Shake Table Tests of Multiple Non-Structural Elements in a Low -Damage Structural Steel Building

Abstract

The Robust Building Systems (ROBUST) project is aimed at enhancing the seismic resilience of buildings by introducing and validating low-damage concepts for the structural and non-structural elements (NSEs). A three-story, full-scale, structural steel building will be tested at the International Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering (ILEE) at Tongji University, under unidirectional and bidirectional horizontal shaking. This project includes an objective and detailed plan for testing acceleration and drift-sensitive non-structural elements encompassing typical New Zealand design and construction practices along with some low-damage concepts. A total of five NSEs will be included in the test: 1) suspended ceilings, 2) partitions walls, 3) precast cladding panels, 4) glazing, and 5) fire sprinkler piping systems. Partitions walls, being drift-sensitive, will be installed on the first floor of the test structure, whereas suspended ceilings and fire sprinkler piping systems, being acceleration-sensitive, will be installed in the upper two floors. Moreover, precast claddings & glazing, which are sensitive to both drift and acceleration demands, will be attached to the upper two floors. Each NSE is currently designed and configured to address specific performance objectives which are essential to improve its seismic performance. The testing will lead to an enhanced understanding of NSEs and provide grounds to improve the existing design standards and practices.

Full text

4th International Workshop on the Seismic
Performance of Non-Structural Elements
(SPONSE)
May 22-23, 2019 – Pavia, Italy
International Association for the Seismic
Performance of Non-Structural Elements
Shake Table Tests of Multiple Non-Structural
Elements in a Low – Damage Structural Steel
Building
Rajesh P. Dhakal1, Muhammad Rashid1, Jitendra Bhatta1, Timothy J. Sullivan1, Gregory
A. MacRae1, G. Charles Clifton2, Liang-Jiu Jia3 and Ping Xiang4
1 Department of Civil & Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
rajesh.dhakal@canterbury.ac.nz; muhammad.rashid@pg.canterbury.ac.nz;
jitendra.bhatta@pg.canterbury.ac.nz; timothy.sullivan@canterbury.ac.nz;
gregory.macrae@canterbury.ac.nz
2 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
c.clifton@auckland.ac.nz
3 Department of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji University, China
lj_jia@tongji.edu.cn
4 Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, China
p.xiang@tongji.edu.cn
Abstract. The Robust Building Systems (ROBUST) project is aimed at enhancing the seismic resilience of
buildings by introducing and validating low-damage concepts for the structural and non-structural elements
(NSEs). A three-story, full-scale, structural steel building will be tested at the International Joint Research
Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering (ILEE) at Tongji University, under unidirectional and bidirectional
horizontal shaking.
This project includes an objective and detailed plan for testing acceleration and drift-sensitive non-structural
elements encompassing typical New Zealand design and construction practices along with some low-
damage concepts. A total of five NSEs will be included in the test: 1) suspended ceilings, 2) partitions walls,
3) precast cladding panels, 4) glazing, and 5) fire sprinkler piping systems. Partitions walls, being drift-
sensitive, will be installed on the first floor of the test structure, whereas suspended ceilings and fire sprinkler
piping systems, being acceleration-sensitive, will be installed in the upper two floors. Moreover, precast
claddings & glazing, which are sensitive to both drift and acceleration demands, will be attached to the upper
two floors. Each NSE is currently designed and configured to address specific performance objectives which
are essential to improve its seismic performance. The testing will lead to an enhanced understanding of
NSEs and provide grounds to improve the existing design standards and practices.
Keywords: Shake Table Test, Non-Structural Elements, Acceleration-Sensitive, Drift-Sensitive.

1. INTRODUCTION
The emergence of performance-based earthquake engineering has led to objective and quantifiable
definitions of performance levels for buildings in terms of anticipated financial losses and post-earthquake
building functionality. To achieve a certain seismic performance level for a building facility, such as post-
earthquake functionality, it is essential that both the structural and NSEs are designed such that their
individual performances do no impair the intended performance of that building during or post an
earthquake. It has been however observed that the performance of NSEs lags behind the structural system
and suffer considerable damage (Dhakal 2010; Dhakal et al. 2011; Filiatrault and Sullivan 2014; Taghavi and
Miranda 2003). This results in considerable financial losses and extensive periods of inoperability. From a
research perspective, these consequences can be attributed to a limited understanding of NSEs behaviour
due to the lack of ample experimental and numerical research as compared to structural elements; this also
explains the reason behind the empirical design provisions in the current standards (Egbelakin et al. 2018;
Filiatrault and Sullivan 2014). From a practice viewpoint, there is considerable variability in the design and
installation approaches for NSEs; the load resisting elements, such as the connections and braces are
proprietary in nature lacking a sound engineering design and can vary from building to building. This
identifies the need for research work on NSEs, particularly experimental, which can lead to improvement
by: 1) quantification of basic response parameters, such as time period and damping, for rational seismic
demand estimations; 2) validation of the seismic performance of traditional and novel load resisting
mechanisms for different NSEs; and 3) development of validated and simple design provisions for use in
design standards.
The Robust Building Systems (ROBUST) project is aimed at enhancing the seismic resilience of buildings
by introducing and validating low-damage design concepts for the structural and non-structural elements.
A three-story, full-scale, structural steel building will be tested at the International Joint Research Laboratory
of Earthquake Engineering (ILEE) at Tongji University (Figure 1). The structure has two bays in the
longitudinal direction and one bay in the transverse direction, and will incorporate a number of high-
performance connections (low-damage friction energy dissipaters) in the form of sliding hinge joint, resilient
slip friction joint, symmetric friction connection and GripNGrab (Chanchi et al. 2013; Clifton 2005; Cook
et al. 2018; Hashemi et al. 2016). The test structure will be subjected to unidirectional and bidirectional
horizontal shaking with ground motions corresponding to the design-basis (10% in 50 years) and maximum
considered earthquake (2% in 50 years) intensity levels. The set of prospective ground motions will include
normal-directivity, near-field forward-directivity (pulse-like), and long duration subduction ground motion
records.
Figure 1: Test structure 3D and plan view
1
5
3
BA C
3627.5 3627.5
2375.0 2375.0

The main objective of testing the NSEs is to investigate and validate the seismic performance of acceleration
and drift-sensitive NSEs, encompassing typical and low-damage design concepts, under realistic seismic
demands resulting from dynamic interaction with the structural system. A total of five NSEs will be included
in the test: 1) suspended ceilings, 2) partitions walls, 3) precast cladding panels, 4) glazing, and 5) fire
sprinkler piping systems. Partitions walls, being drift-sensitive, will be installed on the first floor of the test
structure, whereas suspended ceilings and fire sprinkler systems, being acceleration-sensitive, will be installed
in the upper two floors. Moreover, precast cladding & glazing, which are sensitive to both drift and
acceleration demands, will be attached to the upper two floors. The design and configuration details of each
NSE have been chosen to address specific objectives which are formed by looking into real damage
scenarios in past seismic events, survey of existing practices, and feedback from industry experts.
2. NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
2.1.1 Suspended Ceilings
Damage to suspended ceilings has been widely reported and primarily includes the dislodging and breakage
of tiles, failure of the inter-grid and perimeter connections, buckling of the grids, and failure of the perimeter
angles (Dhakal 2010; Dhakal et al. 2011; Miranda et al. 2012; Perrone et al. 2018). The perimeter-fixed
suspended ceilings are the most widely used suspended ceilings in New Zealand, in which two sides of the
ceiling are riveted to the perimeter angles, while the other two sides are floating, i.e. the grid is simply resting
on the perimeter angle without any attachment. The primary seismic demand on the ceiling grids is axial
force which accumulates along the length of the grid towards the perimeter, where it is to be resisted by a
riveted connection with the perimeter angle (Figure 3a). The failure hierarchy for perimeter-fixed suspended
ceilings, evaluated from component tests, reveals that the single rivet (3.2mm) perimeter connections are
the most vulnerable components of the whole ceiling system (Dhakal et al. 2016). Different solutions have
been proposed to avoid the critical damage states, e.g. the seismic clips for inter-grid connections and double
rivets for perimeter connections (Dhakal et al. 2016; Pourali 2018; Ryu and Reinhorn 2017).
Recently, a novel low-damage suspended ceiling has been proposed and its concept validated experimentally
(Pourali et al. 2017). This ceiling is comparatively simpler to perimeter-fixed, and can avoid the typical
damage associated with the grids as it is completely isolated from the surrounding structural system and is
only hung from the floor slab using hanger wires. These wires have negligible lateral stiffness and therefore
are not prone to failure due to seismic loads. Being isolated from the surrounding structure by a gap, the
only concern about the fully floating ceiling is it lateral displacement. As demonstrated in Pourali et al.
(2017), these displacements can be restrained effectively by filling the perimeter gap with an isolation
material.
Fixed End
Floating End
Floating End
Floating End
Perimeter - Fixed
Fully - Floating
Figure 2: Types of suspended ceilings

a. Perimeter-Fixed
b. Braced
c. Fully-Floating without Isolation Foam
d. Fully-Floating with Isolation Foam
Figure 3: Types of suspended ceilings
The primary objective of this test is to compare the seismic performance of the traditional perimeter-fixed
suspended ceiling with the novel low-damage fully-floating variant. The two variants will each be installed
in one half of the second floor in order to compare their performance under the same floor acceleration
demands. The fully floating ceiling will be installed on the full third floor to assess its performance, primarily
the displacement response and the efficacy of the isolation material in restraining its displacements.
2.1.2 Fire Sprinkler Piping Systems
Damage to fire sprinkler systems is consequential in nature as it can compromise both the fire safety and
the functionality of a building during an earthquake. The damage primarily includes fractured piping
connections, failure of hangers and braces, and damaged sprinkler heads due to interaction with surrounding
building elements, such as ceiling panels (Fleming 1998; Galloway and Ingham 2015; Opus 2017; Rashid et
al. 2018; Soroushian et al. 2014; Tian 2013). Damaged piping connections leads to leakage of water which
can flood entire floors and thus, can render a building inoperable (Baker et al. 2012; Galloway and Ingham
2015; Opus 2017; Tian 2013).
Fire sprinkler systems consist of a network of vertical and horizontal supply piping. The horizontal piping
has an intricate distribution across a floor and its configuration can vary from floor to floor in the same
building (Figure 4). This whole piping network is braced against gravity and seismic load using hanger rods
and braces respectively (Figure 4). The braces restrain the pipes from deforming excessively so as to prevent
the leakage of connections, and to avoid pounding with the surrounding building elements. The hangers
and braces are proprietary systems and connected to the sprinkler pipes and the supporting structure (the
beam or slab above) using propriety mechanical connections called attachment components through
anchors.

Sprinkler piping systems have been a subject of some extensive experimental and numerical work (Jenkins
et al. 2017; Soroushian et al. 2014; Soroushian et al. 2016; Tian 2013). However, given the complexity and
random configurations of piping systems, there is still considerable scope to fully understand and
characterize their seismic response to formulate simple and validated seismic design provisions. One such
required investigation is the displacement demand on long distribution and branch pipes, which has not
been very extensively studied. The importance of quantifying the displacement demand on long distribution
and branch pipes is evident from the shake table test by Soroushian et al. (2016), where a 9.5m distribution
pipe displaced almost 50mm at its connection with a branch pipe. This displacement demand maybe
sufficient to cause leakage and almost equals the typical clearance requirements in standards. This
observation warrants further investigation into such piping systems.
In this test, fire sprinkler piping systems will be installed on the second and third floor (roof) of the test
structure and will only be connected through a riser pipe traversing the floors. The piping configuration will
be different on both floors due to the need for different performance aspects to be addressed.
Figure 5: Preliminary sprinkler piping configurations
Lateral Brace on
Distribution Pipe
Lateral Brace on
Branch Pipe
Figure 4: Components of a fire sprinkler piping system
Hanger Rod

The main objectives for testing the fire sprinkler piping systems are listed below:
1. Investigate the performance of:
a. Typical brace assembly, which includes the brace element, attachments to the pipe & the building,
and the anchor, to investigate its failure hierarchy.
b. Hanger rods and their anchors.
2. Investigate the displacement demand on long distribution pipes and the riser nipples which branch off
the distribution pipes to supply water to the branch pipes.
3. Investigate the displacement demand on long branch pipes and the efficiency of hanger rods (10mm)
and steel cables (wires) as bracing in restraining the displacement demands on the branch pipes.
2.1.3 Partition Walls
Partition walls incorporating gypsum wall-boards have been widely used in practice since the 1970s because
of their fast construction, acoustic control, and attractive appearance. These partition walls are drift
sensitive non-structural components which usually have limited deformation capacity leading to
damage even at low drift ratios during earthquakes. Early damage to partition walls results in monetary
loss corresponding to mandatory repair and consequent downtime of the building. Furthermore,
gypsum partition walls can also adversely affect the environment because they must be demolished
prior to installing new partition walls. Partitions walls often also play an important role in fire
containment. Whitman (1973) reported that repair costs related to partition walls represented around 90%
of the total building repair cost after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. He further suggested that
improving the seismic performance of partition walls could be one of the keys to minimizing the losses in
buildings during a seismic event. Full-scale experimental tests, which usually comprise of a full-scale
drywall partition attached to the structural components (such as floor slabs, frames, walls etc.), are
generally preferred over structural analysis since partition wall components cannot be easily simulated.
One of the first concepts on ‘low damage’ detailing on partition walls was put forward by (Lee et al. 2007).
They proposed the following detailing configurations:
a) Studs are not to be mechanically connected to the head tracks (or runners) so that they can slip
within the tracks as tracks move with the floor or the ceiling, and
b) Clearance of 10 to 15mm should be provided between the intersecting walls or boundary columns.
Figure 6. Intended behaviour of partition wall having clearance at the vertical boundaries
Partition walls incorporating these details were able to slide without being subjected to significant stresses
until the gaps were completely engaged during the tests conducted by (Lee et al. 2007). The partition walls
a) Initial configuration of partition wall
b) Configuration of partition wall after the
provided boundary clearance closes

tested by Lee et al. (2007) remained undamaged until 1.07% drift (~30mm/2800mm) corresponding to the
total vertical gap of 30 mm provided between the partition wall and the boundary columns; which was a
major improvement over partition walls which behaved as “shear-walls”. Tasligedik et al. (2015) also
proposed similar detailing with some minor variations to reduce the gap width at the intersecting walls or
boundary columns by distributing the gaps among the gypsum boards, termed as ‘inter-seismic gaps’. Details
at the inter-seismic gaps also allowed gypsum boards to move independent to each other. Furthermore, fire-
rating on partition walls was ensured by providing strips of gypsum boards around the edges and in the
inter-seismic gap of the partition walls. However, industry feedback indicates that bigger gaps are not
aesthetically pleasing and require significant amount of gap fillers which indirectly relates to more cost
because of additional time labor requirements.
In light of the above, ‘alternative’ detailing for partition walls is being explored at the University of
Canterbury to minimize the vertical gaps between the gypsum boards and between partition walls and the
boundary elements (for example columns, orthogonal partition walls, etc.). Partition walls having ‘L’ and ‘T’
configurations with different details will occupy the first floor of the test structure (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Preliminary configurations of partition walls on first and second floor of the test structure
2.1.4 Precast Cladding Panels
The main function of cladding is to provide a barrier between the interior and exterior environment of the
building. While doing so, its connections to the structural systems must be able to support the self-weight
of the cladding, and distribute the wind pressure applied on the face of the cladding to the main structure.
Generally, Precast Cladding Panels (PCPs) are sensitive to both floor accelerations (out-of-plane direction)
and inter-story drifts (in-plane direction). Therefore, these panels are designed to satisfactorily resist the out-
of-plane forces and accommodate in-plane story drifts. According to (ASCE/SEI 2010), connections to
permit movement in the plane of the panel for story drift shall be sliding connections using slotted (a sliding
connection, Figure 8) or oversize holes, connections that permit movement by bending of steel (a flexing
connection, Figure 9), or other connections that provide mecahnsisms to accommodate relative movement
between the cladding and the supporting structures. Despite these concepts, partial or even complete
collapse of PCPs has been observed during recent earthquakes. The damage and collapse of PCPs during
the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and the 2012 Emilia earthquake indicate some shortcomings in the design
approaches in panel-to-structure connection details (Bournas et al. 2014; Colombo 2012). During the 2011
Christchurch earthquake, faults in fixings (inability of bolt heads to slide within the horizontal slot of sliding
connection because their washers had been welded to the metal angle) led to failure of PCPs. Moreover, the
aftershock of 6.3 magnitude (June 13, 2011), following the Christchurch earthquake, resulted in detachment
of PCPs and connection damage due to beam elongation. Corner crushing due to clashing between adjacent
panels, and rupture of sealing joints due to relative movement between panels, were common damage modes
observed during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake (Baird et al. 2012).

a) Sliding connection details b) Intended behaviour
Figure 8. A sliding connection and its intended behaviour during seismic event (Hutchinson 2014)
a) Flexing connection details b) Intended behaviour
Figure 9. A flexing connection and its intended behaviour during seismic event (Hutchinson 2014)
It is believed that corner elements are one of the major sources of problems occurring in precast cladding
systems using sliding slotted connections or flexing connections (Hutchinson 2014). Corner joints are
locations where the in-plane panels and out-of-plane panels meet. The in-plane panels tilt rigidly along with
the lower slab whereas the out-of-plane panels predominantly move with the upper slab. Therefore, the
relative motion encountered by the panels at the corner is the same as the inter-story drift between the
floors comprising the panels. Therefore, enough joint gap is provided between panels to avoid panel-to-
panel contact and panel-to-structure contact during the maximum displacements of the structure. This
consideration resulted in the practice of oversized sealant joints at each corner of the building (Figure 10).
This practice is obviously undesirable for architects. As per ASCE/SEI (2010), for a flexible moment frame
system the allowable story drift is around
0.02× h to 0.025× h
, where ‘h’ is the floor-to-floor height of the
building. Generally, for a building with 3.5m floor-floor height, the joint gap consequently turns out to be
around 90mm.
a) Miter joint b) Butt return joint
Figure 10. Oversized seismic joints (Hutchinson 2014)

In light of the above, one of the primary objectives of this project will be to examine the seismic resiliency
of novel connection details (under development at University of Canterbury in collaboration with Lanyon
and LeCompte Construction Limited). These new connection details aim to reduce the possibility of
clashing between panels located at corners of buildings in addition to minimizing the joint gaps. The precast
cladding panels, comprising these novel connection details, spanning top two floors will be installed at two
opposite corners of the test structure (Figure 14 and Figure 15).
2.1.5 Glazed Curtain Walls
Curtain walls with aluminium-frames and in-fill glass, termed as ‘glazed curtain walls’ (GCW), are typically
preferred over many other types of curtain wall systems for multi-story buildings because of their light
weight, accessibility to sunlight, ease of construction and aesthetics. The glass panes are kept in place within
the frames through some mechanical means. In conventional systems, where external mechanical stops are
used to hold the glass pane in place, the space between the stop and the glass is filled with a ‘cushioning’
material which also forms an air and water seal between the glass and the frame. Such material can either be
a rubber gasket (in dry-glazed systems, Figure 11a) or a sealant (in wet-glazed systems Figure 11b). Other
means to hold the glass in place include the use of adhered silicone sealant which affixes the glass to the
frame (in structural silicone glazing (SSG) systems). The aluminium framing is secured to the structural
frame (beams or slabs) through mechanical fixings (such as clip angles), having required tolerances to
account for installation errors and building movements, and restrained from out-of-plane movements.
Recently, significant damage to glazing systems has been observed in the 2010 Chile earthquake and the
2011 Christchurch earthquake (Aiello et al. 2018; Baird et al. 2012).
a) Dry-glazed b) Wet-glazed (structural silicone glazing)
Figure 11. Typical section details for curtain walls (Behr 2009)
a) 2010 Chile Earthquake (Behr 2009) b) 2011 Christchurch Earthquake (Baird et al. 2012)
Figure 12. Damage observed to glazing systems in recent earthquakes

The damage observed to glazing has often comprised glass cracking, permanent deformations of the
aluminium framing and loss of attachment in structural silicone glazed (SSG) systems. Such damage can
pose life-safety hazards as shards of glass were found on the footpaths and streets. Memari et al. (2012)
reported that two-sided SSG systems have higher drift capacity than that of dry-glazed systems that use
rubber gasket and four-sided SSG systems can have higher cracking drift capacity of about 140% of the dry-
glazed system. It can be attributed to the fact that the glass panes do not come in contact with a framing
member as it is isolated from the framing by silicone seals. However, the transfer of lateral loads to the
supporting frame depends on the inherent properties of silicone, the bond quality between the glass, sealant
and the frame. Extreme distortion in the frame can result in reduction of adhesion capacity of the structural
sealant under out-of-plane deformations (Memari and Schwartz 2009), and possible detachment of the glass
panes. Yet, SSG systems have become very popular because of seemingly ‘mullion-less’ and smooth
architectural finishes (Behr 2009).
Prevalent four-sided structural silicone glazed system (4SSG) with two different types of corner details
(seismic-mullion, Figure 13a; and corner-box element, Figure 13b), provided by Alutech Doors and
Windows limited, will be attached at the corners of the test building which are not occupied by PCPs. They
will also span across the top two floors (Figure 14 and Figure 15). This system level test will provide us a
platform to better investigate the seismic resilience of the 4SSG system and compare the performance of
the ‘seismic-mullion’ and ‘corner-box’ corner details.
a) Seismic Mullion corner configuration b) Corner-box element corner configuration
Figure 13. Preliminary corner details for curtain walls
Figure 14. Plan view of precast panels and curtain wall assembly on top two floors of structure

Figure 15. Elevation view of precast panels and curtain wall assembly
3. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents an overview of plans for a shake table test of a three-story building at the International
Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering (ILEE) at Tongji University. The testing plan
includes acceleration and drift-sensitive non-structural elements distributed across the height of the steel
framed building. The main objective of testing the NSEs is to investigate and validate the seismic
performance of acceleration and drift-sensitive NSEs, typical of NZ practices, and encompassing typical
and low-damage design concepts, under realistic dynamic loads. This testing will lead to an enhanced
understanding of the seismic behaviour of NSEs in New Zealand which is essential to improving the overall
performance of buildings subjected to earthquake events.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described is part of a joint NZ-China research programme with the International Laboratories on
Earthquake Engineering (ILEE), Tongji University, Shanghai, China. Direct NZ funding is kindly provided
by the Building Research Association of NZ (BRANZ) under the Building Research Levy, the Earthquake
Commission (EQC), QuakeCentre, the Tertiary Education Commission funded QuakeCoRE (the NZ
ILEE partner through whom the NZ funding is also coordinated), and the University of Auckland (UA).
Donations of materials is kindly provided through Hilti Corporation, Forman Building Systems, Gripple,
Lanyon & LeCompte Construction Ltd. and Alutech Doors & Windows Ltd. Expertise has been generously
provided by a number of NZ industry representatives. The authors gratefully acknowledge this support.
Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The QuakeCoRE paper number is 0428.
REFERENCES
Aiello, C., Caterino, N., Maddaloni, G., Bonati, A., Franco, A., and Occhiuzzi, A. (2018). "Experimental and numerical
investigation of cyclic response of a glass curtain wall for seismic performance assessment." Construction and
Building Materials, 187, 596-609.
ASCE/SEI "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10)." American Society of
Civil Engineers Reston, Virginia.
a) Longitudinal Elevation
b) Transverse Elevation

Baird, A., Palermo, A., and Pampanin, S. (2012). "Façade damage assessment of concrete buildings in the 2011
Christchurch earthquake." Structural Concrete, 13(1), 3-13.
Baker, G. B., Collier, P. C., Abu, A. K., and Houston, B. (2012). "Post-earthquake structural design for fire-a New
Zealand perspective." 7th International Conference on Structures in Fire, Zurich, Switzerland.
Behr, R. A. (2009). Architectural Glass to Resist Seismic and Extreme Climatic Events, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Bournas, D. A., Negro, P., and Taucer, F. F. (2014). "Performance of industrial buildings during the Emilia earthquakes
in Northern Italy and recommendations for their strengthening." Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 12(5), 2383-
2404.
Chanchi, G., J., , Macrae, G., A., , Chase, G., J., , Rodgers, G., W.,, and Clifton C., G. (2013). "Hysteretic behaviour of
symmetrical friction connections (sfc) using different steel grade shims." Pacific Structural Steel Conference,
Singapore.
Clifton, C. G. (2005). "Semi-rigid joints for moment-resisting steel framed seismic-resisting systems." PhD Thesis, The
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Colombo, A. a. T., G. (2012). "Problems of seismic design of the cladding panels of precast buildings." Proceedings of the
NZSEE annual technical conference and AGM, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Cook, J., Rodgers, G., W., and MacRae, G., A. (2018). "Design and Testing of Ratcheting, Tension-Only Devices for
Seismic Energy Dissipation Systems." Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1-22.
Dhakal, R. (2010). "Damage to Non-structural Components and Contents in the 2010 Darfield earthquake." Bulletin of
the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43(4), 404.
Dhakal, R. P., MacRae, G. A., and Hogg, K. (2011). "Performance of ceilings in the February 2011 Christchurch
earthquake." Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4).
Dhakal, R. P., MacRae, G. A., Pourali, A., and Paganotti, G. (2016). "Seismic Fragility of Suspended Ceiling Systems
Used in NZ Based on Component Tests." Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 49(01).
Dhakal, R. P., Pourali, A., Tasligedik, A. S., Yeow, T., Baird, A., MacRae, G., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. (2016).
"Seismic performance of non-structural components and contents in buildings: an overview of NZ research."
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15(1), 1-17.
Egbelakin, T., Yakubu, I. E., and Bowden, J. (2018). "Enhancing Seismic Regulatory Compliance Practices for Non-
Structural Elements in New Zealand." Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 51(01).
Filiatrault, A., and Sullivan, T. (2014). "Performance-based seismic design of nonstructural building components: The
next frontier of earthquake engineering." Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 13(1), 17-46.
Fleming, R. P. (1998). "Analysis of fire sprinkler systems performance in the northridge earthquake." Grant/Contract
Reports (NISTGCR)-98-736.
Galloway, B., and Ingham, J. (2015). "The 2014 South Napa earthquake and its relevance for New Zealand." SESOC
Journal, 28(1), 69.
Hashemi, A., Zarnani, P., Valadbeigi, A., Masoudnia, R., and Quenneville, P. "Seismic resistant cross laminated timber
structures using an innovative resilient friction damping system." Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering (NZSEE) Conference 2016.
Hutchinson, T., Pantolli, E., McMullin, K., Hildebrand, M. and Underwood, G. (2014). "Seismic drift compatibility of
architectural precast concrete panels and connections: A design guide for engineers."University of California.
Jenkins, C., Soroushian, S., Rahmanishamsi, E., and Maragakis, E. M. (2017). "Experimental Fragility Analysis of
Pressurized Fire Sprinkler Piping Systems AU - Jenkins, Craig." Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21(1), 62-86.
Lee, T.-H., Kato, M., Matsumiya, T., Suita, K., and Nakashima, M. (2007). "Seismic performance evaluation of non-
structural components: drywall partitions." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(3), 367-382.
Memari, A., Kremer, P., and Behr, R. (2012). "Seismic Performance of Stick-Built Four-Side Structural Sealant Glazing
Systems and Comparison With Two-Side Structural Sealant Glazing and Dry-Glazed Systems." Advances in
Civil Engineering Materials, 1(1), 1-22.
Memari, A. M., and Schwartz, T. A. (2009). "2 - Glazing and curtain wall systems to resist earthquakes." Architectural
Glass to Resist Seismic and Extreme Climatic Events, R. A. Behr, ed., Woodhead Publishing, 28-63.
Miranda, E., Mosqueda, G., Retamales, R., and Pekcan, G. (2012). "Performance of Nonstructural Components during
the 27 February 2010 Chile Earthquake." Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1), S453-S471.
Opus (2017). "Economic Benefits of Code Compliant Non-Structural Elements in New Buildings ", Opus
International, New Zealand.
Perrone, D., Calvi, P., Nascimbene, R., Fischer, E., and Magliulo, G. (2018). "Seismic performance of non-structural
elements during the 2016 Central Italy earthquake." Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1-23.

Pourali, A. (2018). "Seismic Performance of Suspended Ceilings."PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Pourali, A., Dhakal, R. P., MacRae, G., and Tasligedik, A. S. (2017). "Fully Floating Suspended Ceiling System:
Experimental Evaluation of Structural Feasibility and Challenges." Earthquake Spectra, 33(4), 1627-1654.
Rashid, M., Dhakal, R., and Yeow, T. (2018). "Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems: An Overview of Past Seismic
Performance, Design Standards & Scope for Future Research." 2018 NZSEE Conference, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Ryu, K. P., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2017). "Experimental Study of Large Area Suspended Ceilings." Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 1-32.
Soroushian, S., Maragakis, E., Zaghi, A. E., Echevarria, A., Tian, Y., and Filiatrault, A. (2014). Comprehensive analytical
seismic fragility of fire sprinkler piping systems, Technical Report MCEER-14-0002, University at Buffalo.
Soroushian, S., Maragakis, E. M., Ryan, K. L., Sato, E., Sasaki, T., Okazaki, T., and Mosqueda, G. (2016). "Seismic
Simulation of an Integrated Ceiling-Partition Wall-Piping System at E-Defense. II: Evaluation of
Nonstructural Damage and Fragilities." Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(2), 04015131.
Taghavi, S., and Miranda, E. (2003). Response assessment of nonstructural building elements, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center.
Tasligedik, A. S., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. (2015). "Low damage seismic solutions for non-structural drywall
partitions." Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(4), 1029-1050.
Tian, Y. (2013). "Experimental seismic study of pressurized fire sprinkler piping subsystems."PhD Thesis, University
at Buffalo.
Whitman, R. V., Hong, S.T. and Reed, J.W. (1973). Damage statistics for high-rise buildings in the vicinity of the San Fernando
Earthquake, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.