2016
DOI: 10.1193/071514eqs109m
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental Fragility Analysis of Suspension Ceiling Systems

Abstract: The seismic response of suspended ceiling systems that were shaken at the University at Buffalo; University of Nevada, Reno; and E-Defense facilities is critically assessed in this paper. After presenting a brief description of each experiment, the most repetitive damage observations in all experiments are discussed. Fragility curves are developed for ceiling perimeter connectors, supporting elements, and overall performance of ceiling systems by using 346 combinations of ceiling configurations and shake inten… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The median horizontal amplification factors of the typical two‐elevation ceiling system were 2.1 and 1.6 in the x and y direction, respectively, which were lower than 2.5 of the suggested acceleration amplification factor for flexible components in ASCE 7–16 35 . Furthermore, these values were smaller than the reported factors of 3.2 and 2.7 for the UB and UNR ceiling tests, respectively 12,36 . These differences in ceiling amplification were due to the significant difference in the type of suspension bars, that is, the threaded suspension bar in the fixed ceiling system rather than the suspension wire in the lay‐in ceiling system provided a much larger overall lateral stiffness.…”
Section: Integrity Of Two‐elevation Ceiling Systemmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The median horizontal amplification factors of the typical two‐elevation ceiling system were 2.1 and 1.6 in the x and y direction, respectively, which were lower than 2.5 of the suggested acceleration amplification factor for flexible components in ASCE 7–16 35 . Furthermore, these values were smaller than the reported factors of 3.2 and 2.7 for the UB and UNR ceiling tests, respectively 12,36 . These differences in ceiling amplification were due to the significant difference in the type of suspension bars, that is, the threaded suspension bar in the fixed ceiling system rather than the suspension wire in the lay‐in ceiling system provided a much larger overall lateral stiffness.…”
Section: Integrity Of Two‐elevation Ceiling Systemmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…35 Furthermore, these values were smaller than the reported factors of 3.2 and 2.7 for the UB and UNR ceiling tests, respectively. 12,36 These differences in ceiling amplification were due to the significant difference in the type of suspension bars, that is, the threaded suspension bar in the fixed ceiling system rather than the suspension wire in the lay-in ceiling system provided a much larger overall lateral stiffness. Note that there are no suggested values for the acceleration amplification in Japanese regulations.…”
Section: Acceleration Responses At Two Elevationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The work here presented aims to characterize the behaviour of two typologies of suspended ceiling joints, whose shape and performance significantly differ from all the suspended ceiling joints already investigated in Literature. In order to accurately compare the experimental results, the setup was designed similarly to the previous experimental campaigns on ceiling joints (Soroushian et al 2016b;Dhakal et al 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The test results showed a median amplification of 3.8 in the ceiling members with respect to the test frame columns. The tests indicated that for ceilings with a 22 mm (7/8 ") wall moulding, very low shake intensities could cause unseating failure (Soroushian et al, 2016).…”
Section: Shake Table Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The other limitation as mentioned in the study was the inability of the model to capture the progressive collapse behaviour of the system (Badillo-Almaraz et al, 2007). Soroushian et al (2016) performed testing to evaluate the non-linear axial behaviour of cross-tee joints to develop a detailed numerical model to represent this behaviour. The joints were tested in both monotonic and reverse cyclic tests to generate fragility curves and to verify the numerical results.…”
Section: Numerical Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%