Andre Filiatrault, Gilberto Mosqueda, Rodrigo Retamales, Ryan Davies, YuanTian, and Jessica Fuchs

1. Experimental Seismic Fragility of Steel Studded Gypsum Partition Walls and Fire Sprinkler Piping Subsystems Andre Filiatrault, Gilberto Mosqueda, Rodrigo Retamales, Ryan Davies, YuanTian, and Jessica Fuchs Department of Civil Structural and Environmental Engineering University at Buffalo NSF Award CMMI 0721399 NEESR-GC: Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Systems PI Manos Maragakis, University at Nevada, Reno Quake Summit 2010 NEES& PEER Annual Meeting San Francisco, Oct 8-9, 2010

2. Contents • Objectives of NEESR Nonstructural GC subsystem testing program at University at Buffalo • Experimental seismic fragility of steel-studded gypsum partition walls • Experimental seismic fragility of sprinkler piping systems

3. Objectives of NEESR Nonstructural GCSubsystem Experiments Carry out an extensive experimental program to evaluate the seismic response, failure mechanisms, and fragilities of steel-stud gypsum partition walls sprinkler piping ceiling systems Develop protective technologies and design details to enhance seismic performance of nonstructural systems 3

4. Experimental seismic fragility of steel-studded gypsum partitions walls • Specimen details and parameters selected with advice from practice committee • Material • Connection details • Geometry • Static/dynamic testing • Fifty specimens tested (22 configurations) 4

5. Partition Wall Configurations • Typical 12 foot wall with returns and corner details 2’-4’

6. Partition Wall Configurations • Typical framing and sheathing connectivity details Basic Connection (slip track) Full Connection

7. UB-NCS Testing Protocols and Instrumentation Quasi-static protocol and instrumentation for in-plane testing Detailed damage inspection Maximum drift imposed: DMax=3.0% Minimum drift imposed: DMin=0.15%

8. Partition Wall Configurations • List of specimens and configurations tested

9. Partitions Subsystem In-Plane Experiments • Specimens 1, 2 & 3 (Basic), & Specimen 4 (Gypsum connected to top track) • Top “slip track” acted as intended: • Limited damage to in-plane wall • Damage concentrated in return walls top tracks • Spec 4 performed similarly to specs 1 to 3 after failure of connection of gypsum to top track • Crushing of gypsum in wall corners

10. Partitions Subsystem In-Plane Experiments • Specimens 20, 21 & 22 (Institutional/slip track) • Failure of bottom and top tracks of transverse walls • Severe damage of sheathing in transverse walls • Severe damage of studs at wall intersection • Damage along vertical edges of longitudinal walls

11. Partitions Subsystem In-Plane Experiments • Specimens 23, 24 & 26 (Institutional/Full Connection@24”) • Crushing of gypsum around screws connecting to top track and plastic hinge forming on studs due to bending (Specimen 23) • Bottom tracks slip after fasteners passing thru tracks and damage along joints between gypsum boards (Specimen 24) • Tears in all bottom track connections and global wall slip (Specimen 26) Specimen 23 Specimen 24 Specimen 24 Specimen 26

12. Partitions Subsystem Out-of-Plane Experiments • Specimens 40, 41 & 43, and 39, 45 & 47 (Bookshelf/Walls without and with Returns) • Screws pulled out from gypsum to stud connections & damage in bookshelf connectors • Damage along horizontal joints between gypsum wallboards and along cornerbeads • Collapse of Specimens 40, 43b & 47 (All of them, re-used walls)

13. Partition Wall Subsystems Out-of-Plane Experiments • Specimens 48, 49 & 50 (Partial Height Braced Walls with Returns) • Screws pulled out from connection of braces to top track • Buckling of steel braces • Buckling of top track around brace connections

14. Fragility Assessment Partition Wall Subsystem Definition of Damage States

15. Fragility Assessment Partition Wall Subsystem Fragility Data for Group 0: All Specimens Tested In-plane Peirce’s criterion verified (All Specimens) Experimental fragility curves obtained following criteria in document “Developing Fragility Functions for Building Components for ATC-58” by K. Porter, R. Kennedy and B. Bachman (Method A) j=1, 2 and 3 Lilliefors’ goodness-of-fit test (5% significance level) analyzed

16. Partial Height Commercial Const. Slip Track Damage in tape (DS1) happening at the same time of brace buckling (DS2) Longitudinal wall induce failure of transverse wall track fasteners Commercial Const. Full Connection Commercial Const. All Specimens Improved Corner Details Institutional Const. Slip Track Institutional Const. Full Connection Institutional Const. All Specimens No damage observed for DS2 and DS3

17. Experimental seismic fragility of sprinkler piping components • Specimen details and parameters selected with advice from practice committee • Material • Connection type • Pipe diameter • 48 T-joint specimens tested under cycle loading • Dynamic subassembly test currently under construction 17

18. Test Setup • Typical test specimen layout and instrumentation • The ends of pipes are sealed with caps and slid into couplers welded to the support. • Couplers allow small rotations to simulate pin connections at the end of the pipes. • All pipes are filled with water under city pressure (40 psi measured pressure) to detect leakage.

19. Testing Protocols • Testing protocols for monotonic tests • Constant velocity: 0.01 in/sec • Quasi-static protocols for cyclic tests

20. Test Matrix 20

21. Piping Tests Phase 1 • Identify moment and rotation at joints at which damage state occur • The 1st damage state --- first leakage • The 2nd damage state --- complete fracture at tee joint 21

22. Test Results • Specimen BIT 2-1 (Monotonic test) • Force-displacement relation at the tee joint (right) • Moment-rotation relation at the left end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 3 and 4 (bottom left) • Moment-rotation relation at the right end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 5 and 6 (bottom right) • * The vertical red lines on these plots indicate the occurrence of the first leakage

23. Test Results • Specimen BIT 2-3 (Cyclic test) • Force-displacement relation at the tee joint (right) • Moment-rotation relation at the left end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 3 and 4 (bottom left) • Moment-rotation relation at the right end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 5 and 6 (bottom right) • Peak value on cycle used for rotation fragility calculationPeak value on cycle used for moment fragility calculationIndicates instantaneous occurrence of first leak • * The red cycles on these plots indicate the cycle during which occurrence of the first leakage happened

24. Summary of Damage Observations Pipe peels off the inner surface of tee joint Glue slips and pipe pulls out from tee joint Pipe threads erode due to slippage and Teflon tape degrades Pipe threads fracture at the edge of tee joint Damage on the groove of pipe Damage on the groove of tee joint Pipe fractures at the edge of tee joint Coupling ruptures 24

25. Piping Test Result Summary for Phase 1 • Summary of fragility curves -- Same color indicates pipes of same size; -- Same line style indicates pipes of same material. 25

26. Dynamic Test Proposal of Sprinkler Piping System • Piping System: • Riser (4 in) • Main line (4 in) • Branch line (2 in & 1 in)

27. Dynamic Test Proposal of Sprinkler Piping System • Long Branch Line Test • Main Line and Riser Test

28. Test matrix

29. QUESTIONS/DISCUSSIONS