Seismic Assessment of Acceleration-Sensitive Nonstructural Elements: Reliability of Existing Shake Table Protocols and Novel Perspectives

Abstract

Nonstructural elements (NEs) are typically associated with major seismic risk, as several postevent surveys and literature studies highlighted in the last few decades. NE seismic risk is often expressed in terms of critical functioning disruption, economic losses, and casualties, and this might be significant even in the case of low seismicity sites. In particular, seismic risk can be more critical for NEs than for structural parts, especially frequent seismic events. Shake table testing represents the most reliable method for seismic assessment and qualification of NEs that are sensitive to accelerations (i.e., acceleration-sensitive NEs). However, several protocols and testing inputs were defined in literature and codes but none of them has been assessed in terms of seismic scenario representativity and reliability.
The present study reports the preliminary results of an extensive investigation into the seismic assessment and qualification of NEs through experimental methods and shake table testing. Two reference shake table protocols defined by regulations/codes (AC156 and FEMA 461) are assessed in terms of seismic damage potential/severity considering inelastic single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems and assuming the reliability index as an evaluation parameters. Novel perspectives for developing more reliable shake table protocols and seismic inputs are traced in the light of the preliminary results.

Full text

Fifth International
Workshop on the Seismic
Performance of Non-
Structural Elements
(SPONSE)
Seismic Assessment of Acceleration-Sensitive
Nonstructural Elements: Reliability of Existing
Shake Table Protocols and Novel Perspectives
1, Martino Zito1, Chiara Di Salvatore1, Giuseppe Toscano1, and Gennaro
Magliulo1,2
1Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II
Via Claudio, 21, I-80125 Naples, Italy
{danilo.dangela,martino.zito,gmagliul}@unina.it & chiara.disalvatore88@gmail.com &
giuseppe.toscano567@gmail.com
2Construction Technologies Institute, National Research Council (ITC-CNR)
Via Claudio, 21, I-80125 Naples, Italy
Abstract. Nonstructural elements (NEs) are typically associated with major seismic risk, as several post-
event surveys and literature studies highlighted in the last few decades. NE seismic risk is often expressed
in terms of critical functioning disruption, economic losses, and casualties, and this might be significant
even in the case of low seismicity sites. In particular, seismic risk can be more critical for NEs than for
structural parts, especially frequent seismic events. Shake table testing represents the most reliable method
for seismic assessment and qualification of NEs that are sensitive to accelerations (i.e., acceleration-sensitive
NEs). However, several protocols and testing inputs were defined in literature and codes but none of them
has been assessed in terms of seismic scenario representativity and reliability.
The present study reports the preliminary results of an extensive investigation into the seismic assessment
and qualification of NEs through experimental methods and shake table testing. Two reference shake table
protocols defined by regulations/codes (AC156 and FEMA 461) are assessed in terms of seismic damage
potential/severity considering inelastic single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems and assuming the
reliability index as an evaluation parameters. Novel perspectives for developing more reliable shake table
protocols and seismic inputs are traced in the light of the preliminary results.
Keywords: Nonstructural elements, acceleration-sensitive, seismic assessment, shake table, seismic input
SPONSE/ATC-161
2: Technical
Papers
2-687

1. INTRODUCTION
Nonstructural elements (NEs) are generally particularly sensitive to seismic actions and may exhibit a critical
behavior also under relatively low intensity earthquakes [Achour et al., 2011; De Angelis and Pecce, 2015;
Perrone et al., 2019], especially if they were not designed at all or with regard to seismic actions. NE seismic
behavior typically affects facility functioning and can be associated with significant economic losses;
moreover, damage of NEs might even cause human losses. Therefore, the seismic assessment of NEs is an
issue of paramount importance, especially regarding NEs that are housed within critical facilities [Achour et
al., 2011; Cosenza et al., 2015].
The seismic capacity and performance of NEs can be generally assessed by means of analytical, numerical,
experimental, observational, and mixed methods. NEs that are critical in terms of their functioning and
stability with regard to seismic actions such as fire sprinkler systems [Soroushian et al., 2014] or medical
equipment [Di Sarno et al., 2019] should be preferably assessed via experimental methods (e.g., [American
Society of Civil Engineers, 2017]), and quasi-static and shake table testing are generally considered to be
optimal for assessing displacement-sensitive and acceleration-sensitive NEs (e.g., [Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), 2007)]. Generally, NEs are typically sensitive to both displacements and
accelerations, and shake table testing can be reasonably considered to be the best option if the testing setup
reproduce realistic NE surroundings/arrangements.
In order to supply robust and representative results, shake table tests are often performed considering
seismic inputs compliant with reference testing protocols, and this strictly required when seismic
qualification or certification are carried out. As a matter of fact, the seismic response of NEs is strongly
conditioned by the record characteristics, and shake table protocol are supposed to provide seismic inputs
associated with relatively severe and representative responses. AC156 [International Code Council
Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), 2012] and FEMA 461 [Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
2007] protocols represent the state of the art for seismic assessment and qualification/certification of
acceleration-sensitive elements. Other protocols exist but are meant to be used to assess/qualify specific
components and equipment, e.g., power substation equipment [Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, 2006] or telecommunication equipment [Telcordia Ericsson, 2017]. However, the level of
reliability of existing protocols is not reported by the protocols, as well as this issue was not systematically
addressed in the literature, except for a very few studies, that focused on peculiar applications (e.g.,
[Burningham et al et al., 2021a]).
The present study reports the preliminary results of an extensive research project aiming at evaluating the
current approaches and methods for seismic assessment and qualification of NEs. In this study, the
reliability of AC156 and FEMA 461 protocol is assessed with regard to the seismic severity in terms of
damage potential to NEs. In particular, rather than the protocols themselves, the associated seismic inputs
are investigated by scaling them according to an incremental procedure and considering peak floor
acceleration (PFA) as an intensity measure (IM). Elements that can be modeled by single degree of freedom
(SDOF) systems have been considered as a case study; these elements correspond to most studied and
common acceleration-sensitive elements (e.g., [Akkar and Bommer, 2007; Merino et al., 2020]). Incremental
dynamic analyses are performed to assess the seismic response and damage to three case study models. The
reliability index associated with the investigated protocols is estimated considering real floor motions as a
reference, according to a recently developed methodology [ et al., 2021a]. Novel perspectives for
more reliable seismic assessment of acceleration-sensitive are traced, according to the reliability assessment
results.
2-688
2: Technical
Papers
SPONSE/ATC-161

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 OUTLINE
The methodology is defined by following steps: (Section 2.2) identification of the shake table protocols to
be investigated and development of compliant seismic records, (Section 2.3) definition/selection of
reference floor motions to be considered as representative seismic scenarios, (Section 2.4) damage severity
analysis of shake table protocols and comparison with reference floor motions (i.e., estimation of reliability
index). The methodological approach was derived in [ et al., 2021a, 2021b] and was enhanced and
extended in this study. The readers are referred to the literature studies referred to within the following
subsections for further details regarding methods, formulations, and technical/operative aspects.
2.2 REFERENCE PROTOCOLS
The paper focuses on two international protocols: AC156 [International Code Council Evaluation Service
(ICC-ES), 2012] and FEMA 461 [Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007]. AC156 is the
international reference for seismic assessment and the qualification of acceleration-sensitive elements and
referred to ASCE/SEI 7-16 [American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017] also for seismic certification
procedures through experimental methods. FEMA 461 is among the most severe protocols for seismic
assessment of structural and nonstructural elements by means of shake table testing and also reports the
procedure for seismic fragility analysis. AC156 protocol is intended to be a pass or fail test signal, whereas
tests according to FEMA 461 protocol are meant to be carried out according to an incremental procedure.
Shake table signals for carrying out seismic performance evaluation tests can be generated according to the
procedure defined by AC156 protocol even though few features can be defined by the analyst, such as the
specific baseline or the octave resolution width. The required response spectra (RRS) related to AC156 are
based on the seismic demand formulation provided by ASCE/SEI 7-16. Seismic performance evaluation
signals compliant with AC156 were developed in several literature studies [Di Sarno et al., 2019; Magliulo et
al., 2012], and further details are omitted for the sake of brevity. FEMA 461 provides a procedure to generate
seismic signals, which was developed by Wilcoski et al. [1997]. Differently from AC156, FEMA 461 does
not provide RRS and implicitly recommends the use of the signals reported in the document. Further details
regarding FEMA 461 signals can be found in [ et al., 2021a]. Figure 1a shows RRS associated with
horizontal direction defined by AC156 considering design earthquake spectral response acceleration
parameter at short periods (SDS) equal to 0.40 g, where z/h is assumed equal to one (z/h is the ratio between
the height location of NE and the building height). SDS equal to 0.40 g represents a relatively severe seismic
intensity levels considering European and Italian territory. Figure 1b depicts the spectral responses of two
reference seismic signals (latitudinal and longitudinal) defined in FEMA 461.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. (a) RRS associated with horizontal direction defined by AC156 (International Code Council Evaluation
Service (ICC-ES), 2012) considering design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods (SDS)
equal to 0.40 g and z/h equal to one and (b) spectral responses of two reference seismic signals (latitudinal and
longitudinal signals corresponding to thin black and thick gray graphs, respectively) defined in FEMA 461 [Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007].
SPONSE/ATC-161
2: Technical
Papers
2-689

2.3 REFERENCE FLOOR MOTIONS
Real floor motions (FMs) are considered as a reference for the evaluation of the reliability of shake table
protocols. As a matter of fact, capacity estimations based on shake table protocols can be considered as
nominal capacities, whereas the capacities can be derived considering
representative seismic and structural scenarios related to earthquake evens and actual buildings, i.e., real
floor motions in this context. FMs were recorded in instrumented reinforced concrete (RC) buildings in the
US and were provided by CESMD [2017] database. In particular, FMs correspond to real ground motions with
PGA not smaller than 0.05 g, - and far-
field records were equally considered, as well as low-, medium-, and high-rise buildings were equally accounted for; the
buildings were designed in 1923 1975. The selection of the records was derived from literature studies
[et al., 2022, 2021b]; in particular, FMs are associated with (a) PGA not smaller than 0.05 g, (b)
RC buildings designed/constructed from 1923 to 1975 in the US, (c) building floors corresponding to
maximum acceleration amplification over the building, provided by CESMD [2017] database. Both near
and far field records were considered, as well as low-, medium-, and high-rise buildings were equally included
within the building scenarios. Full details regarding the records can be found in [ et al., 2022,
2021b]. It should be specified that 18 FMs were considered in this study, obtained by removing six records
from the record set defined in [ et al., 2022, 2021b], i.e., records #4, #8, #11, #16, #20, and #24
were removed since they were considered to be excessively mild with regard to the case study models.
2.4 DAMAGE SEVERITY: RELIABILITY INDEX
2.4.1 Outline
The damage severity evaluation of the shake table protocols is based on the estimation of the reliability
index, where shake table protocol-based estimations are meant as nominal capacities and real floor motion-
based estimations are considered to be compatible with realistic and representative seismic and building
scenarios. The case study models and numerical analyses are defined in Subsection 2.4.2 and the damage
assessment methodology is defined in Subsection 2.5.3, whereas the computation of the reliability index is
illustrated in Subsection 2.5.4.
2.4.2 Numerical modeling and analysis
Case study nonstructural elements consist in elements that are sensitive to accelerations and that are fixed
to the structure in a single area/point, which is relatively reduced considering their spatial extension, e.g.,
cabinets fixed at their bases, antennas, ceiling elements, museum/art objects. The case study elements were
modeled considering single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems [Akkar and Bommer, 2007; Merino et al.,
2020] provided with nonlinear degrading dynamic behavior. The numerical models were implemented in
OpenSees [McKenna et al., 2000] according to lumped plasticity approach. In particular, Ibarra-Medina-
Krawinkler model [Ibarra et al., 2005; Ibarra and Krawinkler, 2005] was considered according to
consolidated applications within the literature. In particular, the models were assumed to be cantilever
elements fixed at their bases, having steel S275 material square hollow sections. The modeling backbone
and degrading parameters were derived by [Lignos and Krawinkler, 2010], who developed and calibrated
the modeling parameters of steel square hollow sections considering a large and representative set of
experimental data. Mass and stiffness-proportional Rayleigh damping was assigned; P- effects were
implemented. The formulation is omitted for the sake of brevity, and the readers are referred to the
abovementioned study.
Three models were considered in the study, i.e., models, M1, M2, and M3, corresponding to elastic
frequencies equal to about 1.0, 1.5, and 3.0 Hz; the geometrical parameters are reported in Table 1, where
fel, b, t, H, and m correspond to elastic frequency, cross-section dimension, cross-section thickness,
elevation height, and lumped mass. Figure 2a shows the backbone responses (force-displacement) associated
with M1, M2, and M3, without P- effects. Figure 2b depicts the definition of DSs for a representative
2-690
2: Technical
Papers
SPONSE/ATC-161

model (M1), where DSs are associated with response considering P- effects; in particular, DS1 to DS3
displacements including P- effects are equal to theoretical (no P- ) ones, DS4Th is related to residual
strength achievement over the theoretical response (no P- ), and DS4 is defined by reaching a force
equal to 20% of the yielding force over the softening branch including P- effects.
shear force and displacement at the mass, respectively. It should be specified that the investigated models
are relatively highly flexible, they are representative of relatively low frequency elements and do not account
for characteristics uncertainties. Therefore, the results cannot be considered to be exhaustive and cannot be
generalized or extended to different case studies.
Table 1. Geometrical parameters of the investigated models
Model fel
[Hz]
b
[mm]
t
[mm]
H
[m]
m
[t]
M1 1.02 70 3.0 4.50 0.10
M2 1.52 60 3.0 2.50 0.16
M3 3.04 60 3.0 2.50 0.04
(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) Backbone shear-displacement responses of the investigated models (M1, M2, and M3) and (b) definition
of DSs (DS1, DS2, DS3, DS4Th, and DS4) for M1 model.
2.4.3 Damage Assessment
Four damage states (DSs) were defined with regard to the dynamic force-displacement response of the
models, considering the mass displacement of the SDOF as a reference. In particular, the displacement
capacity thresholds related to DSs were defined considering the degraded static response (including second
order geometric nonlinearities): DS1 was associated with halved yielding displacement, DS2 was related to
yielding displacement, DS3 corresponded to capping displacement, and DS4 coincides with onset of
perfectly-plastic response corresponding to the residual strength condition. Figure 2b schematically depicts
the defined DSs, with regard to M1. The top displacement of the mass () was considered as an engineering
demand parameter, whereas PFA was used as an IM.
2.4.4 Reliability index
The relia -order reliability method (FORM) (Schultz et al., 2010).
In this context, reliability index defines in a quantitative manner the statistical discrepancy between the
capacity estimation associated with the shake table assessment (according to the investigated protocols) and
the capacities related to consistently realistic responses (corresponding to a set of representative real floor
motions). In particular, protocol-based capacity estimates provided demand measures (S) and FM-based
-
defines the failure probability pf, i.e., the probability that the protocol supplies capacities that are larger than
the ones associat
SPONSE/ATC-161
2: Technical
Papers
2-691

normal distribution). The formulations are omitted and can be found in [ et al., 2021a; Schultz et
al., 2010].
Figure 3 shows the correlation between pf. Generally, a lower (upper) bound target/requirement in
to 0 (50%) since mean/median values are typically
considered when relatively accurate analyses are performed. Overall, it can be assumed that a negative value
n unreliable response, whereas a positive values to a reliable; a desirable/optimum
f) might be corresponding to 0 to 1 (~16% to 50%), even though this issue
should be defined by codes and regulations (decision-maker issue) and is also conditioned by the use of
safety coefficients/factors [ et al., 2021a].
as a function of failure probability pf.
3. RESULTS: RELIABILITY INDEX
The preliminary results of the reliability assessment are reported in this study. Figure 4 shows the reliability
associated with DS1, DS2, DS3 and DS4, considering both AC156 and FEMA 461 protocol,
assuming various reference FM sets: near field FMs (NF), far field FMs (FF), strong ground motion FMs
(SM), all FMs (ALL).
NF FF SM ALL
DS1
DS2
DS3
DS4
Figure 4 assuming
near field FMs, far field FMs, strong ground motion FSs, and all FMs as a reference.
2-692
2: Technical
Papers
SPONSE/ATC-161

both DS and model.
severity increases, and a significant reliability drop can be observed passing from
DS3 to DS4, whereas the response associated with DS1 and DS2 is more comparable. This can be
qualitatively explained by recalling that DS1 and DS2 are associated with elastic response, DS3 with strength
capping (displacement) condition, and DS4 with residual strength (displacement) condition; DS1 and DS2
are associated with comparable values of threshold displacements, DS3 displacements are typically slightly
larger than DS2 ones, and DS4 ones are significantly larger than DS3 (Figure 2a). Accordingly, the protocols
seem to be less reliable as the inelastic response becomes more relevant over the seismic performance; in
other words, is it can be expected, the protocols address the elastic or low plastic response better than the
inelastic and degrading one, in terms of their reliability.
The set of floor motions also conditions the reliability even though the influence is not regular, e.g.,
considering M1 and M2 (especially M2), AC156 FF case is associated with a lower reliability than other sets,
considering M3, AC156 SM (FF) case results in a lower reliability than other sets for DS1 to DS3 (DS4).
While AC156 is unreliable in several cases, FEMA 461 is always reliable. In particular, the critical cases
associated with AC156 correspond to (a) all cases for model M3, (b) FF case for model M2, and (c) all DS4
cases but M3 and NF case. H
reliability associated with FEMA is often optimal and, in some cases too high; for example, for M3 & NF
even larger than 2, reasonably resulting in an
excessively conservative capacity estimation. It is worth stressing the that the number of investigated models
is relatively reduced and does not represent a wide range of NE scenarios; therefore, the results depicted in
Figure 4, as well as the abovementioned comments, cannot be generalized and extended to other cases.
4. NOVEL PERSPECTIVES AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
According to the preliminary results reported in Figure 4, AC156 protocol might be relatively unreliable,
whereas FEMA 461 protocol might overall be reliable or excessively conservative in some cases. It should
be noted that the analyses did not account for reduction capacities by means of safety factors/coefficients;
therefore, after the reduction of the nominal capacities derived according to the protocols, the reliability of
FEMA 461 estimations might significantly increase, potentially resulting in relatively antieconomic capacities
(relatively too reduced). Therefore, seismic assessment and qualification by means of the AC156 protocol
might be associated with overestimated capacities, which might be highly unsafe, especially given that
AC156 is the generally most authoritative reference for seismic qualification and certification of NEs.
Conversely, capacities estimations obtained according to FEMA 461 might be excessively antieconomic. It
is worth stressing that the reported evidence is related to preliminary findings and further studies should be
carried out to generalize and extend the specific findings reported in this paper. In particular, further NE
case studies should be considered, as well as alternative shake table protocols should also be investigated.
The preliminary evidence points out the necessity of developing a novel protocol, aimed at generic
acceleration-sensitive NEs. In particular, a novel protocol could be defined in order to supply more
consistent capacities, associated with an optimum reliability. In particular, the protocol could be defined by
implementing a procedure that enforces the spectrum-compatibility with a more efficient RRS formulation,
also providing optimum reliability indexes and robust safety factors/coefficients. A possible option for a
relatively efficient RRS might consist in the simplified formulation provided by Italian building code
[Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, 2019, 2018]. This formulation was developed in [Petrone et
al., 2015] with regard to RC frame buildings and was recently found to be relatively reliable and consistent
with potential seismic demand scenarios on (RC) frame buildings [Chichino et al., 2021; Di Domenico et al.,
2021]. Further studies should account for issues and aspects not addressed in the paper, e.g., explicit
The authors are currently working towards the definition of
a novel protocol according to the abovementioned perspective, also providing for quantitative validation
procedures based on both signal-based analysis and damage potential evaluation
SPONSE/ATC-161
2: Technical
Papers
2-693

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) in the framework of PRIN
20 ENRICH project: ENhancing the Resilience of Italian healthCare and Hospital
facilities and by the Italian Department of Civil Protection (DPC) in the frame of the national project DPC
ReLUIS 2022-2024 . Travel expenses for
presenting the present paper were partially covered by the Travel Award sponsored by the open access
journal Buildings published by MDPI.
REFERENCES
Achour, N., Miyajima, M., Kitaura, M., Price, A. [2011 Earthquake-Induced Structural and Nonstructural Damage
in Hospitals Earthq. Spectra 27, 617 634. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3604815
Akkar, S., Bommer, J.J. [2007 Prediction of elastic displacement response spectra in Europe and the Middle East
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36, 1275 1301. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.679
American Society of Civil Engineers [2017 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures 7th ed. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414248
Burningham, C., Mosqueda, G., Saavedra, R.R. [2007 Comparison of seismic fragility of free standing equipment
using current testing protocols and recorded building floor motions in: Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering
Symposium for Young Researchers. Seattle, WA.
CESMD [2017 Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data URL www.strongmotioncenter.org. Download on
October 31st 2017
Chichino, B., Peloso, S., Bolognini, D., Moroni, C., Perrone, D., Brunesi, E. [2021 Towards Seismic Design of
Nonstructural Elements: Italian Code-Compliant Acceleration Floor Response Spectra Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021,
1 18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4762110
Cosenza, E., Di Sarno, L., Maddaloni, G., Magliulo, G., Petrone, C., Prota, A. [2015 Shake table tests for the seismic
fragility evaluation of hospital rooms Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44, 23 40. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2456
[2022 Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Rigid Blocks Subjected to Ground
and Floor Motions and Shake Table Protocol Inputs Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 55.
https://www.bulletin.nzsee.org.nz/index.php/bnzsee
[2021a Towards a reliable seismic assessment of rocking components Eng.
Struct. 230, 111673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111673
[2021b Seismic damage assessment of unanchored nonstructural
components taking into account the building response Struct. Saf. 93, 102126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102126
De Angelis, A., Pecce, M. [2015 Seismic nonstructural vulnerability assessment in school buildings. Nat. Hazards 79,
1333 1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1907-3
Di Domenico, M., Ricci, P., Verderame, G.M. [2021 Floor spectra for bare and infilled reinforced concrete frames
designed according to Eurocodes Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. eqe.3523. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3523
2-694
2: Technical
Papers
SPONSE/ATC-161

[2019 Experimental assessment of the seismic performance of
hospital cabinets using shake table testing. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 48, 103 123.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3127
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [2007 Interim protocols for determining seismic performance
characteristics of structural and nonstructural components through laboratory testing Report No. FEMA 461.
Washington D.C., USA.
Ibarra, L.F., Krawinkler, H. [2005 Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations (No. 152) The
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. Department of Civil and Environmental engineering. Stanford
University, Stanford CA.
Ibarra, L.F., Medina, R.A., Krawinkler, H. [2005 Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness
deterioration Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34, 1489 1511. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.495
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers[2006 693-2006 IEEE Recommended practice for seismic design
for substations Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York.
International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) [2012] AC156 Acceptance Criteria for the Seismic
Qualification of Nonstructural Components Brea, California, USA.
Lignos, D.G., Krawinkler, H. [2010 A steel database for component deterioration of tubular hollow square steel
columns under varying axial load for collapse assessment of steel structures under earthquakes in: Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering (7CUEE) & 5th International Conference
on Earthquake Engineering (5ICEE). Tokyo, Japan.
Magliulo, G., Pentangelo, V., Maddaloni, G., Capozzi, V., Petrone, C., Lopez, P., Talamonti, R., Manfredi, G. [2012]
Shake table tests for seismic assessment of suspended continuous ceilings Bull. Earthq. Eng. 10, 1819 1832.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9383-6
McKenna, F., Fenves, G.L., Scott, M.H. [2000 OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available at:
http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Merino, R.J., Perrone, D., Filiatrault, A. [2020 Consistent floor response spectra for performance based seismic
design of nonstructural elements Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 49, 261 284. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3236
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti [2019 Circolare 21 gennaio 2019, n. 7 C.S.LL.PP. Istruzioni per
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti [2018 D.M. del 17/01/2018
(in Italian).
Perrone, D., Calvi, P.M., Nascimbene, R., Fischer, E.C., Magliulo, G. [2019 Seismic performance of non-structural
elements during the 2016 Central Italy earthquake Bull. Earthq. Eng. 17, 5655 5677.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0361-5
Petrone, C., Magliulo, G., Manfredi, G. [2015 Seismic demand on light acceleration-sensitive nonstructural
components in European reinforced concrete buildings Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44, 1203 1217.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2508
SPONSE/ATC-161
2: Technical
Papers
2-695

Schultz, M.T., Gouldby, B.P., Simm, D., Wibowo, J.L. [2010 Beyond the Factor of Safety: Developing Fragility
Curves to Characterize System Reliability (No. ERDC SR-10-1) US Army Corps of Engineers. Engineer
Research and Development Center.
[2014 Seismic Fragility Study of Displacement
Demand on Fire Sprinkler Piping Systems J. Earthq. Eng. 18, 1129 1150.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.917059
Telcordia Ericsson [2017 GR 63-05 NEBS Requirements: Physical Protection
Wilcoski, J., Gambill, J., Smith, S. [1997 CERL equipment fragility and protection procedure (CEFAPP) USACERL
Technical Rep. No. 97/58 (No. USACERL Technical Rep. No. 97/58). Champaign, IL.
2-696
2: Technical
Papers
SPONSE/ATC-161