Suitable engineering demand parameters for acceleration‐sensitive nonstructural components

Abstract

AbstractEarly earthquake design codes used peak ground accelerations (PGAs) as intensity measures (IMs) to characterize the demands of ground motions on structures, but have since shifted towards using spectral accelerations because they provide a better indication of demand. The design of acceleration‐sensitive nonstructural components has followed a similar approach, with modern codes being based on an estimate of the spectral acceleration at the period of the nonstructural component. However, most fragility curves for loss assessment of acceleration‐sensitive nonstructural components, including the existing FEMA P58 library, continue to be based on peak floor accelerations (PFAs). Similar to PGAs as an IM for buildings, a limitation of PFA as an engineering demand parameter (EDP) for nonstructural components is its lack of dependence on the period of those components. In this study, fifteen alternative EDPs suggested in the literature are evaluated as potential candidates for developing seismic damage fragility curves. Acceleration‐sensitive nonstructural components are simulated by single‐degree‐of‐freedom (SDOF) components with elastic perfectly plastic behavior, with a period range of 0.01 to 1 s, and varying strength levels. Nonlinear response history analyses are conducted for the SDOFs, using floor motions obtained from both the first floor and the roof of buildings designed with four distinct seismic force‐resisting systems. Ductility demands for each SDOF are taken as an indicator of damage and are predicted using a linear regression model developed for each specific EDP. The suitability of candidate EDPs is evaluated based on their efficiency and relative sufficiency. Furthermore, a comparison is made between the expected annual loss calculated using fragility curves derived from the selected EDPs to quantify how the EDP used for a fragility curve can affect the seismic loss assessment. The results reveal that the PFA is a suitable EDP only for nonstructural components with very short periods (i.e., less than 0.1 s). Moreover, although the spectral acceleration at the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is a suitable EDP for components that are nearly elastic and are located on the roof of buildings, the peaks that develop in the floor spectra can grossly overstate the demands on nonstructural components that experience significant nonlinearity in their response. In such situations, an average of the spectral accelerations in a range of periods near the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is more appropriate. Moreover, although the spectral acceleration at the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is a suitable EDP for components that are nearly elastic and are located on the roof of the buildings, an average of the spectral accelerations near the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is more appropriate when the component encounters higher levels of nonlinear behavior or is installed on a lower floor.