SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS T. T. SOONG and D. LOPEZ GARCIA SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION OF NONSTRUCTURAL

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTIONSEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTIONOF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTSOF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

by

T. T. SOONG T. T. SOONG and D. LOPEZ GARCIAand D. LOPEZ GARCIA

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINGUNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

NCREE/JRC WorkshopNovember 17-19, 2003

Examples of Nonstructural Components

Architectural Partitions

Piping Systems

Ceilings

Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

Exterior Cladding

Contents

NCREE/JRC Workshop, November 17-19, 2003

Examples of Nonstructural Damage


Investments in Building Construction (Miranda)

18.0%

62.0%

20.0%

13.0%

70.0%

17.0%

8.0%

48.0%

44.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Office Hotel Hospital

Contents

Nonstructural

Structural


Direct Economic Loss due to Building Damage

1994 Northridge Earthquake (Kircher, 2003)

Total: $18.5 Billion

Nonstructural Related: ~ 50%

1994 Northridge Earthquake (Kircher, 2003)

(Non-residential Buildings)

Total: $6.29 Billion

Nonstructural Related: $5.20 Billion (83%)


Fatalities

1999 Kocaeli Earthquake (Petal, 2003)

Total: 17,480

Nonstructural Related: ~ 550 (3%)

1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake (Soong et al, 2000)

(at One Hospital)

Total: 7

Nonstructural Related: 7 (100%)


Seismic Vulnerability

Analysis

Monte-Carlo Simulation

Experience Data

Experiments


Equipment with restraints


Anchor Bolts or Expansion Bolts Resistant straps, Braces,Tendons or Plumber’s Tapes

Spring Mounts or Isolators Tendons, Cables, Bungee Cords,Springs or Toggle Bars or Plumber’s Tapes

Fragility curves for restraint breakage limit state

(Lopez Garcia and Soong 2003)NCREE/JRC Workshop, November 17-19, 2003

d = 0.10 - Teq = 0.05 sec

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

HPBA [g]

FR

AG

ILIT

Y

k = 0.00

k = 0.75

ß = 0.40

ß = 0.70

ß = 0.10

ß = 1.00

d = 0.10 - Teq = 0.20 sec

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

HPBA [g]

FR

AG

ILIT

Y

k = 0.00

k = 0.75

ß = 0.40

ß = 0.70

ß = 0.10

ß = 1.00

d = 0.40 - Teq = 0.05 sec

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

HPBA [g]

FR

AG

ILIT

Y

k = 0.00

k = 0.75

ß = 0.40 ß = 0.70ß = 0.10

ß = 1.00

d = 0.40 - Teq = 0.20 sec

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

HPBA [g]

FR

AG

ILIT

Y

k = 0.00

k = 0.75

ß = 0.40

ß = 0.70

ß = 0.10

ß = 1.00

Logic-tree diagram for a medical gas supply equipment(Yao, 1999)


Redundant GasSupply

Normal Gassupply

O2 NO

Central SystemIndividualCylinder

Cylinders Supply Line

Medical Gas

Liquid OxygenTank

By-pass valve Supply line Evaporator

N2

(in cylinders)

Sample fragility of a water tank/pipeline nonstructural system(Grigoriu and Kafali, 2003)


seismic ground acceleration

water tank

pipeline

100200

300400

5004

5

6

7

8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

distance

Fragility of the water tank

moment magnitude

Fragility tests of suspended ceiling systems

and sample fragility data (Badillo et al, 2002)


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5P GA(g)

Minor (1%fell)

Moderate(10% fell)

Major(33% fell)

Gridfailure

Protection Strategies

Improved Structural Performance

Improved Nonstructural Performance

• Better Engineered Conventional Anchors

• Newer Technologies


Improved Structural Performance


Reduction in direct economic loss through improved

building performance of non-residential buildings(adapted from Kircher, 2003)

Economic Loss (in millions)

Nonstructural System

As

Constructed

With Damping System

%

Benefit

With Isolation System

%

Benefit Drift-related $1,086 $ 407 63 $ 303 72 Acceleration-related 1,952 1,013 48 777 60 Contents/Inventory 2,162 1,124 48 862 60

Total $5,200 $2,544 51 $1,942 63


Better Engineered Conventional Anchors




Better Engineered Conventional Anchors (continued)


Comparison of expected earthquake loss before and after nonstructural

strengthening (Gould and Griffin, 2003)


Better Engineered Conventional Anchors (continued)


Tapered metallic yieldingdevice for brittle nonstructuralcomponents (Goodno, 2001)

TMD for elevator(Rildova and Singh, 2003)


Newer Technologies


Wire rope isolator pipe restraint (Loziuk et al, 2003)


Newer Technologies (continued)


Semi-active device (Rana and Soong, 1998)


Newer Technologies (continued)

International Collaboration

(ATC-58, Draft Work Plan, 2004-08)

Task 1: Develop a Catalog of Nonstructural Components,

Systems and Contents

Task 2: Identify Nonstructural Performance Measures

Task 3: Identify Engineering Demand Parameters

Task 4: Develop Damage Database

Task 5: Establish Comprehensive Testing and Certification

Protocols

Task 6: Performance Evaluation Case Studies/Testbed Checks


Investments in Building Construction (Miranda)

18.0%

62.0%

20.0%

13.0%

70.0%

17.0%

8.0%

48.0%

44.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Office Hotel Hospital

Contents

Nonstructural

Structural


Acknowledgements

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, USA

U.S. National Science Foundation


Documents

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS T. T. SOONG and D. LOPEZ GARCIA SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION OF NONSTRUCTURAL