Simulation of the Seismic

Performance of
Nonstructural Systems


Alicia Echevarria
University of Nevada
PI: E. Manos Maragakis
Mentors: Arash E. Zaghi and Joe Wieser

9/9/2010







2

Table of Contents

1.0 Abstract 3
2.0 Introduction 3
2.1 The Grand Challenge Project 3
2.2 NEES REU Project 3
3.0 Buildings, Data, and Analysis Procedure 4
4.1 OpenSees Buildings 4
4.2 Northridge Buildings 5
4.3 Analysis Procedure 6
4.0 Analysis Plots 6
5.1 Spectral Acceleration 7
5.2 Spectral Amplification 7
5.3 Amplification Factor Vs. z/H Ratio 9
5.0 Equation Representation and Code Recommendations 10
6.1 ASCE7-05 Structural Design Spectrum 10
6.2 Amplification Factor 12
6.3 Spectral Amplification Design Spectrum 14
6.0 Conclusion and Further Studies 17
7.0 Acknowledgements 18
8.0 References 18
Appendix A: ATC 63 Tables 19
Appendix B: Design Example Using Code Recommendations 21




3

1.0 Abstract

In this work a more refined procedure for the design of nonstructural components in steel moment frame
buildings was proposed. The current design process for nonstructural components consists of an equation
for the force demands on the nonstructural components. An integral piece to this equation is the
acceleration amplification factor which is a function of the ratio of the height at which the nonstructural
component is located in the building (z) divided by the total building height (H). While the current
acceleration amplification factor equation: amp = (1+2(z/H)) offers a linear relationship for the
acceleration amplification, this study shows that a linear representation is not the best possible
demonstration of the data obtained from incremental dynamic analysis of four buildings in OpenSees.
This research presents a refined amplification factor and the addition of a spectral amplification design
spectrum for nonstructural components. The equations presented in this study were developed using
acceleration records from ATC-63 and checked against actual acceleration data obtained from the 1994
Northridge Earthquake.

2.0 Introduction

2.1 The Grand Challenge Project

While a structure may remain standing and appear to have no visible failure modes after an earthquake
occurs, it is quite possible that there will be considerable damage to the internal nonstructural systems.
When an earthquake occurs, the structure responds to the acceleration of the ground motion, and the
nonstructural systems respond to the acceleration of the motion of the structure. The ground motion is
amplified by the structure and the nonstructural systems can be damaged by a much smaller earthquake
than would damage the building itself. The failure of the nonstructural systems has a pronounced effect
on the overall performance of the building since it accounts for 79% of the total earthquake damage. One
of the major nonstructural systems of buildings is the ceiling-piping-partition system which is the system
of interest for the Grand Challenge project. The goal for this project is to study the resilience of buildings
and their nonstructural components when subjected to seismic activity in order to provide engineers and
architects with guidelines for the improvement of the seismic response of the ceiling-piping-partition
nonstructural system (Maragakis, 2010).

2.2 NEES REU Project

Current codes for seismic design provide a highly refined design procedure for structures themselves, but
the design procedure for the nonstructural components of a building is quite immature. Research
conducted by Chen and Soong from the University of Buffalo (1988) provided an in-depth look at the
current engineering practice for secondary systems. The study reported on recent advances in the area of
seismic engineering design and discussed future research. Two methods for engineering analysis and
response calculations were discussed: 1. Floor response spectrum approach, and 2. Primary-secondary
system approach. The Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) project followed the floor
response spectrum approach by analyzing floor acceleration response histories.

The main objective of the REU project was to analyze and plot the data obtained from four analytical
models subjected to Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) in OpenSees and then compare the results to
the current code outlining nonstructural component design in ASCE 7-05.

The current design process for nonstructural components consists solely of an equation for the force
demands on the nonstructural components. An integral piece to this equation is the acceleration
amplification factor which is defined as the peak floor acceleration divided by the peak ground


4

acceleration. The current equation for the amplification factor is a linear function of the ratio of floor
height to the total building height (z/H) (ASCE 7-05). However, this study showed that the actual
relationship between the z/H ratio and acceleration amplification is not linear for the higher floors of taller
buildings. The REU project presents a new bilinear equation for the acceleration amplification factor.

In Seismic Response of Acceleration Sensitive Nonstrucutral Components Mounted on Moment-Resisting
Frame Structures (2007), Sankaranarayanan evaluated and quantified the dependence of peak component
accelerations at the location of the nonstructural component within the structure, the damping ratio of the
component, and the properties of the supporting structure. This study presents a proposed design
spectrum for spectral amplification which incorporates the amplification factor into the design process of
nonstructural components. When applied in conjunction with the ASCE7-05 chapter 11 design spectrum,
the spectral amplification design spectrum from this study will provide engineers with the design
acceleration for nonstructural components at any floor height.

The proposed equations for the amplification factor and the spectral amplification design spectrum were
derived from the analysis of four steel moment frame buildings modeled with 21 far-field ground motions
from the ATC-63 report and checked against field data from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. All of the
1994 Northridge Earthquake information used was obtained from Naeims report (1995).

3.0 Buildings, Data, and Analysis Procedure

3.1 OpenSees Buildings

Four steel moment frame buildings of different heights were modeled and subjected to incremental
dynamic analysis in OpenSees for this study. Building A was a three story commercial building with an
overall height of 39 feet and fundamental periods of 1.03 seconds in both the major and minor horizontal
directions. Building B was redesigned to represent a three story hospital with an overall height of 52 feet
and fundamental periods of 0.95 seconds in the major horizontal direction and 0.98 seconds in the minor
horizontal direction. Building C was a nine story commercial building with an overall height of 122 feet.
Its fundamental periods were 2.33 seconds in the major direction and 2.41 seconds in the minor direction.
Lastly, Building D was a twenty story commercial building with an overall height of 265 feet. Its
fundamental periods were 3.40 seconds and 3.86 seconds in the major and minor horizontal directions
respectively. A visual representation of the buildings can be seen in Figure 1.


Figure 1. Four steel moment frame buildings used for incremental dynamic analysis in OpenSees



5

The peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration values at ground level may vary significantly
depending on site conditions. For the evaluation of peak ground acceleration values, the site
characterization requires the study of a large amount of geological, seismological and geotechnical data
(K.S. Vipin, 2009). The ground acceleration sets used in this study consisted of 21 far-field ground
motions obtained from the ATC-63 record set found in the PEER-NGA database. These ground motions
represent a large variety of locations and earthquake magnitudes. Figure 2 displays a table containing
general information for each of the 21 events. Tables with more in depth information for the 21 events
used in this study can be found in Appendix A.

ID Name Year Magnitude Name Owner
1 Northridge 1994 6.7 Beverly Hills-Mulholland USC
2 Northridge 1994 6.7 Canyon Country-WLC USC
3 Duzce, Turkey 1999 7.1 Bolu ERD
4 Hector Mine 1999 7.1 Hector SCSN
5 Imperial Valley 1979 6.5 Delta UNAMUCSD
6 Imperial Valley 1979 6.5 El Centro Array #11 USGS
7 Kobe, J apan 1995 6.9 Nishi-Akashi CUE
8 Kobe, J apan 1995 6.9 Shin-Osaka CUE
9 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 7.5 Duzce ERD
10 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 7.5 Arcelik KOERI
11 Landers 1992 7.3 Yermo Fire Station CDMG
12 Landers 1992 7.3 Coolwater SCE
13 Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 Capitola CDMG
14 Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 Gilroy Array #3 CDMG
15 Manjil 1990 7.4 Abbar BHRC
16 Superstition Hills 1987 6.5 El Centro Imp. Co. CDMG
17 Cape Mendocino 1992 7 Rio Dell Overpass CDMG
18 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 7.6 CHY101 CWB
19 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 7.6 TCU045 CWB
20 San Fernando 1971 6.6 LA-Hollywood CDMG
21 Friuli 1976 6.5 Tolmezzo --
Earthquake Recording Station

Figure 2. General information for the 21 ground acceleration sets used for the OpenSees incremental
dynamic analysis.

3.2 Northridge Buildings

Upon completion of the incremental dynamic analysis of the four steel moment frame buildings in
OpenSees, the results were then compared to similar results from the analysis of field data from the 1994
Northridge Earthquake. The information for the buildings and acceleration data from the Northridge
earthquake were obtained from Naeims report (1995). The report contained information on nineteen
different buildings with a wide variety of framing systems. Some buildings had steel moment frames,
concrete moment frames, and others with shear walls. For the purposes of this study, six of the
Northridge buildings were selected for direct comparison based on their framing systems. An additional
54-story sky scraper with a steel moment frame was compared to see if this studys results could
accommodate high rise buildings.

Since only two of the buildings from Naeims report consisted entirely of steel moment frames, other
framing systems were used in the comparison with the four buildings from OpenSees. The first building
used for comparison was a six story commercial office building located in Burbank, CA. This building
had a steel moment frame and fundamental periods of 1.28 seconds in both horizontal directions. A three


6

story commercial office building from Los Angeles was also chosen for comparison. This building had a
steel braced frame. This building has a fundamental period of 0.51 seconds in the major horizontal
direction, and a fundamental period of 0.55 seconds in the minor direction. A seven story math and
science building from the UCLA campus was also chosen for comparison. This building was treated as a
four story building due to the uniqueness of its framing; its bottom floors consist of concrete shear walls
while its higher floors are steel moment frames. The analysis of this building showed that the shear walls
are very rigid and provide no acceleration amplification from the ground and, the stories enclosed by
shear walls were neglected. The fundamental periods of this UCLA building were 0.66 seconds and 1.02
seconds in the major and minor directions respectively. A thirteen story commercial building in Sherman
Oaks and a twenty story hotel in North Hollywood with concrete moment frames also proved to be good
buildings for comparison. The thirteen story Sherman Oaks building has fundamental periods of 2.6
seconds and 2.9 seconds, while the twenty story hotel in North Hollywood has fundamental periods of
2.20 seconds and 2.50 seconds.

The incremental dynamic analysis from OpenSees included intensities that would result in the yielding of
a structure. A seven story hotel from Van Nuys experienced large amounts of damage in the Northridge
earthquake and was used to check the results obtained from yielding in the OpenSees models. The initial
fundamental period of this building in the major direction was 1.4 seconds. After yielding, this was
extended to 2.2 seconds. Additionally in the minor direction, the fundamental period was extended from
1.3 seconds to 1.8 seconds.

3.3 Analysis Procedure

Each of the 21 ground acceleration sets taken from ATC-63 was run at various intensities for each of the
four buildings modeled in OpenSees. This produced between from 200 and 300 acceleration data sets
which were then categorized into four performance levels. Runs causing a maximum interstory drift of
less than 0.7% in the building were placed in Performance Level 1 (Immediate Occupancy). Runs
producing a maximum interstory drift between 0.7% and 2.5% in the building were placed in
Performance Level 2 (Life Safety). Runs causing a maximum interstory drift of 2.5%-5% in the building
were placed in Performance Level 3 (Collapse Prevention), and runs producing a maximum interstory
drift greater than 5% were placed in Performance Level 4 (Collapse).

After all of the acceleration data sets were placed into their corresponding performance levels, they were
run through various Matlab scripts to produce data structures containing information such as: peak ground
accelerations, peak floor accelerations, peak velocities, spectral accelerations, spectral amplifications, and
amplifications by floor height. Everything from these data structures was then imported into Microsoft
Excel where analysis plots were constructed. These plots led to the development of equation
representations for amplification factor and a spectral amplification design spectrum. The equation
representations led to code recommendations which were then checked against the analysis of buildings
from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.

4.0 Analysis Plots

The design equations developed from this study were based on the 85
th
percentile of all of the data and
correspond to Performance Level 2. Therefore, the plots shown in the body of this report will correspond
to the same data set. Although studies were conducted in both the major and minor horizontal directions,
all of the plots shown in the main body of this report correspond to the major direction. Additional plots
with significant information can be found in Appendix B.





7

4.1 Spectral Acceleration
Spectral acceleration is defined as the acceleration a building would experience if it were oscillating with
a particular period. Thus, acceleration in terms of gravity is plotted on the y-axis, and period is plotted on
the x-axis. Spectral acceleration data is obtained by assuming the building acts as a single degree-of-
freedom system modeled as a particle on the end of a massless vertical rod. In this study, spectral
accelerations for every run from the OpenSees incremental dynamic analysis were plotted for each floor
of each building and also plotted by performance level. Figures 3-4 show examples of the spectral
acceleration plots created from the Matlab data in Excel.

Figure 3. Spectral acceleration data obtained for events occurring in Performance Level 4 on Floor 3 of Building A

Figure 4. 85
th
Percentile Spectral Acceleration Performance Level Comparison for Floor 3 of Building A
4.2 Spectral Amplification
The spectral amplification plots for this study were obtained by taking the spectral acceleration of each
floor and dividing it by the spectral acceleration of the ground. Examples of these plots can be seen in
Figures 5-6. The spectral amplification plots expose the period at which the grounds acceleration is
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
S
a
]

(
g
)
Period [T] (sec)
Events Mean Mean +/- STD
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
S
a
]

(
g
)
Period [T] (sec)
PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4


8

amplified the most. As expected, the period experiencing the greatest amplification is the fundamental
period of the building to which the plot corresponds. To better display this peak in amplification at each
buildings fundamental period, additional spectral amplification plots were made by normalizing the
period on the x-axis. To accomplish this, the values on the x-axis now were divided by the fundamental
period of the building (T/T
1
). If the peak amplification does indeed occur at the fundamental period of
the building, this peak should now occur when T/T
1
=1.0. Examples of spectral amplification plotted
against normalized period can be seen in Figures 7-8.

Figure 5. 85
th
percentile Spectral Amplification for events in Performance Level 2 for Building A


Figure 6. 85
th
percentile Spectral Amplification for events in Performance Level 2 for Building D

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

[
S
A
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
A
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Period [T] (sec)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

[
S
A
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
A
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Period [T] (sec)


9



Figure 7. 85
th
percentile Spectral Amplification vs. Normalized Period for events in Performance Level 2 for
Building A



Figure 8. 85
th
percentile Spectral Amplification vs. Normalized Period for events in Performance Level 2 for
Building D

4.3 Amplification Factor Vs. z/H Ratio

Amplification factor is defined as the peak floor acceleration divided by the peak ground acceleration
(PFA/PGA). This amplification factor was an area of emphasis for this study because it is used in current
code design specifications. The amplification factor was plotted against the z/H ratio to show how the
peak ground acceleration is amplified as floor height increases. Amplification plots were made for all
four performance levels to show that amplification of the peak ground acceleration decreases as the
building yields. These plots depicting the amplification obtained from the OpenSees incremental
dynamic analysis are shown in Figures 9-10. Also shown in Figures 9-10 is a bold line representing the
current code equation for amplification factor, AMP = 1 + 2
z
H
. Even though the same equation is used
in the code for buildings of all heights, the two plots expose the significant difference in peak ground
acceleration amplification between shorter buildings and taller buildings.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

[
S
A
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
A
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Normalized Period [T/T
1
]
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

[
S
A
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
A
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Normalized Period [T/T
1
]


10


Figure 9. 85
th
Percentile for Amplification Factor for all performance levels of Building B

Figure 10. 85
th
Percentile for Amplification Factor for all performance levels of Building C


5.0 Equation Representation and Code Recommendations

5.1 ASCE7-05 Structural Design Spectrum

The building design response spectrum used in this study was constructed following the procedure from
chapter 11 of ASCE7-05. Figure 11 shows the most general form of the design response spectrum.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
F
l
o
o
r

H
e
i
g
h
t
/
T
o
t
a
l

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

H
e
i
g
h
t

[
Z
/
h
]
85% Amplification Factor
PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 CODE
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
F
l
o
o
r

H
e
i
g
h
t
/
T
o
t
a
l

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

H
e
i
g
h
t

[
Z
/
h
]
85% Amplification Factor
PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 CODE


11


Figure 11. Design Response Spectrum from ASCE 7-05 Chapter 11

where:

S
DS
=(2/3)S
MS
Eqn. 1
S
D1
=(2/3)S
M1
Eqn. 2
T
0
=0.2(S
D1
/S
DS
) Eqn. 3
T
S
=(S
D1
/S
DS
) Eqn. 4

For this study mean seismicity parameters for California and were used in the development of the design
response spectrum shown in Figure 12. The mean seismicity parameters for California to be used in Eqn.
1 and Eqn.2 were 1.508 and 0.75 for S
MS
and S
M1
, respectively:


Figure 12. Design Response Spectrum and MCE Response Spectrum for mean seismicity parameters of California

The design response spectrum from Figure 12 was then plotted in comparison with the mean spectral
acceleration for Performance Levels 1, 2, and 3 of Building A. This plot showed that the design response
spectrum for structures corresponds to Performance Level 2 (Life Safety) which is the performance level
used for the development of the equations and code recommendations in this study. The design response
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Period (s)
MCE Response Spectrum Design Response Spectrum


12

spectrum from ASCE 7-05 superimposed on the spectral accelerations of Building A can be seen in
Figure 13.


Figure 13. Design Response Spectrum and MCE Response Spectrum from ASCE 7-05 plotted with mean spectral
accelerations for Performance Levels 1, 2, and 3 for Building A

5.2 Amplification Factor

The current code equation for the designing nonstructural components incorporates a factor accounting
for the amplification of the peak ground acceleration throughout the height of the structure. The current
equation for this amplification factor is represented by the Eqn 5.

= 1 + 2 (

) Eqn. 5

where:

H =total height of the building measured in ft
z/H =the ratio of the story height to the total building height

Analytical results have shown that the current equation is a conservative estimate in the general shape of
the analytical data for short buildings. However for taller buildings, the data showed that this linear
relationship is no longer a good estimate for the amplification factor. To better represent the analytical
results found this study, a new equation to determine the amplification factor was proposed. This new
equation was a bilinear representation of the amplification of the peak ground acceleration as story height
increases. The slope of the line at the lower floor levels is a function of total building height and becomes
constant at a maximum amplification as story height becomes large.

The linear relationship for the lower levels of the buildings is a function of overall building height as
wells as the z/H ratio for the design. Every building has a maximum amplification factor based on overall
building height which was implemented for the second line of the bilinear equation. Equations 6-8 were
used to develop the new amplification factor.



0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Period (s)
PL 1 PL2
PL3 MCE Response Spectrum
Design Response Spectrum


13

AMP =
PFA
PGA
= 1 +

Eqn. 6

where:

= 0.01 + 1.6 Eqn. 7

= 1 +
60

Eqn. 8

Figures 14-17 show the results obtained for the acceleration amplification factor from the incremental
dynamic analysis in OpenSees. Each of these plots also display a line depicting the current code equation
in addition to the new bilinear proposal.

Figure 14. Proposed Acceleration Amplification Factor Fit to Building A


Figure 15. Proposed Acceleration Amplification Factor Fit to Building B


0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
H
e
i
g
h
t

R
a
t
i
o

[
z
/
H
]
Amplification Factor [PFA/PGA]
X-Dir Y-Dir Fit Code
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
H
e
i
g
h
t

R
a
t
i
o

[
z
/
H
]
Amplification Factor [PFA/PGA]
X-Dir Y-Dir Fit Code


14


Figure 16. Proposed Acceleration Amplification Factor Fit to Building C


Figure 17. Proposed Acceleration Amplification Factor Fit to Building D

5.3 Spectral Amplification Design Spectrum

This study proposed a spectral amplification design spectrum that will provide the spectral amplification
experienced at the floor height for which a nonstructural component is to be installed. This new spectral
amplification design spectrum will use the amplification factor obtained from Equations 6-8 (presented in
section 6.2) and will provide a better design estimate for the acceleration the nonstructural component is
expected to experience. After determining the amplification factor following the procedure in section 6.2,
the following procedure outlined by Equations 9-14 were used to determine the spectral amplification
(S
Amp
) for all of the model buildings.

Figures 18-21 display the spectral amplification design spectrums for all of the floors for the four
buildings. The lines in the plots represent all the floors in ascending order starting with the 2
nd
floor at the
bottom and ending with the roof being represented by the top line. Figures 22-23 show the spectral
amplification and spectral amplification design spectrums for two buildings from the Northridge
earthquake.

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
H
e
i
g
h
t

R
a
t
i
o

[
z
/
H
]
Amplification Factor [PFA/PGA]
X-Dir Y-Dir Fit Code
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
H
e
i
g
h
t

R
a
t
i
o

[
z
/
H
]
Amplification Factor [PFA/PGA]
X-Dir Y-Dir Fit Code


15

1
0.2:

= Eqn. 9

0.9

1
1.1:

= Eqn. 10

1
2.25:

= Eqn. 11

where:

=

+

1
2

+1 Eqn. 12


Slope of the line connecting the points (0.2, AMP) and (0.9, AMP):

(1)
0.7
Eqn. 13

Slope of the line connecting the points (1.1, AMP) and (2.25, AMP):

(1)
1.15
Eqn. 14


Figure 18. Spectral Amplification Design Spectrum for Building A

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
A
m
p
[
S
a
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
a
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Normalized Period [T/T
1
]


16


Figure 19. Spectral Amplification Design Spectrum for Building B


Figure 20. Spectral Amplification Design Spectrum for Building C


Figure 21. Spectral Amplification Design Spectrum for Building D
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
A
m
p
[
S
a
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
a
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Normalized Period [T/T
1
]
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
A
m
p

[
S
a
,
F
l
o
o
r
/

S
a
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]

Normalized Period [T/T1]
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
A
m
p

[
S
a
,
F
l
o
o
r
/

S
a
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]

Normalized Period [T/T
1
]


17



Figure 22. Design Amplification Spectrum for a 3-Story Los Angeles Commercial Building from the 1994
Northridge Earthquake with H =50 ft and T
1
=0.55 sec


Figure 23. Design Amplification Spectrum for a 13-Story Commercial Building in Sherman Oaks from the 1994
Northridge Earthquake with H =164 ft and T
1
=2.6 sec


6.0 Conclusion and Further Studies
Sufficient evidence was presented to justify a need for revision of the current code. The amplification
factor equation used in the design for nonstructural components should be adjusted. An equation that can
be used as a representation for all buildings would be more practical than the current linear relationship
which is sufficient only for short buildings. The bilinear representation presented in this paper provides
great improvement, yet it further improvements could still be made. The proposal for a spectral
amplification design spectrum should also be considered as a revision to current code for nonstructural
design.
Although some different framing systems from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake were used for
comparisons, the scope of this study was restricted to steel moment frames. It is recommended that future
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
A
m
p
[
S
a
,

F
l
o
o
r
/
S
a
,

G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Normalized Period [T/T
1
]
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
A
m
p
[
S
a
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
a
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Normalized Period [T/T
1
]


18

studies include many types of frames including but not limited to: steel braced frames, concrete moment
frames, and shear walls. This study was also limited to the two principal horizontal motions, so further
research may include vertical motion along with possible rotational motions.
For further information on NEESR-GC Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Systems,
contact J oe Wieser at the University of Nevada, email: wieser85@gmail.com


7.0 Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Dr. Maragakis, Dr. Itani, and Dr. Pekcan for their guidance on the Grand Challenge
project. The mentorship provided by J oe Wieser and Arash Zaghi was also greatly appreciated. In
addition, I would like to thank Kelly Lyttle for coordinating the REU program at UNR.
The NEES@UNR equipment site is funded in part by the Geoge E. Brown, J r. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES) Program of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Award Number CMS-0086624.


8.0 References
American Society of Civil Engineers (2005). ASCE 7-05 - Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures. ASCE.
K.S. Vipin, P. A. (2009). Estimation of peak ground accleration and spectral acceleration for South India
with local site effects: probabilistic approach. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences , 865-878.
Manos Maragakis, P. (2010). Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstrucutral Systems., (pp. 1-
35). Buffalo, NY.
Ragunath Sankaranarayanan, P. D. (2007). Seismic Response of Acceleration-Sensitive Nonstrucutral
Components Mounted on Moment-Resisting Frame Structures. College Park, Maryland: University of
Maryland, College Park.
Yongqi Chen, T. S. (1988). Seismic Response of Secondary Systems. Engineering Structures 10 (4) ,
218-228.




19

Appendix A: ATC 63 Tables

1 D 356 Thrust 13.3 17.2 17.2 9.4
2 D 309 Thrust 26.5 12.4 12.4 11.4
3 D 326 Strike-Slip 41.3 12 12.4 12
4 C 685 Strike-Slip 26.5 11.7 12 10.4
5 D 275 Strike-Slip 33.7 22 22.5 22
6 D 196 Strike-Slip 29.4 12.5 13.5 12.5
7 C 609 Strike-Slip 8.7 7.1 25.2 7.1
8 D 256 Strike-Slip 46 19.2 28.54 19.1
9 D 276 Strike-Slip 98.2 15.4 15.4 13.6
10 C 523 Strike-Slip 53.7 13.5 13.5 10.6
11 D 354 Strike-Slip 86 23.6 23.8 23.6
12 D 271 Strike-Slip 82.1 19.7 20 19.7
13 C 289 Strike-Slip 9.8 15.2 35.5 8.7
14 D 350 Strike-Slip 31.4 12.8 12.8 12.2
15 C 724 Strike-Slip 40.4 12.6 13 12.6
16 D 192 Strike-Slip 35.8 18.2 18.5 18.2
17 D 312 Thrust 22.7 14.3 14.3 7.9
18 D 259 Thrust 32 10 15.5 10
19 C 705 Thrust 77.5 26 26.8 26
20 D 316 Thrust 39.5 22.8 25.9 22.8
21 C 425 Thrust 20.2 15.8 15.8 15
Min 192 8.7 7.1 12 7.1
Max 724 98.2 26 35.5 26
Avg. 381 40.7 15.90476 18.78762 14.51429
X X
Site Data
Source
Type ID
NEHRP
Class
V
s 30
(m/s)
Joyner
Boone
Site-Source Distance (km)
Epicentral
Closest
Plane
Campbell

Figure 24. Site information for ATC-63 Ground Motions.
Component 1 Component 2
1 953 0.25 NORTHR/MUL009 NORTHR/MUL279 NORTHR\MUL-UP
2 960 0.13 NORTHR/LOS000 NORTHR/LOS270 NORTHR\LOS-UP
3 1602 0.06 DUZCE/BOL000 DUZCE/BOL090 DUZCE\BOL-UP
4 1787 0.04 HECTOR/HEC000 HECTOR/HEC090 HECTOR\HECVER
5 169 0.06 IMPVALL/H-DLT262IMPVALL/H-DLT352IMPVALL\H-DLTDWN
6 174 0.25 IMPVALL/H-E11140 IMPVALL/H-E11230 IMPVALL\H-E11-UP
7 1111 0.13 KOBE/NIS000 KOBE/NIS090 KOBE\NIS-UP
8 1116 0.13 KOBE/SHI000 KOBE/SHI090 KOBE\SHI-UP
9 1158 0.24 KOCAELI/DZC180 KOCAELI/DZC270 KOCAELI\DZC-UP
10 1148 0.09 KOCAELI/ARC000 KOCAELI/ARC090 KOCAELI\ARCDWN
11 900 0.07 LANDERS/YER270 LANDERS/YER360 LANDERS\YER-UP
12 848 0.13 LANDERS/CLW-LN LANDERS/CLW-TR LANDERS\CLW-UP
13 752 0.13 LOMAP/CAP000 LOMAP/CAP090 LOMAP\CAP-UP
14 767 0.13 LOMAP/G03000 LOMAP/G03090 LOMAP\G03-UP
15 1633 0.13 MANJIL/ABBAR--L MANJIL/ABBAR--T MANJIL\ABBAR--V
16 721 0.13 SUPERST/B-ICC000 SUPERST/B-ICC090 SUPERST\B-ICC-UP
17 829 0.07 CAPEMEND/RIO270 CAPEMEND/RIO360 CAPEMEND\RIO-UP
18 1244 0.05 CHICHI/CHY101-E CHICHI/CHY101-N CHICHI\CHY101-V
19 1485 0.05 CHICHI/TCU045-E CHICHI/TCU045-N CHICHI\TCU045-V
20 68 0.25 SFERN/PEL090 SFERN/PEL180 SFERN\PEL-UP
21 125 0.13 FRIULI/A-TMZ000 FRIULI/A-TMZ270 FRIULI\A-TMZ-UP
File Names-Horizontal File Names-
Vertical
PEER-NGA Record Information
Lowest
Freq (Hz)
ID
Record
Seq. No.

Figure 25. Acceleration Record Information for ATC-63 Ground Motions


20


1 0.5165 62.7695 4.673 30.00 9.74
2 0.4820 44.9105 2.052 20.00 9.35
3 0.8224 62.1012 3.868 55.90 13.81
4 0.3368 41.7434 1.939 45.31 14.12
5 0.3511 33.0033 3.418 99.92 63.90
6 0.3796 42.1446 4.069 39.04 16.82
7 0.5093 37.2881 3.483 40.96 12.21
8 0.2432 37.7950 0.859 40.96 16.55
9 0.3579 58.8529 2.763 27.19 14.48
10 0.2188 39.5687 0.601 30.00 13.29
11 0.2448 51.4082 0.480 44.00 25.48
12 0.4169 42.3347 9.027 27.97 17.34
13 0.5285 35.0142 9.161 39.96 13.95
14 0.5550 44.6650 4.337 35.95 13.27
15 0.5146 52.0893 3.960 53.52 33.46
16 0.3579 46.3598 2.208 40.00 22.52
17 0.5489 43.8051 1.294 36.00 18.88
18 0.4401 115.0360 6.229 90.00 30.41
19 0.5120 39.0747 2.900 90.00 11.77
20 0.2099 18.8738 0.676 28.00 12.29
21 0.3513 30.7968 2.489 36.35 6.62
Min 0.2099 18.8738 0.480 20.00 6.62
Max 0.8224 115.0360 9.161 99.92 63.90
Avg. 0.4237 46.6493 3.356 45.29 18.58
Shortened
Duration (s)
PGV
(cm/s)
Arias Intensity
(m/s)
Recorded
Duration (s)
ID PGA (g)

Figure 26. Analysis results for peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and arias intensity for the far-field
ground motions used for incremental dynamic analysis



21

Appendix B: Design Example Using Code Recommendations

This example design is for nonstructural components that will be installed in a building with a total height
of 180 feet and a fundamental period of 2.75 seconds. This example shows the steps for two different
floor heights, one corresponding to a z/H ratio of 0.25 and one corresponding to a z/H ratio of 0.75. The
design response spectrum is obtained following the procedure from ASCE 7-05. In this case, the
response spectrum corresponds for the San J ose area and Site Class C.

S
MS
=2.0 S
M1
=0.87
S
DS
=(2/3)S
MS
S
D1
=(2/3)S
M1

T
0
=0.2(S
D1
/S
DS
) T
S
=(S
D1
/S
DS
)




B.1 Amplification Factor

AMP =
PFA
PGA
= 1 +

Where:
= 0.01 + 1.6

= 1 +
60

B.2 Calculations
= 0.01(180) + 1.6 = 3.4

= 1 + (3.4)
60
180
= 2.133

AMP
0.25
= 1 + 3.4(0.25)

AMP
0.25
= 1.85

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Period (s)
MCE Spectral Accel. Design Spectral Accel.


22

AMP
0.75
= 1 + 3.4(0.75)

AMP
0.75
= 2.133


B.3 Spectral Amplification Design Spectrum

Calculations for z/H = 0.25
= 0.25 +
2.75
2
0.25 + 1 = 1.594

1
< 0.2

= = 1.85

0.9 <

1
< 1.1

= = 2.95

1
> 2.25

= = 1.85

Calculations for z/H = 0.75
= 0.75 +
2.75
2
0.75 + 1 = 2.781

1
< 0.2

= = 2.133

0.9 <

1
< 1.1

= = 5.93

1
> 2.25

= = 2.133


The new acceleration design spectrum is obtained by multiplying the spectral amplification design
spectrum by the fundamental period of the design building and then by the design spectrum from ASCE
7-05 Chapter 11.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
A
m
p
[
S
a
,
F
l
o
o
r
/
S
a
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
]
Normalized Period [T/T
1
]


23


For full spectral amplification design spectrum procedure refer to text section 6.3.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Period (s)
New Design Spectrum For z/H=0.75
New Design Spectrum For z/H=0.25