army, and Air Force, 1992); and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME, 1993). Only the provisions in the UBC and the NEHRP provisions will be discussed here, as these are the most frequently used for the design of nonstructural elements in ordinary buildings. Although also worth discussing, the provisions in the 2000 IBC will not be described since these provisions are based on and, except for some minor modications and the values of a few coefcients, are identical to the 2000 NEHRP provisions. In general, the intention of the provisions contained in the UBC and the NEHRP provisions for nonstructural elements is to ensure that nonstructural elements designed according to these provisions are able to withstand the accelerations and deformations generated by the design earthquake without fracturing, shifting or toppling. In general, too, these provisions are based on concepts and techniques that are similar to those used for the design of building structures. Specically, they specify an equivalent lateral force, where this force is expressed as a fraction of an elements weight, and is a function of the ground acceleration, location of the component relative to the height of the building, the components dynamic amplication and the components ability to absorb inelastic deformations. They also include guidelines for the design of elements that are sensitive to story drifts. The formulas specied to compute the equivalent lateral forces were developed empirically on the basis of oor acceleration data recorded in buildings during strong earthquakes in California (Kehoe and Freeman, 1998), assuming that the oor accelerations within the structure vary from the ground to the roof according to a trapezoidal distribution. The acceleration at the ground level is intended to be the acceleration used as input for the structure itself. From the examination of the recorded data, assuming a maximum value for the roof acceleration equal to three to four times the ground acceleration was found reasonable. A response modication factor (Rp) is included in the formulas to account for the overstrength and the inelastic deformation capability of the nonstructural element and/or its anchors. The inelastic behavior of the support structure was not included in the erroneous belief that (1) the extent of inelastic behavior is usually minor for structures designed by modern building codes, as their design is in many cases governed by drift limits or other loads; (2) nonstructural components are often designed without knowledge of the structures composition; and (3) it is a conservative consideration. Altogether, the formulas are intended to account for some of the most important factors that inuence the response of nonstructural components but without unduly burdening designers with complicated formulations.
19-23
19.7.2 Uniform Building Code

The provisions for nonstructural elements in the 1997 version of the UBC are based on ultimate strength design principles. They specify the use of a lateral force for the seismic design of elements of structures and their attachments, permanent nonstructural components and their attachments and the attachments of permanent equipment supported by a structure. Attachments include anchorages and required braces. Exemptions to these requirements are attachments for oor or roof-mounted equipment weighing less than 400 lb (181 kg) and furniture. Two alternate formulas are provided to compute the required lateral force. The rst one is conservative, but it is simple and easy to apply. This formula has the form
F p = 4.0C a I pW p The other formula is more complicated, but it takes more factors into account. It is given by a pC a I p Rp hx )W hr p
(19.8)
Fp =
(1 + 3
(19.9)
except that Fp need not be greater than (F p )max = 4.0C a I pW p and should not be less than (F p )min = 0.7C a I pW p (19.11) (19.10)
In the equations above, Fp = lateral force applied at the component or elements center of mass and distributed in proportion to the component or elements mass distribution ap = component amplication factor (i.e., factor that accounts for dynamic response of nonstructural element to building motion) selected from Table 19.3 according to component or element type, varying between 1.0 and 2.5 Ca = seismic coefcient specied for the design of the structure Ip = component or element importance factor, equal to 1.5 for essential and hazardous facilities and 1.0 for special and standard occupancy structures Rp = component response modication factor selected from Table 19.3 according to component or element type, varying between 1.5 and 4.0 (considered equal to 1.5 for anchorages with shallow expansion anchor bolts, chemical anchors or cast-in-place anchors and equal to 1.0 for anchorage constructed with nonductile materials or adhesives) hx = element or component elevation above grade, always considered to be greater than 0 hr = elevation above grade of structures roof Wp = element or component weight For the purpose of determining the component amplication factor ap, the code denes exible components or elements as those that together with their attachments have a fundamental natural period greater than 0.06 sec. The code also species that components or elements attached to a structure at several points, such as cladding, stairwells, windows, ducts and piping systems, be designed to resist the effects of the relative
TABLE 19.3 Horizontal Force Factors ap and Rp

Elements of Structures and Nonstructural Components and Equipmenta 1. Elements of structures A. Walls including the following: (1) Unbraced (cantilevered) parapets (2) Exterior walls at or above the ground oor and parapets braced above their centers of gravity (3) All interior-bearing and nonbearing walls B. Penthouse (except when framed by an extension of the structural frame) C. Connections for prefabricated structural elements other than walls. See also UBC Section 1632.2 2. Nonstructural components A. Exterior and interior ornamentations and appendages B. Chimneys, stacks and trussed towers supported on or projecting above the roof: (1) Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below their centers of mass (2) Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at or above their centers of mass C. Signs and billboards D. Storage racks (include contents) over 6 ft (1829 mm) tall E. Permanent oor-supported cabinets and book stacks more than 6 ft (1829 mm) in height (include contents) F. Anchorage and lateral bracing for suspended ceilings and light xtures G. Access oor systems H. Masonry or concrete fences over 6 ft (1829 mm) high I. Partitions 3. Equipment A. Tanks and vessels (include contents), including support systems B. Electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment and associated conduit and ductwork and piping C. Any equipment laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below its center of mass D. Anchorage of emergency power supply systems and essential communications equipment. Anchorage and support systems for battery racks and fuel tanks necessary for operation of emergency equipment. See also UBC Section 1632.2 E. Temporary containers with ammable or hazardous materials 4. Other components A. Rigid components with ductile material and attachments B. Rigid components with nonductile material or attachments C. Flexible components with ductile material and attachments D. Flexible components with nonductile material or attachments ap 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 Rp 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 b b c Footnote
2.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
d e c, f, g, h d, e, i
e, j, k, l, m, n, o, p e, j, n, o, p q, r
1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.5
s a a a a
a See UBC Section 1627 for denitions of exible components and rigid components. b See UBC Section 1633.2.4 and Section 1633.2.8 for concrete and masonry walls and UBC Section 1632.2 for connections c Applies to Seismic Zones 2, 3 and 4 only. d Ground supported steel storage racks may be designed using the provisions of UBC Section 1634. Chapter 22, Division
for panel connectors for panels.
Vl, may be used for design, provided seismic design forces are equal to or greater than those specied in UBC Section 1632.2 or Section 1634.2, as appropriate. e 0nly anchorage or restraints need to be designed. f Ceiling weight shall include all light xtures and other equipment or partitions that are laterally supported by the ceiling. For purposes of determining the seismic force, a ceiling weight of not less than 4 psf (0.19 kN/m 2) shall be used. g Ceilings constructed of lath and plaster or gypsum board screw or nail attached to suspended members that support a ceiling at one level extending from wall to wall need not be analyzed, provided the walls are not over 50 ft (15,240 mm) apart. h Light xtures and mechanical services installed in metal suspension systems for acoustical tile and lay-in panel ceilings shall be independently supported from the structure above as specied in UBC Standard 25-2, Part III. i W for access oor systems shall be the dead load of the access oor system plus 25% of the oor live load plus a 10-psf p (0.48 kN/m2) partition load allowance. j Equipment includes, but is not limited to, boilers, chillers, heat exchangers, pumps, air-handling units, cooling towers, control panels, motors, switchgear, transformers and life-safety equipment. It shall include major conduit, ducting and piping, which services such machinery and equipment and re sprinkler systems. See UBC Section 1632.2 for additional requirements for determining ap for nonrigid or exibly mounted equipment.
19-25
TABLE 19.3 Horizontal Force Factors ap and Rp (continued)

k Seismic restraints may be omitted from piping and duct supports if all the following conditions are satised: Lateral
motion of the piping or duct will not cause damaging impact with other systems; the piping or duct is made of ductile material with ductile connections; lateral motion of the piping or duct does not cause impact of fragile appurtenances (e.g., sprinkler heads) with any other equipment, piping or structural member; lateral motion of the piping or duct does not cause loss of system vertical support; rod-hung supports of less than 12 in. (305 mm) in length have top connections that cannot develop moments; and support members cantilevered up from the oor are checked for stability. l Seismic restraints may be omitted from electrical raceways, such as cable trays, conduit and bus ducts, if all the following conditions are satised: Lateral motion of the raceway will not cause damaging impact with other systems; lateral motion of the raceway does not cause loss of system vertical support; rod-hung supports of less than 12 in. (305 mm) in length have top connections that cannot develop moments; and support members cantilevered up from the oor are checked for stability. m Piping, ducts and electrical raceways, which must be functional following an earthquake, spanning between different buildings or structural systems shall be sufciently exible to withstand relative motion of support points assuming out-of-phase motions. n Vibration isolators supporting equipment shall be designed for lateral loads or restrained from displacing laterally by other means. Restraint shall also be provided, which limits vertical displacement, such that lateral restraints do not become disengaged. ap and Rp for equipment supported on vibration isolators shall be taken as 2.5 and 1.5, respectively, except that if the isolation mounting frame is supported by shallow or expansion anchors, the design forces for the anchors calculated by Equation 8 or 9 shall be additionally multiplied by a factor of 2.0. o Equipment anchorage shall not be designed such that lateral loads are resisted by gravity friction (e.g., friction clips). p Expansion anchors, which are required to resist seismic loads in tension, shall not be used where operational vibrating loads are present. q Movement of components within electrical cabinets, rack- and skid-mounted equipment and portions of skid-mounted electromechanical equipment that may cause damage to other components by displacing, shall be restricted by attachment to anchored equipment or support frames. r Batteries on racks shall be restrained against movement in all directions due to earthquake forces. s Seismic restraints may include straps, chains, bolts, barriers or other mechanisms that prevent sliding, falling and breach of containment of ammable and toxic materials. Friction forces may not be used to resist lateral loads in these restraints unless positive uplift restraint is provided, which ensures that the friction forces act continuously. Source: Uniform Building CodeTM, International Conference of Building Ofcials, Whittier, CA, 1987. With permission. Copyright 1997, International Conference of Building Ofcials (ICBO). ICBO assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of this table.
motion between such attachment points. For this purpose, it is required that the calculation of this relative motion be based on the maximum inelastic displacements of the structure. Lastly, it species that the lateral forces determined with the above formulas be used to design the members and connections that transfer these forces to the structure. In the design of these members and connections, it is necessary to make use of the load combinations and factors specied for the design of structures, except that the reliability/redundancy factor used in such load combinations may be taken equal to 1.0.
TABLE 19.4 Component Importance Factors Ip
Component Importance Component required to function after an earthquake Component containing hazardous contents Storage racks in occupancies open to the general public (e.g., warehouse retail stores) All components needed for continued operation of the facility, or whose failure could impair the continued operation of the facility (for structures in Seismic Group III) All other components Ip 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0
19.7.3 NEHRP Provisions

As the UBC, the NEHRP provisions are also based on ultimate strength design principles and establish minimum design criteria for architectural, mechanical, electrical and nonstructural systems; components;
and elements permanently attached to structures, including supporting structures and components (henceforth collectively referred to as components). These design criteria recognize ground motion and structural amplications, component toughness and weight, and performance expectations. They are presented in terms of a required minimum equivalent static force and a minimum relative displacement demand when the component is connected to the structure at multiple points. The required minimum static force is given by Fp = I p 0.4a p S DSW p Rp z (1 + 2 ) h
(19.12)
except that Fp need not be greater than (F p )max = 1.6S DS I pW p and must not be less than (F p )min = 0.3S DS I pW p In the foregoing equations: Fp = seismic design force applied at the components center of mass and distributed according to the components mass distribution SDS = short-period design spectral acceleration, given by SDS = (2/3)SMS, where SMS, in turn, is equal to SMS = FaSs, in which Ss is the maximum spectral acceleration determined for the site under consideration from the seismic maps in the provisions, and Fa is a coefcient that adjusts Ss for site effects ap = component amplication factor selected from Table 19.4 or Table 19.5 according to the type and exibility of the component, varying between 1.00 and 2.50 Ip = component importance factor equal to either 1.00 or 1.50, selected according to component importance from Table 19.4 Rp = component response modication factor selected from Table 19.5 or Table 19.6 according to the type and deformability of the component, varying between 1.0 and 5.0 z = height above grade of highest point of component attachment (for items at or below structure base, consider z equal to 0) h = average height of structures roof relative to grade elevation Wp = component weight The seismic force Fp is applied independently longitudinally and transversely in combination with service loads acting on the component. Horizontal and vertical earthquake effects need to be combined according to E = rF p + 0.2S DSD when the vertical and horizontal effects are additive, and E = rF p - 0.2S DSD when the vertical effects counteract the horizontal effects. In these two equations: (19.16) (19.15) (19.14) (19.13)
19-27
TABLE 19.5 Coefcients ap and Rp for Architectural Components

Architectural Component or Element 1. Interior nonstructural walls and partitions (see also NEHRP Section 6.8) a. Plain (unreinforced) masonry walls b. All other walls and partitions 2. Cantilever elements (unbraced or braced to structural frame below its center of mass) a. Parapets and cantilever interior nonstructural walls b. Chimneys and stacks where laterally supported by structures 3. Cantilever elements (braced to structural frame above its center of mass) a. Parapets b. Chimneys and stacks c. Exterior nonstructural walls 4. Exterior nonstructural wall elements and connections (see also NEHRP Section 6.2.4) a. Wall element b. Body of wall panel connections c. Fasteners of the connecting system 5. Veneer a. High deformability elements and attachments b. Low deformability and attachments 6. Penthouses (except when framed by an extension of the building frame) 7. Ceilings (see also NEHRP Section 6.2.6) a. All 8. Cabinets a. Storage cabinets and laboratory equipment 9. Access oors (see also NEHRP Section 6.2.7) a. Special access oors (designed in accordance with NEHRP Section 6.2.7.2) b. All other 10. Appendages and ornamentations 11. Signs and billboards 12. Other rigid components a. High deformability elements and attachments b. Limited deformability elements and attachments c. Low deformability elements and attachments 13. Other exible components a. High deformability elements and attachments b. Limited deformability elements and attachments c. Low deformability elements and attachments ap a 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rp b 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 3.5 2.5 1.5
a A lower value for a may be justied by detailed dynamic analysis. The value for a shall not be less than p p 1.00. The value of ap = 1 is for equipment generally regarded as rigid and rigidly attached. The value of ap = 2.5 is for exible components or exibly attached components. See NEHRP Chapter 2 for denitions of rigid and exible components including attachments. b Where exible diaphragms provide lateral support for walls and partitions, the design forces for anchorage to the diaphragm shall be as specied in NEHRP Section 5.2.5.
Source: NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
E = effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake-induced forces D = dead load r = reliability factor, allowed to be taken as 1.0 for the design of nonstructural elements When positive and negative wind loads exceed the value of Fp for nonstructural exterior walls, these wind loads will govern the design. Similarly, the code-specied horizontal loads will govern the design for interior partitions when these loads exceed Fp.
TABLE 19.6 Coefcients ap and Rp for Mechanical and Electrical Components

Mechanical and Electrical Component or Elementa 1. General mechanical a. Boilers and furnaces b. Pressure vessels on skirts and free-standing c. Stacks d. Cantilevered chimneys e. Other 2. Manufacturing and process machinery a. General b. Conveyors (nonpersonnel) 3. Piping systems a. High deformability elements and attachments b. Limited deformability elements and attachments c. Low deformability elements and attachments 4. HVAC system equipment a. Vibration isolated b. Nonvibration isolated c. Mounted in-line with ductwork d. Other 5. Elevator components 6. Escalator components 7. Trussed towers (free-standing or guyed) 8. General electrical a. Distributed systems (bus ducts, conduit, cable tray) b. Equipment 9. Lighting xtures ap b 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 Rp 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.0 2.5 1.5
a Components mounted on vibration isolation systems shall have a bumper restraint
or snubber in each horizontal direction. The design force shall be taken as 2Fp if the maximum clearance (air gap) between the equipment support frame and restraint is greater than 1/4 in. If the maximum clearance is specied on the construction documents to be not greater than 1/4 in., the design force may be taken as Fp. b A lower value for a is permitted provided a detailed dynamic analysis is performed, p which justies a lower limit. The value for ap shall not be less than 1.00. The value of ap = 1 is for equipment generally regarded as rigid or rigidly attached. The value of ap = 2.5 is for exible components or exibly attached components. See NEHRP Chapter 2 for denitions of rigid and exible components including attachments. Source: NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
The required minimum relative displacement demand between two of the connection points of a nonstructural component with multiple connection points is determined according to the following equations: For two connection points on the same structure or same structural system (Structure A), one point at level x and the other at level y, the relative displacement is determined according to D p = d xA - d yA except that Dp need not be greater than D p = (X - Y ) D aA hsx (19.18) (19.17)
For two connection points on separate structures or structural systems, Structure A and Structure B, one at level x and the other at level y, Dp is determined according to
19-29
D p =| d xA | + | d yB | except that Dp need not be greater than Dp = In the foregoing equations: XD aA YD aB + hsx hsx
(19.19)
(19.20)
Dp = relative seismic displacement a component must be able to resist dxA, dyA, dyB = deection at level x of Structure A, deection at level y of Structure A and deection at level y of Structure B, respectively, all determined from an elastic analysis and multiplied by the deection amplication factor Cd X = height of upper support attachment at level x as measured from the base of the structure Y = height of lower support attachment at level y as measured from the base of the structure = allowable story drift for Structure A, Structure B DaA, DaB = story height used in the denition of allowable drift Da hsx In regard to the relative seismic displacements calculated according to the above equations, the NEHRP provisions require that the effect of these displacements be considered in combination with the displacements induced by other loads, such as those generated by thermal and static loads. The foregoing equations are introduced in recognition that components with multiple points of connection such as cladding, stairwells, windows and piping systems need to be designed to resist the relative displacement between their attachment points. The rst equation involves the computed displacements of the structure. The second, an intended upper bound, is formulated in terms of structural story drift limits in consideration of the fact that the structural displacements are not always available at the time a component is being designed. For the purpose of the requirements introduced above, components are considered to have the same seismic design category as that of the structure they occupy or to which they are attached. Similarly, exible components are those that together with their attachments have a fundamental natural period of 0.06 sec or greater. Exempted from such requirements are: 1. All components in Seismic Design Category A. 2. Architectural components in Seismic Design Category B other than parapets supported by bearing walls or shear walls when Ip is equal to 1.0. 3. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Category B. 4. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Category C when Ip is equal to 1.0. 5. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Categories D, E and F that are mounted at 4 ft (1.22 m) or less above a oor level, weigh 400 lb (1780 N) or less, have Ip equal to 1.0 and are provided with exible connections between the components and associated ductwork, piping and conduit. 6. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Categories C, D, E and F that weigh 20 lb (95 N) or less (5 lb/ft [7 N/m] or less for distributed systems), have Ip equal to 1.0 and are provided with exible connections between the components and associated ductwork, piping and conduit. Example 19.3. Design lateral force for equipment unit The reciprocating chiller shown in Figure 19.17 is mounted on the roof of a 10-story hospital building. The building is located on the coastal region of Irvine, CA, over a deposit of stiff soil and has a height of 180 ft (54.9 m). The chiller weighs 15.0 kips (66.7 kN) and is mounted on four exible isolators to damp the vibrations generated during the operation of the unit. Determine the shear and tension demands
Fp 15 k 3.0 ft Vibration isolators
5.0 ft
FIGURE 19.17 Equipment considered in Example 19.3. (Note: 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; adapted from Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.)
on the vibration isolators under earthquake load using (1) the 1997 edition of the UBC; and (2) the 2000 edition of the NEHRP provisions. Solution: (1) For the building under consideration, one has that hx = hr = 180 ft (54.9 m) and for Irvine, CA (Zone 4), Soil Prole SD (stiff soil prole), and a near-source factor Na of 1.5 (as known seismic sources around Irvine are at a distance of less than 2 km [1.2 mi]), C a = 0.44N a = 0.44(1.5) = 0.66 Additionally, according to Footnote of Table 19.3, the horizontal force factors ap and Rp for equipment supported on vibration isolators need to be considered equal to a p = 2.5 Rp = 1.5 Moreover, the code species that for an essential facility (hospital) Ip = 1.5. Therefore, according to Equation 19.9, Fp = a pC a I p Rp (1 + 3 hx )W hr p
2.5(0.66)(1.5) 180 (1 + 3 )W = 6.6W p 1.5 180 p
= 6.6(15) = 99.0 kips (440.4 kN) which is greater than (F p )min = 0.7C a I pW p = 0.7(0.66)(1.5)W p = 0.69(15) = 10.4 kips (46.3 kN) but exceeds
19-31
(F p )max = 4.0C a I pW p = 4.0(0.66)(1.5)W p = 3.96(15) = 59.4 kips (264.2 kN) Accordingly, the lateral force for the design of the chillers support system will be taken equal to Fp = 59.4 kips (264.2 kN) Correspondingly, the shear force in each vibration isolator becomes V = F p / 4 = 59.4 / 4 = 14.8 kips (66.1 kN)
To compute the uplift force on each isolator, the overturning moment is determined rst. For this purpose, note that the moment generated by the lateral force Fp is resisted by the moment generated by the gravity load. Combining, then, the earthquake and gravity loads according to the load combination 0.9D E, the resultant overturning moment is M0 = 59.4(3) 0/9(15)(2.5) = 144.5 kip-ft (195.9 kN-m) Hence, the uplift force on each isolator is equal to Ft = 1 144.5 = 14.5 kips (64.5 kN) 2 5.0
(2) From the seismic maps in the 2000 NEHRP provisions for the coastal region of Irvine, CA, the maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration for short periods corresponding to Site Class B is equal to S s = 2.0 and the value of the coefcient Fa to adjust for Site Class D, the site class corresponding to stiff soils, is equal to Fa = 1.0 As a result, for the location under consideration, the maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration for short periods, adjusted for class site, is S MS = Fa S s = (1.0)(2.0) = 2.0 and the corresponding design spectral response acceleration for short periods is 2 2 S DS = S MS = (2.0) = 1.33 3 3 In like fashion, from Table 19.6 one has that for vibration-isolated HVAC equipment, ap and Rp are equal to a p = 2.5 Rp = 2.5
and from Table 19.4, for equipment that is required to function after an earthquake, I p = 1.5 Accordingly, since for the building and equipment location under consideration, z = h = 180 feet Equation 19.12 yields Fp = I p 0.4a p S DSW p Rp z (1 + 2 ) h
= (1.5)
0.4(2.5)(1.33) 180 (1 + 2 )W = 2.39W p 2.5 180 p
= 2.39(15) = 35.9 kips (159.7 kN) which is greater than (F p )min = 0.3S DS I pW p = 0.3(1.33)(1.5)W p = 0.60W p = 0.60(15) = 9.0 kips (40.0 kN) but less than (F p )max = 1.6S DS I pW p = 1.6(1.33)(1.5)W p = 3.19W p = 3.19(15) = 47.9 kips (213.1 kN) It should be noted, however, that the provisions require that the force Fp be doubled for components mounted on vibration isolators. Therefore, the chillers support system should be designed for a lateral force equal to F p = 2(35.9) = 71.8 kips (319.4 kN) and, correspondingly, each isolator should be designed for a shear force equal to V = F p / 4 = 71.8 / 4 = 18.0 kips (79.9 kN) In like fashion, if the vertical and horizontal earthquake effects are combined according to Equation 19.15, the overturning moment due to earthquake effects results as M 0 = 71.8(3) + 0.2(1.33)(15)(2.5) = 225.4 kip - ft (305.6 kN - m) which, when combined with the gravity load according to the load combination 0.9D E, leads to (M 0 )D + E = 225.4 - 0.9(15)(2.5) = 191.6 kip - ft (259.8 kN - m) Consequently, the uplift force on each isolator is equal to Ft = 1 191.6 = 19.2 kips (85.4 kN) 2 5.0
19-33
Beam
Integrated panel
Column Beam
Separated panel
FIGURE 19.18 Separated and integrated inll panels in a framed structure.
Intended column height
Actual column height
Shear failure of column caused by restrain from masonry wall Masonry wall
FIGURE 19.19 Schematic illustration of column failure caused by unintended restrain by inll wall. (Adapted from Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.)
19.8
General Design Considerations
19.8.1 Architectural Elements

Past earthquakes have provided numerous examples of damage to architectural elements. The most frequently damaged architectural elements have been ceilings, partitions, stairways, facades and parapets. This damage has mainly been due to either inadequate strength or inadequate anchoring. In general, therefore, architectural elements can be made resistant to earthquake motions following one of two strategies: (1) an isolation strategy and (2) a load-bearing strategy. In the isolation strategy the elements are sufciently separated from the structure so that the deformation of the structure will not produce signicant stresses in the architectural elements. In the load-bearing strategy the elements are designed to undergo the required stresses and deformations. An example of the application of these alternative strategies is shown in Figure 19.18. This gure illustrates how an inll panel in a framed building may be either isolated or integrated with the structure. It should be noted, however, that in many instances it is difcult to justify the load-bearing strategy from an economic point of view. The exception would be when the integration of the nonstructural elements with the structure favorably increases the strength and stiffness of the structure. In any case, the designer must recognize that if the architectural elements are not sufciently separated from the structure, their stiffness and strength may have an unintended effect on the response of the structure itself. A classical example of such an unintended effect is the so-called shortcolumn failures observed during past earthquakes (see Figure 19.19). These failures are induced by the shortening of a columns height by a nonstructural wall and the consequent increase in the magnitude of the shearing forces acting on the column (recall that the shear force in a column is equal to (MA + MB)/H, where MA and MB are the bending moments at the ends of the column and H its height). When the isolation strategy is adopted, the separation required to prevent or limit the damage sustained by
TABLE 19.7 Design Recommendations for Facades and Glazing

1. Use heavy rigid facades only on rigid structural systems and not on relatively exible building frames 2. Securely attach curtain walls to the building frame. Design and installed exible gaskets in curtain walls so that they do not come loose when the wall is subjected to repeated racking 3. Set all glass panels in resilient mounts with sufcient space for in-plane motions and supported by mullions designed to withstand earthquake forces. Use tempered glass in exits or where large glazed areas are near public walks 4. Avoid brick veneer facades on steel-frame buildings unless the brick veneer is securely tied to a separate wall that is independent of the steel frame 5. Do not use wire or straight-rod ties to anchor face brick to a wall, especially when a layer of insulation or an air gap separates the two elements 6. Consider large masonry facades as part of the structural system and not as nonstructural ornaments unless they are properly attached to a structural wall Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.8 Design Recommendations for Partitions and Inll Panels

1. Do not install concrete-masonry-unit ller walls in a manner that would restrain the lateral deection of the building frame. Leave, instead, a gap with adequately sized resilient ller to separate the structural frame from the nonstructural ller walls (see Figure 19.20 through Figure 19.22 for illustrations of how this separation may be provided while at the same time bracing the wall against out-of-plane motion; Figure 19.20 illustrates one method for heavy partitions, while Figure 19.21 and Figure 19.22 illustrate methods for full and partial light-weight partitions) 2. Anchor partitions in buildings with exible structural frames to only one structural element, such as a oor slab, and separate them by a physical gap from all other elements 3. Do not use unreinforced masonry for partitions or ller walls 4. Consider reinforced masonry partitions tied to more than one structural element as part of the structural system 5. Tie conduits and piping in partitions to the structural element to which the partition is anchored 6. Properly reinforce openings in partitions for pipes, conduits and ducts and make them large enough to preclude direct contact with xtures Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
architectural elements should be established on the basis of the anticipated structural drifts. In addition, the nonstructural elements themselves must be restrained against the forces acting on them. A variety of measures to prevent damage to architectural elements have been proven successful during past earthquakes. These measures, adapted here from those reported by Sabol (1989), are summarized in Table 19.7 through Table 19.10. Useful additional guidelines and information may be found in FEMA 74 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1994), FEMA 273 (NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 1997) and FEMA 274 (NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 1997).
19.8.2 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

Earthquakes have also caused considerable damage to mechanical and electrical equipment, especially to boilers, chillers, generators, tanks, fans, pumps, air handlers, electrical distribution systems, emergency power and lighting systems, elevators, light xtures, HVAC ducts and piping systems. As opposed to architectural elements, however, most mechanical and electrical equipment units are purchased as manufactured items rather than being fabricated specically for a project. Therefore, the susceptibility of equipment to seismic damage is controlled mainly by the equipment manufacturer. It is possible, nonetheless, to take preventive measures in the installation of equipment to minimize its susceptibility to damage. In general, there are two classes of equipment installations that are of interest with respect to seismic design: (1) equipment anchored to the ground or to the building structure or (2) equipment mounted on vibration isolators. Vibrating equipment, such as chillers or emergency generators, has traditionally
19-35
3/16 2 10 Provide 5/8" dia. oversized holes in angle L6 6 5/16 1' 0" with 2 5/8" dia. exp. bolts @ 8" o.c. 1/2"
5" (a)
1/2"
3"
(b)
L4 4 1/4 1' 0" each side with 2 5/8" dia. exp. bolts @ 9" o.c.
3" 11/2" Provide 5/8" dia. oversized holes in angle (c) L6 3 1/2 5/16 1' 0" with 2 5/8" dia. exp. bolts @8" o.c.
FIGURE 19.20 Details to separate nonbearing masonry wall from structure: (a) under steel beam; (b) perpendicular to steel deck; (c) parallel to steel deck. (Adapted from Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components,
in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.)
STRUCTURE ABOVE METAL OR WOOD STUDS
HEAVIER GAGE METAL STUDS AND ATTACHMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED IF HEAVY SHELVES ARE TO BE LATERALLY SUPPORTED BY PARTITION. ADDITION OF MID-HEIGHT BLOCKING OR SURFACE-MOUNTED SEISMIC MOLDING PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FOR EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGE LOCATIONS. FOR GLAZED PARTITIONS, SEE WINDOWS.
PARTITION FREE TO SLIDE AT TOP BUT RESTRAINED LATERALLY. PACKING OR SEALANT REQUIRED FOR ACOUSTIC ISOLATION. FIRE RATING MUST BE CHECKED FOR FIRE SEPARATION WALLS (1-HOUR WALLS, ETC.) PARTITION FIXED AT BASE.
FLOOR
FIGURE 19.21 Seismic bracing of full lightweight partitions. (From Federal Emergency Management Agency, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage, A Practical Guide, FEMA, Washington, D.C., 1994.)
been mounted on resilient mounting systems, particularly when the equipment is on the upper oors of a structure. The resilient mounting devices used may be springs, pneumatic restraining devices or elastic restraining devices. Failure of equipment directly mounted on the ground or building normally reect insufcient anchor strength or the inability of connecting service piping to reconcile differential settlements. Failure of equipment mounted on vibration isolators occurs because of the isolators inability
Anchor bolt or lag bolt attached to structure above 60 Maximum Partial-height partition Angle braces at approximately 6' on centers 5/6" diameter bolt/TYP One bolt or three (3) #13 sheet metal or wood screws, TYP
Heavier braces or closer spacing

may be required if partition used to support or seismically restrain heavy shelves or other nonstructural items
FIGURE 19.22 Seismic bracing of partial lightweight partitions. (From Federal Emergency Management Agency, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage, A Practical Guide, FEMA, Washington, D.C., 1994.)
to undergo the large lateral displacements they are subjected to during an earthquake, displacements that are often signicantly greater than those contemplated by the manufacturer. These large lateral displacements are caused by the long period of the resilient mounting devices, which in many cases are in the range of the building period.
TABLE 19.9 Design Recommendations for Ceilings
1. Do not install uorescent lighting xtures in or on exposed T-grid or concealed-spline suspended ceilings unless the ceiling suspension system is designed to carry the added weight of the xtures during an earthquake or the xtures are independently supported and laterally braced 2. Laterally brace exposed T-grid or concealed-spline suspended ceilings and provide them with a physical separation at the walls, particularly in large rooms with high ceilings and deep attic spaces (see Figure 19.23 and Figure 19.24 for general guidelines to brace suspended ceilings) 3. Do not fasten ceiling system to surrounding walls or partitions. Use softs to return the ceiling to the supporting slab. Provide an angle wall trim, wide enough to allow for differential movements, where the ceiling must join a wall or partition. Provide hangers for the main and cross runners at the perimeter so that wall trims do not support the ceiling 4. Brace rigid ceiling systems at regular intervals against lateral and vertical movements 5. Reinforce gypsum-board ceilings at nail points by the use of steel nailing strips. Use nails with large heads to install gypsum-board ceilings 6. In gypsum board and lath and plaster ceiling systems, make furring channel joints in irregular-shaped ceilings using rivets, bolts and welds. Brace corners so that they do not pivot 7. In gypsum board and lath and plaster ceiling systems, hold together large ceiling areas separated by rows of linear diffusers or light xtures with rigid ties and secure the diffusers and light xtures to the ceiling system Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.10 Design Recommendations for Storage Racks and Cabinets

1. Design storage racks to withstand earthquake forces and anchor them to the oor or brace them laterally from the top to the structural elements 2. Design racks with lateral bracing and anchor bolts so that they can withstand anticipated lateral and uplift loads 3. Install rigid ties at the top of rows of racks to brace and stabilize the entire installation 4. Anchor racks placed along walls to the walls to avoid battering between wall and rack 5. Anchor ling cabinets and map or plan drawers to the oor or walls, and t all drawers with positive-locking safety latches 6. Anchor vital furniture and equipment to the oor or wall 7. Held in place loose materials stored on high shelves by face bars 8. Keep medical supplies in cabinets that are anchored to the oor or walls and tted with latched doors Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
19-37
Anchor wires to structure above
Diagonal bracing wires (no. 12 gauge)
Adjustable length compression strut to prevent vertical movement
Approx. 45 45 Provide 4-way diagonal bracing and compression strut approximately every 12 ft. each way.
45 Main runner
45
Min. 3 tight turns in 11/2" each end of wire Cross runner
FIGURE 19.23 Seismic bracing system for suspended T-bar ceiling systems. (From Federal Emergency Management Agency, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage, A Practical Guide, FEMA, Washington, D.C., 1994.)
Vertical 12 ga. wire to support main runner or cross runner
12 ga. wire to main runner in 4 directions spaced @90 in addition to vertical support requirements
8" max.
Gap on 2 sides to accommodate movement Main runner Suspended ceiling Support angle
1 1 2" max.
12' o.c. ea. direction (max.) Self-bracing wall
FIGURE 19.24 Bracing detail for suspended ceilings. (Adapted from Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.)
A variety of measures may be taken to minimize damage to mechanical and electrical equipment. These measures, also based on those reported by Sabol (1989), are summarized in Tables 19.11through Table 19.18. FEMA 74 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1994), FEMA 273 (NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 1997) and FEMA 274 (NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 1997) offer useful additional guidelines.
19.9
Role of Nonstructural Elements in Performance-Based Design
It is estimated that approximately 70 to 85% of the cost of a building comes from its nonstructural elements. Given the susceptibility of nonstructural elements to earthquake damage, this means that a major portion of the damage induced in a building during an earthquake will most likely be that inicted
TABLE 19.11 Design Recommendations for Mechanical Equipment With Vibration Isolation
1. Do not mount heavy mechanical equipment on the upper oors of tall buildings unless all vibration-isolation mounts are carefully designed for earthquake resistance 2. Bolt oor-mounted vibration-isolation devices to the equipment base and to the structural slab 3. Avoid the use of heavy bases under equipment mounted on vibration isolators to reduce inertial forces 4. Provide lateral and vertical restraining devices around the base of vibration-isolated, oor-mounted equipment to restrict its displacements 5. Provide resilient material on the contact surface of the restraining devices to minimize impact loads. Tightly install the vibration-isolation hangers for suspended equipment against the supporting structural member. Provide a structural restraining frame around suspended heavy equipment 6. Provide cross bracing between hanger rods on all fours sides of suspended lightweight equipment
Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.12 Design Recommendations for Mechanical Equipment without Vibration Isolation
1. Design the support for tanks and heavy equipment to withstand earthquake forces and anchor it to the oor or secure it otherwise 2. Strap suspended tanks and heavy equipment to their hanger system and provide them with lateral bracing 3. Strap all horizontal tanks to their saddles, weld lugs to the tanks at support points to prevent horizontal movement, and bolt saddles to the structural slab 4. Provide frames supporting elevated tanks or equipment with adequate bracing and anchor them to the structural slabs and walls 5. Bolt all oor-mounted equipment to the structural slab Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.13 Design Recommendations for Piping Systems

1. Tie pipelines to only one structural system 2. Where structural systems change and relative deections are anticipated, install movable joints in the piping system to allow for such movement (see Figure 19.25 for an illustration of such an arrangement) 3. Provide suspended piping systems with consistent freedom throughout. For example, do not anchor branch lines to structural elements if the main line is allowed to sway 4. If the piping system is allowed to sway, install movable joints at equipment connections 5. Guide pipelines leading to thermal expansion loops or exible pipe connections to conne the degree of pipe movement 6. Do not make pipes cross seismic joints. If they must do so, make the crossing at the lowest oor possible, and carefully evaluate all pipe deections and stresses 7. Provide pipes with exible joints where pipes pass through seismic or expansion joints, or where rigidly supported pipes connect to equipment with vibration isolation (see Figure 19.26 for a suggested detail for piping that crosses a seismic joint) 8. Provide sway bracing in both longitudinal and transverse directions on all pipes with a diameter of 21/2 in. or larger to limit the stresses in the pipes (Figure 19.27 illustrates a method to provide this sway bracing) Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
to its nonstructural elements. This also means that a large portion of the potential losses to owners, occupants, insurance companies and other nancial institutions will be those associated with nonstructural elements. Evidently, the overall seismic performance of a building greatly depends on the seismic performance of its nonstructural elements. The need for a satisfactory performance of nonstructural elements and the role of these elements in the overall seismic performance of buildings have been widely recognized in the development of methodologies for the implementation of performance-based designs. As the major goal of a performancebased design is to produce buildings that will endure levels of damage that will not exceed preselected acceptable levels under different ground motion intensities, performance levels have been established for both structural and nonstructural elements. Similar to the performance levels developed for structural systems, the performance-based design concept applied to nonstructural elements also implies the def-
19-39
Ball joint
Possible lateral and longitudinal displacement
FIGURE 19.25 Possible arrangement to allow for relative deections in pipes. (Adapted from Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.)
Possible longitudinal and lateral wall displacement Seismic gap
Wall Pipe Wall opening
FIGURE 19.26 Detail (plan view) to provide for pipe crossing seismic gap. (Adapted from Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.)
Anchor bolt
Steel strap
Pipe
Pipe clamp
FIGURE 19.27 Pipe clamp and sway bracing. (Adapted from Sabol, T.A., Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989. With permission.) TABLE 19.14 Design Recommendations for Air Distribution Systems
1. Provide long hangers and supports for ductwork with lateral bracing 2. Install exible duct connections in a semifolded condition with enough material to allow for the expected differential movement between fans and ductwork 3. Make pipe sleeves or duct openings through walls or oors large enough to allow for the anticipated movement of the pipes or ducts 4. Support horizontal ducts as close as possible to the supporting structural member 5. Secure ceiling diffusers and registers to the ductwork with sheet-metal screws 6. Tie diffusers connected to exible ducts with positive ties to the ductwork and/or wall opening Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.15 Design Recommendations for Elevators

1. Bolt vibration isolators under the motor generators to the oor and to the legs of the motor generators. Provide the isolators with sufcient strength to withstand the earthquake forces 2. Bolt selector and controller panels to the oor and, if possible, provide them with sway braces at the top 3. Secure all electrical components within the panels to the panel frame, and t all doors and hinged panels with positivelocking latches 4. Use counterweight guide rails that are 15 lb/ft or heavier for serving buildings of ve or more stories, and design their supports to withstand earthquake forces 5. Use a safety shoe in the design of the counterweight guide-rail bracket. The type of bracket used should depend on the building height and location in the hoistway 6. Provide properly designed safety shoes for the roller guides to protect the roller assemblies from being damaged by the counterweights 7. Strengthen counterweight guide rails by using a section heavier than the typical 8-lb/ft rolled section. Strengthen brackets using gusset plates or ties placed at frequent intervals 8. Strengthen the car guide rails on long spans by installing spacers between the back-to-back rails at midpoints between the separator beams. This increases the rigidity of both rails 9. Connect ventilation, communications and lighting systems to emergency power systems and design them to operate when the normal power fails 10. Provide seismic switches to shut down the elevator during an earthquake and then lower the cars to the nearest oor 11. Adequately reinforce and brace the elevator hoistway and the surrounding structural system to prevent distortion at the doors and prevent debris from falling into the shaft 12. Secure hydraulic elevator equipment to oors and walls, and use splash-proof oil tanks Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.16 Design Recommendations for Light Fixtures

1. Provide pendant-hung uorescent xtures, especially when mounted end to end in long rows, with exible lateral bracing at both the ceiling supports and the bottom connections to the xtures 2. Locate lighting xtures supported by exible hangers so that they will not collide with other building elements 3. Do not use support systems designed for pendant mounting from a horizontal surface on a sloping surface because some of the freedom of movement is used up in the vertical alignment 4. Do not locate pendant light xtures below high ceilings. They should be surface mounted and secured to a supporting grid system that meets the supporting and bracing requirements for suspended ceilings 5. Preferably, directly attach surface-mounted xtures to the building structure. However, suspended installations that use positive-locking devices are an acceptable alternative Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.17 Design Recommendations for Electrical Equipment

1. Anchor all electrical equipment such as transformers, switchgears and control panels to the building, etc. 2. Use exible braided connections in place of rigid copper bus, whenever relative movement may occur between switchboard components 3. Provide additional pull boxes with slack conductors in long conduit runs to avoid tension of conductors 4. Avoid crossing seismic joints with conduits and bus ducts where possible. When seismic joints are crossed, use arrangements that permit the required deections. Make the crossing at the lowest possible oor 5. Provide separate ground conductors in all conduit runs that cross seismic joints and elsewhere in the electrical system where grounding systems could be broken Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
inition of multiple target performance levels that are expected to be achieved when the structure is subjected to earthquake ground motions of specied intensities. Some of the proposed performance levels for nonstructural elements are shown in Table 19.19 (Applied Technology Council, 1996). Similar performance levels have also been introduced in the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (1997), although those in these guidelines are described separately for different architectural
19-41
TABLE 19.18 Design Recommendations for Emergency Power and Lighting Systems
1. Mount emergency power generators installed in buildings on adequately designed vibration isolators 2. Provide vibration isolators and connecting service piping with horizontal restraints 3. Adequately secure starter battery racks to the structure. Attach each battery to the rack with a positive mounting to restrain movement 4. Securely tie battery-powered emergency lighting units to the building. Source: Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12. With permission.
TABLE 19.19 Performance Levels for Nonstructural Elements

Performance Objective Operational Damage State Nonstructural elements remain in place and functional with negligible damage; undamaged backup systems provide protection against failure of external utilities, communications and transportation systems Nonstructural elements remain in place but may not be functional. No back-up systems for failure of external utilities are provided Nonstructural elements are damaged considerably, but there are no collapses of heavy items, nor secondary hazards such as breaks in high-pressure toxic or re suppression piping Nonstructural elements are damaged extensively, but there are no collapses of large and heavy items that can cause signicant injury to groups of people Performance of nonstructural elements other than those having an effect in structural response is not evaluated
Immediate occupancy Life safety Reduced hazards Not considered
Source: Applied Technology Council, Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings, Redwood City, CA, 1996. With permission.
TABLE 19.20 Example of Acceptability Limits for Nonstructural Elements

Performance Objective Fully operational Operational Life safety Near collapse Return Period (Years) 43 75 475 970 Probability of Exceedance (%) 40 30 25 20 Nonstructural Damage Story Drift Ratio 0.003 0.006 0.015 0.020 Contents Damage Floor Acceleration 0.6 g 0.9 g 1.2 g 1.5 g
Source: Bertero, R.D. and Bertero, V.V., Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 627652, 2002. With permission.
elements and mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment. Acceptability criteria, i.e., the conditions that must be satised to ensure that the performance objectives are met, have also been established for nonstructural elements. For the most part, these acceptability criteria have been formulated in terms of key limiting values of measurable structural response parameters such as oor accelerations and story drift ratios. As an example of how these acceptability criteria may be set up, Bertero and Bertero (2002) suggest the format shown in Table 19.20, where the probabilities indicated are those of exceeding the stated performance objectives. As in the case of structural systems, the selection of the performance levels for nonstructural elements is based on a balance between potential losses and the cost of damage mitigation measures, considering in the potential losses not only the direct cost of earthquake damage, but also indirect losses such as business interruptions. Thus, for example, nancial or physical constraints may compel a designer to select the Reduced Hazards objective for the 970-year return period when rehabilitating an existing building. On the other hand, the designer may select the Operational objective for essential facilities such
as hospitals, police and re stations and emergency command centers since essential facilities are expected to be fully functional during or shortly after an earthquake. As a nal note, it should be mentioned that a performance-based design of nonstructural components is based on the premise that their performance can be predicted and evaluated with sufcient condence so as to make an intelligent and informed decision on the cost and benets of earthquake protection. However, as it may be inferred from the material presented in this chapter, such a capability is not quite there yet. It should be realized, therefore, that much research is needed to develop reliable techniques for the assessment of seismic demands and capacities and establish effective damage mitigation measures before the performance-based design of nonstructural elements may be brought into fruition (see also Chapter 9).
19.10
Future Challenges
As seen from the discussion in the preceding sections, much progress has been made toward the understanding of the seismic behavior of nonstructural elements, the development of simplied methods of analysis and the improvement of the code provisions for the seismic design of these elements. Notwithstanding this progress, it is also clear from the same discussion and the damage sustained by nonstructural elements during recent earthquakes that the problem is a complex one and has not been completely solved. Therefore, research is needed to further advance the understanding of the seismic behavior of nonstructural elements, to derive methods of analysis that are rational but also simple enough for their incorporation into building codes and to further improve the code provisions for the design of these elements. One particular area of research that is urgently needed to advance the understanding of the seismic behavior of nonstructural elements and develop effective methods of analysis is that related to the effect on this behavior of the nonlinearity of their supporting structures and the nonstructural elements themselves. As discussed in Section 19.6.2, there is some analytical evidence that indicates that the nonlinearity of a supporting structure may signicantly affect the seismic response of a nonstructural element. In some cases it may considerably reduce the response of the nonstructural element, but in some others it may increase it. However, only a limited number of studies have been conducted to clarify and quantify such an effect, and only a few simplied methods of analysis that account for it have been proposed. Another area of research that deserves full consideration is the application of modern isolation and protective systems to nonstructural elements. Given their relatively small size and the high accelerations to which they may be subjected, important benets may be realized from the use of such systems. An extensive program of experimental tests and eld studies is also needed. The experimental tests are needed to verify the ndings from analytical studies; to quantify the stiffness, damping, ductility and drift limits of nonstructural elements and their anchorages; to test the adequacy of current and new bracing methods and anchoring systems; and to test the effectiveness of isolation and protective systems. The eld studies are needed to study the performance of actual elements on actual buildings under real earthquakes, and to contrast this performance against the results from analytical and experimental studies. Finally, research is needed to develop rational and reliable methodologies for the implementation of performance-based designs (see also Chapter 9).
19.11
Summary
This chapter provided a basic depiction of the behavior of nonstructural elements under the effect of earthquakes, the methods that are presently available to analyze them under such effects and the pertinent design recommendations given in current building codes. It began with a description of what precisely are nonstructural elements, what has been their performance during past earthquakes and why it is so important to make them the subject of a rational seismic design. A description was also given of the characteristics that make nonstructural elements particularly vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes, and what is currently known about their behavior under earthquake excitations. In addition, two methods
19-43
to perform the seismic response analysis of nonstructural elements were presented in some detail, and a brief description of some other methods that have been proposed to simplify such an analysis was given. The methods discussed were (1) the oor response spectrum method and (2) a design-oriented simplied method. The oor response spectrum method involves a time-history analysis to obtain the acceleration response of the point of the building to which the nonstructural element is attached and the generation of the response spectrum that corresponds to this acceleration response. The designoriented simplied method entails the application of a few simple formulas to calculate the magnitude of the lateral seismic forces for which nonstructural elements should be designed. This method incorporates an approximate scheme to take into account the nonlinear behavior of the nonstructural element and the building that supports it. It is pointed out that, in general, nonstructural elements are difcult to analyze accurately and efciently. The oor response spectrum method, for example, is cumbersome since it requires time-history analyses and the generation of a response spectrum for each building point where there is a nonstructural element attached to it. It ignores, in addition, the dynamic interaction between an element and its supporting structure. As a result, it may sometimes give overly conservative results. Similarly, the design-oriented simplied method, although simple to use, may give results that deviate signicantly usually on the conservative side from those that one would obtain using a rigorous approach. The chapter proceeded with a review of the recommendations given in the 1997 version of the UBC and the 2000 NEHRP provisions for the seismic design of nonstructural elements. Some general design recommendations and preventive measures that have been proven effective to improve the seismic resistance of some architectural elements and mechanical and electrical equipment were also included. Finally, a brief discussion was given of the important role that nonstructural elements play in the performance-based design of buildings and the research that is needed to further advance the understanding of the seismic behavior of nonstructural elements and improve the methods of analysis and code provisions for the design of these elements.
Glossary
Closely spaced natural frequencies Natural frequencies with similar numerical values. Combined system System that comprises nonstructural element and supporting structure. Dynamic interaction Effect that a nonstructural element may have in the dynamic response of its supporting structure and vice versa. Flexible element Element having a fundamental natural period greater than 0.06 sec. Floor acceleration Acceleration induced by an earthquake ground motion at the level of a buildings oor. Floor response spectrum Response spectrum of oor motion generated by an earthquake. In-structure spectrum A oor response spectrum. Isolated element Element separated from the structure in which it is installed to avoid stresses and deformations in it when the structure is deformed. Load-bearing element Element designed to resist stresses and deformations. Modal synthesis technique Technique by means of which the dynamic properties of a combined system are obtained from the dynamic properties of its separate components. Multiply connected element Element connected to its supporting structure at more than one point. Nonclassical damping effects Effects that arise when a structure does not possess classical modes of vibration. Nonstructural element Element attached to oor or wall of a building but not part of the buildings main structural system. Rigid element Element having a fundamental natural period equal to or less than 0.06 sec.
List of Symbols
ap b C Cm Cp D Dp E f Fa Fp Fpj h hav hi hsx I lj Ip n n N Rp SDS SMS Ss T Tp Vp wp wpj W Wi Wp X Y z dxA dyA dyB DaA DaB F0 l m meq mp r component amplication factor variable dened by Equation 19.7 spectral ordinate modied amplication factor amplication factor dead load component relative displacement effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake forces fundamental natural frequency of structure site coefcient for short periods design force on nonstructural element force at center of jth mass of nonstructural element average height of structures roof average of elevations above grade of attachment points elevation above grade of ith building oor story height used in the denition of allowable drift Da importance factor for structure distance from attachment point to jth mass of nonstructural element importance factor for nonstructural element number of masses in nonstructural element number of resisting elements in nonstructural element number of oors in building component response modication factor design short-period spectral acceleration spectral acceleration adjusted for site effects maximum spectral acceleration determined from seismic hazard maps fundamental natural period of structure fundamental natural period of nonstructural element base shear or sum of the shears at the supports of nonstructural element total weight of nonstructural element weight of jth mass of nonstructural element total building weight weight of buildings ith oor component weight height of upper support attachment height of lower support attachment height of highest point of component attachment deection at level x of Structure A deection at level y of Structure A deection at level y of Structure B allowable story drift for Structure A allowable story drift for Structure B variable dened by Equation 19.6 variable dened by Equation 19.3 ductility factor of structure equivalent ductility factor ductility factor of nonstructural element reliability factor
19-45
References
Adam, C. and Fotiu, P.A. (2000). Dynamic response of earthquake excited inelastic primarysecondary systems, Paper 0310, in Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand. Amin, M., Hall, W.J., Newmark, N.M. and Kassawara, R.P. (1971). Earthquake response of multiply connected light secondary systems by spectrum methods, in ASME First National Congress on Pressure Vessels and Piping, San Francisco, CA, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 103129. Applied Technology Council (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings, Report ATC40, Vols. 1 and 2, Redwood City, CA. Asfura, A. and Der Kiureghian, A. (1986). Floor response spectrum method for seismic analysis of multiply supported secondary systems, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14(2), 245265. ASME (1993). ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1: Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Appendix N, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York. Atalik, T.S. (1978). An alternative denition of instructure response spectra, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 6(1), 7178. Aziz, T. and Ghobarah, A. (1988). Equipment design: future directions, in Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Japan Association for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Tokyo, Vol. 6, pp. 261266. Bertero, R.D. and Bertero, V.V. (2002). Performance-based seismic engineering: the need for a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 627652. Biggs, J.M. and Roesset, J.M. (1970). Seismic analysis of equipment mounted on a massive structure, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, Hansen, R.J., Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 319343. Burdisso, R.A. and Singh, M.P. (1987). Seismic analysis of multiply supported secondary systems with dynamic interaction effects, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15(8), 10051022. Chen, Y. and Soong, T.T. (1988). State-of-the-art-review: seismic response of secondary systems, Eng. Struct., 10(4), 218228. Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force (1992). Tri-Services Manual: Seismic Design of Buildings, Departments of the Army (TM 5-809-10), Navy (NAVFAC 355), and Air Force (AFM 88-3), Washington, D.C. Der Kiureghian, A., Sackman, J.L. and Nour-Omid, B. (1983). Dynamic analysis of light equipment in structures: response to stochastic input, J. Eng. Mech., 109(1), 90110. EERI (1984). Nonstructural Issues of Seismic Design and Construction, Publication 84-04, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1994). Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage, A Practical Guide, FEMA Report 74, Washington, D.C. Gupta, A.K. (1984). Seismic response of multiply connected MDOF primary and secondary systems, Nucl. Eng. Design, 81(3), 385394. Gupta, A.K. (1990). Response Spectrum Method in Seismic Analysis and Design of Structures, Blackwell Scientic Publications, Inc., Boston, MA. Gupta, A.K. and Jaw, J.W. (1986a). Coupled response spectrum analysis of secondary systems using uncoupled modal properties, Nucl. Eng. Design, 92(3), 6168. Gupta, A.K., and Jaw, J.W. (1986b). A new instructure response spectrum (IRS) method for multiply connected secondary systems with coupling effects, Nucl. Eng. Design, 96(1), 6380. Gupta, V.K. (1997). Acceleration transfer function of secondary systems, J. Eng. Mech., 123(7), 678685. Hall, J.F., Ed. (1994). Northridge Earthquake, January 17, 1994, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 453514. Hall, J.F., Ed. (1995). Northridge Earthquake, January 17, 1994: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Vol. 1, Earthquake Spectra, 11(suppl.).
Hernried, A.G. and Sackman, J.L. (1984). Response of secondary systems in structures subjected to transient excitation, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 12(6), 737748. Igusa, T. (1990). Response characteristics of inelastic 2-DOF primary-secondary system, J. Eng. Mech., 116(5), 11601174. Igusa, T. and Der Kiureghian, A. (1985a). Dynamic characterization of two-degree-of-freedom equipmentstructure systems, J. Eng. Mech., 111(1), 119. Igusa, T. and Der Kiureghian, A. (1985b). Generation of oor response spectra including oscillatorstructure interaction, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 13(5), 661676. Igusa, T. and Der Kiureghian, A. (1985c). Dynamic response of multiply supported secondary systems, J. Eng. Mech., 111(1), 20-41. International Building Code (2000). International Code Council, Inc., Falls Church, VA. Kapur, K.K. and Shao, L.C. (1973). Generation of seismic oor response spectra for equipment design, in Proceedings of ASCE Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Power Plants Facilities, Chicago, IL, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 2971. Kawakatsu, T., Kitada, K., Takemory, T., Kuwabara, Y., and Okiwara, Y. (1979). Floor response spectra considering elasto-plastic behavior of nuclear facilities, in Transactions of 5th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany, NorthHolland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, K9/4. Kehoe, B.E. and Freeman, S.A. (1998). A critique of procedures for calculating seismic design forces for nonstructural elements, in Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Retrot, and Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural Components (ATC-29-1), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, pp. 5770. Lee, M.C. and Penzien, J. (1983). Stochastic analysis of structures and piping systems subjected to stationary multiple support excitations, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 11(1), 91110. Lin, C.W. and Loceff, F. (1980). A new approach to compute system response with multiple support response spectra input, Nucl. Eng. Design, 60, 347352. Lin, J. and Mahin, S.A. (1985). Seismic response of light subsystems on inelastic structures, J. Struct. Eng., 111(2), 400417. Muscolino, G. (1990). Dynamic response of multiply connected primarysecondary systems, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 19(2), 205216. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (1997). FEMA Report 274, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (1997). FEMA Report 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings (2000)., Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C. Newmark, N.M. (1972). Earthquake response analysis of reactor structures, Nucl. Eng. Design, 20(2), 303322. Newmark, N.M. and Villaverde, R. (1980). Computation of seismic response of light attachments to buildings, in Proceedings of 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, Turkish National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Ankara, Turkey, Vol. 5, pp. 343350. Peters, K.A., Schmitz, D., and Wagner, U. (1977). Determination of oor response spectra on the basis of the response spectrum method, Nucl. Eng. Design, 44(2), 255262. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (1990). Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California, San Francisco, CA. Rihal, S.S. (1990). Performance and behavior of non-structural building components during the Whittier Narrows, California (1987) and Loma Prieta, California (1989) earthquakes: selected case studies, in Proceedings of ATC-29 Seminar and Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural Components in Buildings and Industrial Structures, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, pp. 119143. Sabol, T.A. (1989). Design of nonstructural systems and components, in Seismic Design Handbook, Naeim, F., Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, chap. 12.
19-47
Sackman, J.L. and Kelly, J.M. (1979). Seismic analysis of internal equipment and components in structures, Eng. Struct., 1(4), 179190. Saudy, A., Aziz, A., and Ghobarah, A. (1994). A new stochastic analysis for multiple supported MDOF secondary systems. I. Dynamic interaction effects, Nucl. Eng. Design, 147, 235249. Schroeder, M.E. and Backman, R.E. (1994). Analytical studies in support of the 1994 NEHRP provisions for nonstructural components, in Proceedings of 5th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, IL, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Vol. 4, pp. 755764. Sewell, R.T. (1988). Damage Effectiveness of Earthquake Ground Motion: Characterizations Based on the Performance of Structures and Equipment, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Sewell, R.T., Cornell, C.A., Toro, G.R., and McGuire, R.K. (1986). A Study of Factors Inuencing Floor Response Spectra in Nonlinear Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Structures, Report 82, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Sewell, R.T., Cornell, C.A., Toro, G.R., McGuire, R.K., Kassawara, R.P., Singh, A., and Stepp, J.C. (1989). Factors inuencing equipment response in linear and nonlinear structures, in Transactions of 9th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 849856, K2. Shaw, D.E. (1975). Seismic structural response analysis of multiple support excitation, in Transactions of 3rd International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, London, U.K., NorthHolland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, Vol. 4, K7/3. Singh, M.P. (1980). Seismic design input for secondary systems, J. Struct. Div., 106(2), 505517. Singh, M.P. (1990). An overview of techniques for analysis of non-structural components, in Proceedings of ATC-29 Seminar and Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural Components in Buildings and Industrial Structures, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, pp. 215224. Singh, M.P. and Sharma, A.M. (1985). Seismic oor spectra by mode acceleration approach, J. Eng. Mech., 111(11), 14021419. Singh, M.P. and Surez, L.E. (1987). Seismic response analysis of structure-equipment systems with nonclassical damping effects, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15, 871888. Singh, M.P., Surez, L.E., Matheu, E.E., and Maldonado, G.O. (1993). Simplied Procedure for Seismic Design of Nonstructural Components and Assessment of Current Code Provisions, Report NCEER-93-0013, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo. Soong, T. T. (1994). Seismic behavior of nonstructural elements: state-of-the-art report, in Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, Austria, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 3, pp. 15991606. Surez, L.E. and Singh, M.P. (1987a). Floor response spectra with structureequipment interaction effects by a mode synthesis approach, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15(2), 141158. Surez, L.E. and Singh, M.P. (1987b). Seismic response of equipment-structure systems, J. Eng. Mech., 113(1), 1630. Surez, L.E. and Singh, M.P. (1989). Floor spectra with equipmentstructureequipment interaction effects, J. Eng. Mech., 115(2), 247264. Taly, N. (1988). The Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of October 1, 1987: performance of buildings at California State University, Los Angeles, Earthquake Spectra, 4(2), 277317. Thailer, H.J. (1976). Spectral analysis of complex systems supported at several elevations, Pressure Vessel Technol., 98(2), 162165. Toro, G.R., McGuire, R.K., Cornell, C.A., and Sewell, R.T. (1989). Linear and Nonlinear Response of Structures and Equipment to California and Eastern United States Earthquakes, Report NP-5566, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Uniform Building Code (1997). Structural Engineering Design Provisions (UBC, Vol. 2), International Conference of Building Ofcials, Whittier, CA.
Vanmarcke, E.H. (1977). A simple procedure for predicting amplied response spectra and equipment response, in Proceedings of 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, India, Sarita Prakashan, Meerut, Vol. III, pp. 33233327. Villaverde, R. (1986a). Simplied seismic analysis of secondary systems, J. Struct.Eng., 112(3), 588604. Villaverde, R. (1986b). Simplied seismic analysis of piping or equipment mounted on two points of a multistory structure, Nucl. Eng. Design, 92(1), 3750. Villaverde, R. (1987). Simplied approach for the seismic analysis of equipment attached to elastoplastic structures, Nucl. Eng. Design, 103(3), 267279. Villaverde, R. (1991). Approximate formulas to calculate the seismic response of light attachments to buildings, Nucl. Eng. Design, 128(3), 349368. Villaverde, R. (1997). Method to improve seismic provisions for nonstructural components in buildings, J. Struct. Eng., 123(4), 432439. Villaverde, R. (2000). Design-oriented approach for seismic nonlinear analysis of nonstructural components, Paper 1979, in Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. Viti, G., Olivieri, M., and Travi, S. (1981). Development of nonlinear oor response spectra, Nucl. Eng. Design, 64(1), 3338. Wang, Y.K., Subudhi, M., and Bezler, P. (1983). Comparison study of time history and response spectrum responses for multiply supported piping systems, in Transactions of 7th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Chicago, IL, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, k(a), k7/5.

Análisis y Diseño de Elementos No Estructurales

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Análisis y Diseño de Elementos No Estructurales

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

19

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

19.7 Design Provisions in Building Codes

19.8 General Design Considerations

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

Importance of Nonstructural Elements

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

19.3 General Physical Characteristics

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

General Response Characteristics

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

19.5 Modeling of Nonstructural Elements

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

19.6.2 Floor Response Spectrum Method

2004 by CRC Press LLC

19-10 Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

4.0 mass ratio, re = 0 ACCELERATION/G 3.0 re = 1/50

2.0 re = 1/10 1.0 re = 1

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Frequency (RAD/SEC)

2004 by CRC Press LLC

19-12 Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

4 PSA inelastic/PSA elastic 3 2 1

Floor response spectrum ratio, Taft =4 =2

Floor #1 PSA inelastic/PSA elastic

Floor response spectrum ratio, Mitchell Lake =4 =2

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

2004 by CRC Press LLC

19-14 Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

19.6.3 Alternative Methods

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

19-16 Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering

vpk lk wpk wpj wpj lj lj

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014

19.6.4 Design-Oriented Simplied Method

2004 by CRC Press LLC

Seismic Analysis and Design of Nonstructural Elements

Downloaded by [Universidad Austral de Chile], [Lander Cerda] at 17:12 03 April 2014