A probabilistic method is proposed to quantify peak component acceleration (PCA) demands for nonstructural components attached to elastic and inelastic structures. Incremental dynamic analyses and site-specific ground-motion hazard information are used to estimate PCA hazard curves and component uniform hazard spectra (CUHS) based on various structural and nonstructural parameters. For a given structural system, the primary parameters of interest are the location of the component within the structure, the ratio of the period of the component to the modal periods of the primary structure, and the component damping ratio. Representative results for shear wall structures illustrate the value of applying the method to acceleration-sensitive components, as the quantification of CUHS facilitates the implementation of performance-based design and evaluation approaches. The variability in the component responses presented highlights the need for a robust probabilistic seismic demand estimation methodology for nonstructural components in which the major sources of variability are incorporated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-10, Reston, VA.
2.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2004. Engineering Demand Parameters for Nonstructural Components, ATC-58, Project Task Report, Phase 2, Task 2.3, Redwood City, CA.
3.
Badillo-AlmarazH., WhittakerA. S., ReinhornA. M., and CimellaroG. P., 2006. Seismic Fragility of Suspended Ceiling Systems, Tech. Rep. MCEER-06-0001, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
4.
BakerJ. W., and CornellC. A., 2006. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics35, 1077–1095.
5.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2008. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5%–damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra24, 139–171.
6.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-750, Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
7.
FieldE. H., JordanT. H., and CornellC. A., 2003. OpenSHA: A developing community-modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis, Seis. Research Letters74, 406–419.
8.
FiliatraultA., TremblayR., and KuanS., 2004. Generation of floor accelerations for seismic testing of operational and functional building components, Canadian Jounral of Civil Engineering31, 646–663.
9.
GhobarahA., 2001. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: State of development, Engineering Structures23, 878–884.
10.
KircherC. A., 2003. It makes dollars and sense to improve nonstructural system performance, Proc. ATC 29-2 Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities, 23–24 October 2003, Newport Beach, CA.
11.
KrawinklerH., MedinaR. A., and AlaviB., 2003. Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motionsEngineering Structures25, 637–653.
12.
MedinaR. A., and KrawinklerH., 2003. Sesimic Demands for Non-deteriorating Frame Structures and Their Dependence on Ground Motions, PEER Report 2003/15, Pacific Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
13.
MedinaR. A., SankaranarayananR., and KingstonK. M., 2006. In-structure response spectra for Light components mounted on regular moment-resisting frame structures, Engineering Structures28, 1927–1940.
14.
MoranteR. J., 2006. Recommendations for Revision of Seismic Damping Values in Regulatory Guide 1.61, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C.
15.
PerryS., CoxD., JonesL., BernknopfR., GoltzJ., HudnutK., MiletiD., PontiD., PorterK., ReichleM., SeligsonH., ShoafK., TreimanJ., and WeinA., 2008. The ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario – A story that southern Californians are writing. (Circular 1324), U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
16.
PrakashV., PowellG. H., and CampbellS., 1993. DRAIN-2DX: Basic program description and user guide, Report No. UCB/SEMM 93-17, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
17.
SankaranarayananR., and MedinaR. A., 2007. Acceleration response modification factors for nonstructural components attached to inelastic moment resisting frame structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36, 2189–2210.
18.
SinghM. P., SuarezL. E., MatheuE. E., and MaldonadoG. O., 1993. Simplified Procedures for Seismic Design of Nonstructural Components and Assessment of Current Code Provisions, Tech. Rep. NCEER-93-0013, University at Buffalo, NY.
19.
SinghM. P., MoreschiL. M., SuárezL. E., and MatheuE. E., 2006. Seismic design forces. II: Flexible nonstructural components, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering132, 1533–1542.
20.
SoongT. T., ShenG., WuZ., ZhangR. H., and GrigoriuM., 1993. Assessment of the 1991 NEHRP Provisions for Nonstructural Components and Recommended Revisions, Tech. Rep. NCEER-93-0003, University at Buffalo, NY.
21.
StevensonJ. D., 1980. Structural damping values as a function of dynamic response stress and deformation levels, Nuclear Engineering and Design60, 211–237.
22.
TaghaviS., and MirandaE., 2003. Response Assessment of Nonstructural Building Elements, PEER Report 2003/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
23.
TaghaviS., and MirandaE., 2008. Effect of interaction between primary and secondary systems on in-structure response spectra, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12–17 October 2008, Beijing, China.
24.
VamvatsikosD., and CornellC. A., 2002. Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics31, 491–514.
25.
VillaverdeR., 2006. Simple method to estimate the seismic nonlinear response of nonstructural components in buildings, Engineering Structures, 28, 1209–1221.
