Experimental and Numerical Study of a Plasterboard Suspended Ceiling System with “Free” Perimeter Supports
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 149, Issue 1
Abstract
Poor earthquake response in suspended ceilings can cause wide-scale injuries and financial losses, which underscores the need to understand such systems better. This paper presents a study on a plasterboard suspended ceiling system (PSCS) installed in a 3.00-m tall steel building. The PSCS is an assembly of a plasterboard with plan dimensions of attached to a horizontal metal frame suspended from the roof. The building was subjected to Taft motion in the principal horizontal directions. The peak input accelerations ranged between 0.05g and 0.25g (0.05g and 0.70g) in the short–edge (long-edge) direction; the natural period of the PSCS increased from 0.91 to 0.99 s (0.32 to 0.99 s) during the tests. The peak plasterboard acceleration ranged between 1.1 and 2.4 times the peak roof acceleration (except during impact). Damage was observed primarily in the suspender struts near its lower end, attributable to the “rigid” connection between strut and horizontal metal frame. Response of the PSCS in the “softer” direction was greater and more sensitive to the response of the superstructure compared to the orthogonal direction. Static tests on the joint between the suspender and the roof of the building provided information for the development of the numerical model. Separate models were developed for the two principal horizontal directions due to different degradation characteristics. An ambient damping of 2% in the numerical model (experimental value was 8%) led to a much better simulation in the “softer” direction, indicating that damping during “large-amplitude motions” can be considerably less than that during “low-amplitude motions.”
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the laboratory staff at IIT Kanpur and IIT Gandhinagar for help in the experiments performed as part of this study. In addition, the authors thank Mr. Venkatesh Patnana, a Ph.D. scholar at IIT Kanpur, for his assistance in performing the shaking table tests, and collecting and processing data. The financial support for the fabrication of the suspended ceiling system specimen and its testing was provided by IIT Gandhinagar. In addition, the Saint Gobain Research India Pvt. Ltd. provided funds at IIT Kanpur for the fabrication of the test set-up for the performance evaluation of suspended ceilings under shaking table-generated motions. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Saint Gobain Research India, IIT Kanpur, or IIT Gandhingar.
References
Badillo-Almaraz, H., A. S. Whittaker, and A. M. Reinhorn. 2007. “Seismic fragility of suspended ceiling systems.” Earthquake Spectra 23 (1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2357626.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2005. Metallic materials—Tensile testing at ambient temperature. Standard IS 1608. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: Part 1—General provisions and buildings. Standard IS 1893. New Delhi, India: BIS.
Brandolese, S., L. Fiorin, and R. Scotta. 2019. “Seismic demand and capacity assessment of suspended ceiling systems.” Eng. Struct. 193 (Aug): 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.05.034.
Dhakal, R. P. 2010. “Damage to non-structural components and contents in 2010 Darfield earthquake.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 43 (4): 404–411. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.43.4.404-411.
Duozhi, W., D. Junwu, Q. Zhe, and N. Xiaoqing. 2016. “Shake table tests of suspended ceilings to simulate the observed damage in the Ms 7.0 Lushan earthquake.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr. 15 (2): 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-016-0319-z.
FEMA. 2011. Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage—A practical guide. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Ferner, H., M. Wemyss, A. Baird, A. Beer, and D. Hunter. 2014. “Seismic performance of non-structural elements within buildings.” In Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conf. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering.
Komaranenni, S. 2009. “Out-of-plane seismic behaviour of brick masonry infilled panels with prior in-plane damage.” MTech thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India.
Komaranenni, S., D. C. Rai, and V. Singhal. 2011. “Seismic behavior of framed masonry panels with prior damage when subjected to out-of-plane loading.” Earthquake Spectra 27 (4): 1077–1103. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3651624.
Kumar, M., S. Matale, and D. C. Rai. 2020. “Influence of perimeter supports on the seismic response of plasterboard suspended ceiling systems.” In Proc., 17th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo: International Association of Earthquake Engineering.
Lu, Y., G. Mosqueda, Q. Han, and Y. Zhao. 2018. “Shaking table tests examining seismic response of suspended ceilings attached to large-span spatial structures.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (9): 04018152. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002140.
Magliulo, G., V. Pentangelo, G. Maddaloni, V. Capozzi, C. Petrone, P. Lopez, R. Talamonti, and G. Manfredi. 2012. “Shake table tests for seismic assessment of suspended continuous ceilings.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 10 (6): 1819–1832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9383-6.
Matale, S. 2018. “Experimental study and analytical modeling of a plasterboard suspended ceiling system with ‘free’ perimeter support.” MTech thesis, Civil Engineering Discipline, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, India.
Patnana, V., and D. C. Rai. 2020. “Seismic performance of plasterboard suspended ceilings under shaking-table generated motions.” In Proc., 17th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo: International Association of Earthquake Engineering.
Patnana, V., and D. C. Rai. 2022. “Experimental testing on non-structural continuous plasterboard suspended ceiling systems under shake table generated motions.” Earthquake Spectra 38 (3): 1918–1945. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221085298.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). 2012. “Pinching4 material—OpenSees wiki.” Accessed January 7, 2022. https://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Pinching4_Material.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). 2014. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, computer program (version 2.4.3). Berkeley, CA: PEER.
Pourali, A., R. P. Dhakal, G. Macrae, and A. S. Tasligedik. 2017. “Fully floating suspended ceiling system: Experimental evaluation of structural feasibility and challenges.” Earthquake Spectra 33 (4): 1627–1654. https://doi.org/10.1193/092916eqs163m.
Ryu, K. P., and A. M. Reinhorn. 2019. “Analytical study of large-area suspended ceilings.” J. Earthquake Eng. 23 (4): 592–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1326416.
Ryu, K. P., A. M. Reinhorn, and A. Filiatrault. 2012. “Full scale dynamic testing of large area suspended ceiling system.” In Proc., 15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo: International Association of Earthquake Engineering.
Singh, M. P., L. M. Moreschi, L. E. Suárez, and E. E. Matheu. 2006. “Seismic design forces. II: Flexible nonstructural components.” J. Struct. Eng. 132 (10): 1533–1542. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:10(1533).
Sinha, P., and D. C. Rai. 2009. “Development and performance of single-axis shake table for earthquake simulation.” Curr. Sci. 96 (12): 1611–1620.
Soroushian, S., E. M. Maragakis, K. L. Ryan, E. Sato, T. Sasaki, T. Okazaki, and G. Mosqueda. 2016. “Seismic simulation of an integrated ceiling-partition wall-piping system at E-Defense. II: Evaluation of nonstructural damage and fragilities.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (2): 04015131. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001385.
Soroushian, S., E. Rahmanishamsi, C. Jenkins, and E. M. Maragakis. 2019. “Fragility analysis of suspended ceiling systems in a full-scale experiment.” J. Struct. Eng. 145 (4): 04019005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002273.
Taghavi, S., and E. Miranda. 2003. Response assessment of non-structural building elements. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Tian, Y., A. Filiatrault, and G. Mosqueda. 2014. “Experimental seismic fragility of pressurized fire suppression sprinkler piping joints.” Earthquake Spectra 30 (4): 1733–1748. https://doi.org/10.1193/111011EQS278M.
Villaverde, R. 2011. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. New York: CRC Press.
Yeow, T., A. Baird, H. Ferner, M. Ardagh, J. Deely, and D. Johnston. 2020. “Cause and level of treatment of injuries from earthquake damage to commercial buildings in New Zealand.” Earthquake Spectra 36 (3): 1254–1270. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019900775.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 149 • Issue 1 • January 2023
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 1, 2022
Accepted: Aug 12, 2022
Published online: Nov 3, 2022
Published in print: Jan 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Apr 3, 2023
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.