BEHAVIOUR OF NON-

STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
DURING EARTHQUAKE

BY:
SUMEDHA
NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
 Non-structural failures have accounted for the majority of earthquake damage
in several recent earthquakes. Thus, it is critical to raise awareness of potential
non-structural risks, the costly consequences of non-structural failures, and the
opportunities that exist to limit future losses.
 Non-structural components of a building include all of those components that
are not part of the structural system; that is, all of the architectural,
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, as well as furniture, fixtures,
equipment, and contents. Windows, partitions, granite veneer, piping, ceilings,
air conditioning ducts and equipment, elevators, computer and hospital
equipment, file cabinets, and retail merchandise are all examples of non-
structural components that are vulnerable to earthquake damage.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Non-structural seismic preparedness of Southern California Hospital
 David J. Whitney, Andra Dickerson, Michael K. Lindell
 2001

 Conclusion : Results provide evidence that hospitals in Southern California have partially implemented
a variety of earthquake preparedness and mitigation activities. However, many adjustments specific only
to earthquake hazard were not commonly implemented, and this is cause of concern. Successful
implementation of non-structural measures is most likely to occur in large hospitals having government
or not-for-profit ownership, high levels of perceived support for seismic risk reduction from upper
administrators, and frequent interaction of the hospital disaster coordinator with those in similar roles at
other organizations.

 Limitation: Only 55% of hospitals responded to the survey’s questionnaire. If the organization that had
the lowest levels od seismic hazard adjustments were least likely to participate, then result of survey
would overestimate the seismic preparedness.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Design of non-structural elements for buildings: A review of codal provisions
 Goutam Mondal and Sudhir K Jain
 2005

 Conclusion: Most of these codes provide simplified method to obtain design seismic force which
depends on the response of its supporting building, size and weight of the element, relative location of
the element in the building, flexibility of the component, etc. Codes generally recommend that the non-
structural elements should be designed for much higher seismic coefficient values than the supporting
building itself. International Building Code has incorporated provisions for displacement sensitive non-
structural elements also. Most of the codes also recommend the use of floor response spectrum for
important and dangerous non-structural elements.

 Limitations: Indian standard needs to be modified since the provisions recommended in Indian
Standards do not consider the factors influencing the behaviour of non-structural elements.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Seismic safety of Non-Structural elements and contents in hospital buildings
 Prepared under GoI – UNDP Disaster Risk Management Programme
 2007
 Conclusion: This is a quite helpful guide in implementation of non-structural mitigation plan.
Various steps are mentioned to prioritize the elements which are more sensitive to earthquake and are
more important for facilitating the operability of hospital. When resources are scarce in a developing
country like India, you can use the priorities you have set, High, Medium and Low, to stagger the
project into two or three steps and implement the plan accordingly
 Limitation: It is a good initiative towards the seismic safety of Non-Structural elements but many
more things still we have to find. We require a more comprehensive guide for the seismic safety of
Non-structural elements. This report has just mentioned the concepts theoretically that too are very
raw.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Engineering Systems in Wellington Hospitals – A Case Study
 S.R.Uma1a, Graeme Beattie2 and A.B. King1
 2009
 Conclusion: The design standard for seismic restraints, NZS 4219, has recently been updated to align
with the new earthquake loadings standard, NZS 1170.5. In reviewing the facilities, an attempt was
made to determine whether the restraint system, if in place, would satisfy the requirements of the new
standard. Because the details of the mass distribution in much of the equipment could not be accurately
determined by visual inspection, qualitative assessments were made of the suitability of the restraint
systems. It is noted that for new major hospital facilities there has been greater cooperation between
the mechanical services engineers and structural engineers in an effort to provide a resilient system.
 Limitation: There were some instances where the restraint was clearly not sufficient. This particularly
applied to vibration isolated systems where there was a lack of snubbers to prevent excessive
movement in an earthquake and also to computer systems, where servers, CPUs and other equipment
were located on insecure shelving and/or not restrained in place on the shelf.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Reducing the Risks of Non-structural Earthquake Damage

 Cynthia Perry1 , Maryann Phipps2 and Ayse Hortacsu3

 2009

 Conclusion: From this paper we can conclude that FEMA E-74 explains the sources of non-structural damage
and provides practical methods for reducing the potential risks by providing extensive visual information in the
form of photographs of earthquake damage to non-structural components and contents, photos of properly
installed non-structural restraints, and drawings and details of appropriate non-structural restraints. The updated
edition includes illustrated mitigation examples for 50 non-structural items as well as an example seismic code
block now in use in some jurisdictions to define design responsibility for non-structural restraints.
 Limitation: Improved tools for defining responsibilities and tracking progress for non-structural restraint design
and installation are needed. Unless the scopes and responsibilities are clearly defined, the work is unlikely to get
done. Additional shake table tests of prototype equipment and restraint systems and combinations of systems
that must function in close proximity to one another are needed. Enhanced post-earthquake reconnaissance to
gather detailed data on the performance of non-structural components following major earthquakes is needed.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Seismic Design Requirements for Non-structural Components

 J. Silva, S.E.

 2010

 Conclusion: The requirements for seismic design of non-structural components in ASCE/SEI 7-10 have
been modified to improve readability, to clear up ambiguities and inconsistencies in previous provisions, and
to provide additional guidance for their successful implementation. Coefficients for Architectural
Components, is also modified in ASCE/SEI 7-10. In this context the provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-10 are
reviewed, specifically with regards to highlighted changes from the 2005 edition in the areas of anchorage,
the treatment of architectural, electrical and mechanical components, system certification, and exempted
components.

 Limitation : This article has discussed the performance expectations for Non-structural component design,
their general provision including exemptions, their anchorage, amplification and response modification
coefficient but proper design procedure for various non-structural components was not mentioned.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Full-scale Experimental Facility and Loading Protocols for Seismic Performance Assessment of non-
structural Systems
 Gilberto Mosqueda, Andre Filiatrault, Andrei Reinhorn and Rodrigo Retamales
 2010
 Conclusion: The testing frame provides the unique laboratory capabilities to replicate full-scale floor motions
expected at the upper levels of multi-storey buildings, allowing for the simultaneous testing of displacement
and/or acceleration sensitive non-structural components, systems and equipment. Further, the seismic dynamic
interaction among components can be evaluated. The proposed testing protocol is compatible with the hazard
consistent ground/floor response spectrum and generalized interstory drift expected at a specified normalized
building height. A full-scale test of a hospital emergency room with architectural finishes and medical equipment
was used to demonstrate the capabilities of the UB-NCS and the suitability of the proposed testing protocol for
assessing the seismic performance of combined displacement/acceleration non-structural systems.
 Limitation: The UB-NCS is a two-level modular testing frame capable of simultaneously subjecting
displacement and/or acceleration sensitive non-structural systems to realistic full-scale floor motions expected
within multi-storey buildings. But in actual real multi-storey buildings are quite different from this modular
frame. The UB-NCS can subject non-structural systems up to 3g acceleration, 100 in/s (2.5 m/s) velocity and ±40
in (1 m) displacement amplitudes but the real earthquake acceleration, velocity and displacement amplitudes we
can not predict.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Behaviour of Non-structural Components in Recent Earthquakes

 Eduardo A. Fierro1 , Eduardo Miranda2 and Cynthia L. Perry3

 2011

 Conclusion: For the Chile earthquake, similar to other earthquakes that have occurred in countries with
advanced earthquake resistance design practices, this earthquake highlights the need for continuing research
to significantly improve our present knowledge of the seismic response of non-structural components,
improving code provisions and the state-of-the-practice on the seismic design and anchoring of non-
structural components, and requiring a higher level of performance for non-structural components that aims
for full functionality of essential facilities such as hospitals, power plants and airports.
 For Haiti, the design of non-structural elements did not exist prior to the earthquake but should be taken
into consideration in the new Haitian code and in designs being developed for reconstruction.
 Limitations: This report has discussed only about the damages occurred after the earthquake but no where
mentioned about the design procedures one should adopt to reduce the risk of these damages.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Nonstructural Components and Systems - Designing Hospitals for Post-Earthquake Functionality

 Chris V. Tokas
 2011

 Conclusion: Post-earthquake functionality and operability will not be delivered until effective strategies are devised to
minimize nonstructural damage. The performance of nonstructural components when subjected to earthquakes can be
enhanced by requiring thefollowing:

 All mission-critical equipment shall be sufficiently tested for operability for a design level earthquake.

 Qualified design professionals accept responsibility for the design and detailing of nonstructural component and systems.
Building codes have to be strengthened to address this issue.

 The design professionals responsible for the design and detailing of nonstructural components should provide construction
observation and report(s) to the building official to ensure that the intent of their design has been met by the contractor for the
project. Field observation is a significant factor in the improved performance of piping and ductwork systems that cannot be
completely detailed on contract documents due to coordination issues that arise during current building construction
practices.