NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9

by Gary McGavin

9.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter builds on the knowledge previously presented and discusses
the issue of seismic design for nonstructural components and systems.
Initially, the primary purpose of seismic design was the desire to protect
life safety. Buildings were designed so that the occupants could safely
exit the facility following a damaging earthquake. Damage to buildings
has always been allowed by the code, even to the extent that the building
might need to be demolished following the event, even if correctly de
signed according to the seismic code. Until very recent years, with minor
exceptions, nonstructural design has been minimally required by the
model building codes.

The lack of attention to nonstructural systems and their increasing

complexity have resulted in the majority of dollar losses to buildings in
recent earthquakes. These losses are the result both of the direct cost
of damage repair and of functional disruption while repairs are un
dertaken. Today, good seismic design requires that both structural and
nonstructural design be considered together from the outset of the de
sign process. Figures 9-1 and 9-2 illustrate such a design.

Landers Elementary School was constructed and occupied just prior to

the magnitude 7.3 Landers earthquake in 1992. The building was situ
ated just 0.4 mile from approximately 10 feet of horizontal offset along
the fault trace and experienced severe shaking. Nonstructural damage
was minor and included cracked stucco and dislodged suspended ceiling

Figure 9-1: Successful integration of structural

and nonstructural design. Landers Elementary
School, designed by Ruhnau-McGavin-Ruhnau
Associates, 1990.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-1

 Figure 9-2: Limited nonstructural

damage at Landers Elementary.

tiles in the multipurpose room. In the magnitude 6.5 Big Bear earth
quake, which occurred three hours after the Landers event, at the school
a water line broke and a hot water heater restraining strap failed due
to the incorrect use of lag bolts (too short and not anchored into the
studs). The hot water heater remained upright and functional.

As more building owners recognize the necessity to remain operational

following a major event, architects will be called upon to provide designs
that go beyond the minimal code requirements for life safety and ex
iting. As our existing stock of older buildings is seismically retrofitted,
the nonstructural components and systems must also be seismically retro
fitted to the same level as the structure.

9.2 WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM

“NONSTRUCTURAL”
Nonstructural systems and components within a facility are all those
parts of a building that do not lie in the primary load-bearing path of
the building and are not part of the seismic resisting system. In general,
they are designed to support their own weight, which is then transferred
to the primary structural system of the building. The number and com
plexity of nonstructural systems and components far outnumber the
structural components of a building. Figure 9-3 shows the basic structural
and nonstructural systems.

While nonstructural components are not intended to contribute to

seismic resistance, nature does not always respect this distinction. Rigid

9-2 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Figure 9-3: The basic structural system (left) and the nonstructural components (right).

nonstructural walls spanning between structural columns will change

the local stiffness of the structural system and alter its rsponse, possibly
creating a stress concentration. Partitions may suddenly be called upon
to perform a supporting role, as seen in Figure 9-4. Conversely, structural
members may act in a nonstructural manner if, for example, the con
tractor omits placing the steel reinforcing in a reinforced concrete wall.

The number and complexity of nonstructural systems and components is

very large. A typical broad categorization includes the following:

Figure 9-4: Nonstructural partition

walls prevented the total collapse of this
unreinforced masonry structure in the
1983 Coalinga earthquake.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-3

 ❍ Architectural

❍ Electrical

❍ Mechanical

❍ Plumbing

❍ Communications

❍ Contents and Furniture

A more specific list of nonstructural components based on the Interna

tional Building Code (IBC) are categorized as architectural, mechanical,
and electrical and is shown below. The IBC also provides design coef
ficients for each category that are applied to the component to establish
the design seismic force.

9.2.1 Architectural Components

Interior nonstructural walls and partitions

Cantilever elements
Parapets
Chimneys
Exterior nonstructural wall elements and connections
Light wall elements (metal insulated panels)
Heavy wall elements (precast concrete)
Body of panel connections

Fasteners of the connecting systems

Veneer
Limited deformability elements
Low deformability elements
Penthouse (separate from main building structure)
Ceilings
Suspended
Attached to rigid sub-frame
Cabinets
Storage cabinets and laboratory equipment
Access floors
Appendages and ornamentation
Signs and billboards
Other rigid components
Other flexible components

9-4 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

9.2.2 Mechanical and Electrical Components

General mechanical
Boilers and furnaces
Pressure vessels freestanding and on skirts
Stacks
Large cantilevered chimneys
Manufacturing and process machinery
General
Conveyors (nonpersonnel)
Piping system
High deformability elements and attachments
Limited deformability elements and attachments
Low deformability elements and attachments
HVAC system equipment
Vibration isolated
Nonvibration isolated
Mounted in-line with ductwork
Elevator components
Escalator components
Trussed towers (freestanding or guyed)
General electrical
Distributed systems (bus ducts, conduit, cable trays)

Equipment

Lighting fixtures
Surface mounted to structure
Suspended from structure
Supported by suspended ceiling grid, surface mounted, or hung
from suspended ceiling

9.2.3 Consequences of Inadequate Nonstructural

Design
Historically, the seismic performance of nonstructural systems and
components has received little attention from designers. The 1971 San
Fernando earthquake alerted designers to the issue’ mainly because
well-designed building structures were able to survive damaging earth
quakes while nonstructural components suffered severe damage. It
became obvious that much more attention had to be paid to the design
of nonstructural components. Some investigators have postulated that
nonstructural system or component failure may lead to more injury and
death in the future than structural failure.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-5

 The following are the basic concerns for nonstructural system/compo
nent failure:

❍ Direct threat tolife

❍ Indirect threat to life

❍ Loss of building function (loss of revenue and service)

❍ High repair costs

9.3 NONSTRUCTURAL SEISMIC DESIGN AND

“NORMAL” SEISMIC DESIGN

Designing for earthquakes has historically been the domain of the

structural engineer. This publication has shown elsewhere what forces
are brought to bear on buildings, how the building can be expected to
respond due to the earthquake event, what effects the local soils have
on the building, and how the building will transmit seismic forces from
the foundation up through the structure of the building. By definition,
the nonstructural systems and components of the building are attached
to the building’s primary structure or, in the case of furniture and
unsecured equipment/contents, rest unattached on the floors of the
building. Seismic forces are generally amplified as they travel up from
the foundation through the building to the top of the structure. These
increased forces are transmitted to the nonstructural components at
their interface with the structure. Many nonstructural systems and com
ponents are often very flexible, in contrast to the relatively rigid building
structure. This flexibility often leads to a much higher level of excitation
than the building’s primary structure.

9.4 EFFECTS OF IMPROPER NONSTRUCTURAL

DESIGN
There are a number of objects that can directly cause either death or
injury if they are not properly designed for restraint (Figures 9-5 and
9-6). These injuries are generally due to falling hazards, such as large
sections of plaster ceilings, HVAC registers, lights, filing cabinets, etc.
There are also indirect threats to life and injury due to nonstructural
failures. These might include the inability of occupants to safely exit a
building due to damaged materials strewn across the stairs in exit stair
wells (Figure 9-6).

9-6 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Although is this example was not a result Figure 9-5: Falling objects
of an earthquake, the MGM Grand Hotel can be a direct threat to life,
Las Vegas fire in the 1980s serves to il as can be envisioned in this
example, had children been
lustrate the complexity of nonstructural
sitting in the seats in this
design. The fire activated the emergency elementary school library in
power supply. The building construction Coalinga in 1983.
included re-entrant corners that required
a large seismic joint between building
units. This joint in effect provided a
chimney within the building that was not
air tight between the floors. The con
tinued operation of the emergency power
supply unit caused the asphyxiation of
several occupants, since the HVAC system
had its fresh air intake close to the exhaust of the emergency power.
Thus, occupants died due to smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide
poisoning in part due to the seismic design of the nonstructural systems.

In some cases, nonstructural failure can cause a loss of function of the

building. While this may not be critical for some building occupancies,
it is very undesirable in others such as hospitals, emergency operations
centers, police stations and communications centers. Unfortunately, fail
ures are often caused by system or component interactions. In addition,
more and more owners of commercial and industrial facilities are rec
ognizing the need for continued operation in order to reduce financial
loss following a damaging earthquake. Hospitals have a need for both
continued function and reduction of economic loss. The owner-supplied
equipment and contents within a hospital are often significantly more
valuable than the building itself. Medications and bandages that are
soaked due to flooding from broken
fire sprinkler lines cannot be used
Figure 9-6: Difficulty in
when they are most needed. The
exiting due to debris strewn
sophisticated equipment within a across exit stairs can be an
hospital will take more time to repair, indirect threat to life, as can
and be more costly, if damaged, than be seen in this photo following
the equipment in an office building the Loma Prieta earthquake in
or a school. 1989.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-7

 9.5 DAMAGE TO NONSTRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND
COMPONENTS
A lack of attention to detail during the design process is the most likely
cause of damage to nonstructural systems and components in a mod
erate to severe earthquake. This damage poses a threat to the building
occupants and may cause the owner significant losses in downtime and
repairs. Examples in Table 9-1 illustrate failures in earthquakes that re
sulted from inadequate nonstructural design.

Nonstructural design philosophy based on the analysis and design of

individual components can lead to certain nonstructural failures in mod
erate and severe earthquakes. The new Olive View Hospital was rendered
nonoperational in the Northridge earthquake due to such a philosophy.
The building was a replacement for the previous hospital that was so
badly damaged structurally in the 1971 earthquake that it needed to be
razed. The new replacement hospital was designed as a state-of-the-art fa
cility, and as such, it should have remained operational during the 1994
earthquake. Figure 9-7 shows one of several systems interaction failures
that caused the closure of the hospital. The building structural system
supported the ceiling system and the fire sprinkler system. The codes
require a component approach to seismic qualification for acceptance.
The individual components that are analyzed include the ceiling, the
lights set in the ceiling, the HVAC system that passes through the ceiling
plane, and the main fire sprinkler feed pipe. The Olive View failure oc
curred when the building structure responded in one manner to the
earthquake, the ceiling system and the systems that it supported shook
in another manner, and finally the sprinkler system responded in a third

Figure 9-7
Example of systems
interaction failure.

9-8 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Table 9-1 Showing Example Damaged Systems/Components and Appropriate Installations

Building Element Earthquake Damage

Suspended Ceilings

that fall may not be life

threatening, but can pose
exiting problems for
occupants.
Landers 1992 Northridge 1994 Appropriate Installation. Note
Dropped ceiling below New dropped ceiling below older diagonal wires and compression
structure. Note no diagonal existing ceiling. Note no diagonal posts. Diagonals and compression
bracing or compression posts bracing or compression posts. posts are generally at 144 sq. ft.

Lighting Fixtures

can be a direct threat

to life, depending on
the size of the fixture
and the height from
which it falls.
Northridge 1994 Appropriate Bracing

Coalinga 1983

Doors

that fail pose an obvious

direct threat to life. Note the
fire door in Coalinga 1983
that jammed. Photo by Richard Miller

Santa Barbara 1978 Coalinga 1983 Northridge 1994

Windows

could pose a direct threat to

life, although more often,
they are more of a cleanup
hazard.

Coalinga 1983 Northridge 1994 Hector Mine 1999

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-9

Table 9-1 Showing Example Damaged Systems/Components and Appropriate Installations (continued)

Building Element Earthquake Damage

HVAC Equipment

can be a direct threat to

life if grills/ducts fall.

Santa Barbara 1978 Santa Barbara 1978 Northridge 1994

Photo by Richard Miller Photo by Richard Miller

Kitchen Equipment

can cause a direct threat

to life via toppling of
equipment and fire/hot
liquid burns.

Coalinga 1983 Coalinga 1983 Northridge 1994

Medical Equipment

can cause health hazards

due to spills. Recalibration
is often required.

Northridge 1994 Northridge 1994 Northridge 1994

Emergency Power Supplies

have come a long way in

the past 30 years, yet they
still have difficulty operating
following an earthquake. Joshua Tree 1992 (no failure,
base isolated with snubbers) Northridge 1994 (no failure)

Northridge 1994 (no failure,

hard mounted)

9-10 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Table 9-1 Showing Example Damaged Systems/Components and Appropriate Installations (continued)

Building Element Earthquake Damage

Building Veneer

can be a direct threat

to life, especially
along sidewalks.

Loma Prieta 1989 Hector Mine 1999

Photo by CA DSA

Elevators

should be designed to be
operational following an
earthquake, but shutdown is
required for inspection.
Santa Barbara 1978 Santa Barbara 1978
Photo by Leon Stein Photo by Leon Stein
Santa Barbara 1978
Photo by Leon Stein

Office Furniture

is often owner-supplied
and not subject to seismic
design by the architect.

Santa Barbara 1978 Santa Barbara 1978 Loma Prieta 1989

Photo by Richard Miller Photo by Richard Miller

Shop Equipment

can pose a direct as well

as indirect threat to life.

Coalinga 1983 Northridge 1994

Northridge 1994 (no failure
properly anchored)

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-11

Table 9-1 Showing Example Damaged Systems/Components and Appropriate Installations (continued)

Building Element Earthquake Damage

Piping This pipe

pounded the
is especially vulnerable to wall to its
breakage when it is brittle right.
pipe, and when bending
forces are applied to the
threads. Coalinga 1983 Northridge 1994
Brittle pipe failure
Northridge 1994

Plaster and Stucco

seldom will result in a

hazard unless it falls
from a significant
height.
Loma Prieta 1989

Exit Ways

may be blocked with

debris.

Loma Prieta 1989

San Fernando 1971
Photo by Bill Gates

Northridge 1994

Hazardous Materials

can affect occupants and

rescue workers.

Coalinga 1983 Northridge 1994

Whittier 1987

9-12 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

manner. The result was a significant bending moment on the sprinkler
drops when the ceiling impacted them, causing cross-thread bending at
the joint where the drop connected to the main line. Each of the com
ponents was appropriately attached to the building as called for by the
code. By not allowing either a flexible joint at the fire line drop or pro
viding a larger hole where the sprinkler penetrates the ceiling plane, the
failure of the system was virtually guaranteed.

Many of the failures found in the 1994 Northridge earthquake were

a result of systems incompatibilities. It has been long realized that for
building structures to survive an earthquake, there must be structural sys
tems compatibility. Few designers would doubt the need for wall systems
and roof systems to respond together in an earthquake. Yet, with respect
to nonstructural considerations, the interactive nature of these systems
has not been fully recognized, and thus, a $1.50 sprinkler pipe failure
closed a hospital. Table 9-2 shows examples of failures and success in the
design of system interactions.

Systems need to be identified and have a seismic designation and

qualification program just as an individual component. Facilities with
sophisticated seismic qualification programs such as the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline and nuclear power plants have always looked toward qualifying
the entire nonstructural systems as well as the individual components.
This type of procedure is especially important where specific functions
must be maintained, such as with an emergency power supply in a hos
pital.

Moving equipment such as reciprocating pumps need isolation so as to

not interject unwanted vibrations into the building structure. This isola
tion needs to be “snubbed” in order to limit the lateral excursions of the
equipment.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-13

Table 9-2 Examples of Systems Interactions – Failures and Successes

illustration description illustration description

Interaction of pendant light with The suspended ceiling

glazing separating spaces in the surrounding the column did not
1994 Northridge earthquake. allow for ceiling movement,
The pendant lights swung causing ceiling to fail at the
longitudinally, breaking the column/ceiling interface.
glass. Current codes require
bracing of pendant lights to
prevent swinging in both the
transverse and longitudinal
direction if they can impact other
objects up to an angle of 45
degrees (1 g acceleration).

While this system was not Vacuum System in the

subjected to an earthquake, it Coalinga Hospital that was
will probably suffer the same operational following the
failure as seen in the photo 1983 earthquake. The tank
above. This condition is increased was anchored and the flexible
in its complexity because of line to the tank prevented
the fire separation above the damage.
suspended ceiling running
diagonally from the upper right.

Building primary structure While the damage to the

moved in one manner, the suspended ceiling is most evident
substructure (covered walk on in this photo, the exterior
the right) moved differentially, nonstructural wall failed on
causing both the HVAC duct and this bowling alley in the 1992
electrical conduit to fail in the Landers earthquake leaving one
1994 Northridge earthquake. side of the building completely
open. The failure was due to the
large length of the wall that used
small fasteners for anchorage to
the primary structure (tapered
beam).

Building seismic separation Bringing large utility lines

that performed successfully into a building that is base
in the 1978 Santa Barbara isolated requires consideration
earthquake. The cosmetic of systems interaction. Here,
trim panel was damaged, as the water line has a braided
expected. section to allow for differential
Photo by Richard Miller movement between the
building and the utility line.

9-14 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Table 9-2 Examples of Systems Interactions – Failures and Successes (continued)

illustration description illustration description

This ceiling displaced and The rectangular building

caused the water supply line configuration of this library
that passed through the ceiling had stiff side walls and a
to bend and break the threads relatively stiff rear wall. The
in the pipe above the ceiling large expanse of glass on the
during the earthquake. Water front wall allowed for excessive
leaked for some time into the torsional movements in the
ceiling cavity following the 1983 Coalinga earthquake. The
1994 Northridge earthquake, larger upper story window panes
finally causing a collapse of broke. As a general rule, smaller
the hard ceiling and the glue- window panes perform better in
on panels, months after the earthquakes.
earthquake.

The diagonal member Ceiling tiled popped out of

running from the top left was this suspended ceiling during
a horizontal, nonstructural the 1992 Landers earthquake
architectural appendage that due to the high bay, large
separated the buildings on the suspension length below
left from the buildings on the the structure and a lack of
right. When the garage spaces compression posts to prevent
on each building failed in the the ceiling from lifting in a
1994 Northridge earthquake, wave like fashion during the
they in turn caused the failure earthquake. Adding to the
by collapse of the architectural failure of this ceiling was poor
appendage and blockage of the workmanship at the ceiling
access between the buildings. grid joints.
Emergency vehicles were unable
to enter the space between the
buildings due to the collapse of
this nonstructural appendage.

This cast-iron brittle pipe

entered the utility room
through the stiff concrete
slab on the right and exited
the room through a one-hour
fire wall to the left. The rigid
nature of the two connections
on either side of the valve
caused its failure in the 1994
Northridge earthquake.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-15

 9.6 DESIGN DETAILS FOR NONSTRUCTURAL

DAMAGE REDUCTION
bearing connection This section shows some examples of conceptual details for a
number of typical nonstructural components. These are intended
flexible or tie-back
to give an indication of appropriate design approaches and should
connection not be used as construction documentation. It will be seen that
these approaches mostly consist of providing adequate support
and supplementary lateral bracing, or isolating nonstructural
components from the building structure to reduce undesirable
interaction between nonstructural and structural elements. The
isolation issue is discussed in more detail in Section 9.7
bearing connection
9.6.1 Precast Concrete Cladding Panels
flexible or tie-back Figure 9-8 shows a typical “push-pull” connection for a precast
connection
panel that spans between floors. The bottom connection provides
bearing; the top connection uses a steel rod that is designed to
bend under lateral drift. The rod must be strong enough, how
ever, to resist out-of-plane wind loads. The bearing connections
Figure 9-8: Typical push-pull may also be located at the top and the flexible connection at the
connection for precast panel. bottom.

Figure 9-9 shows a typical layout of the supports for a story height
panel and spandrel panels, and diagrams the lateral structural
movement that must be accommodated.

Figure 9-9: Connection types and

locations for precast panels.

9-16 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

9.6.2 Suspended Ceilings
Figure 9-10 shows typical suspended-ceiling bracing. Di
agonal bracing by wires or rigid members: spacing should
not be more than 144 sq. ft. The vertical strut is recom
mended for large ceiling areas in high seismic zones; it
may be provided by a piece of metal conduit or angle sec
tion.

9.6.3 Lighting Fixtures

Heavy fluorescent light fixtures inserted in suspended
Figure 9-10: Suspended-ceiling seismic
ceilings must be supported independently, so that if the bracing.
grid fails, the fixture will not fall. Figure 9-11 shows a
lighting fixture with two safety wires located at the di
agonal. For heavy fixtures, four wires must be provided.
Suspended fixtures must be free to swing without hitting
adjoining components.

9.6.4 Heavy (Masonry) Full-Height

Non load Bearing Walls
Heavy partitions, such as concrete block, should be
separated from surrounding structure to avoid local stiff
ening of the structure and to avoid transmitting racking
forces into the wall. Figure 9-12 shows two approaches
for providing sliding or ductile connections at the head of Figure 9-11: Safety wire locations for
full-story masonry partitions. fixture supported by suspended-ceiling grid.

Figure 9-12: Attachment for full-height masonry partition wall

that allows relative longitudinal movement (EQE).

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-17

 9.6.5 Partial–Height Masonry Walls
Figure 9-13 shows an overhead bracing system for a par
tial height wall. The bracing used should have some
degree of lateral flexibility so that structural deflections
parallel to the wall do not transmit forces into the system.
Where vertical deflections due to dead loads, live loads,
and seismic forces could occur, a slotted hole as shown,
or some similar provision, should be made to prevent ver
tical loading of the wall.
Figure 9-13: Seismic bracing for masonry 9.6.6 Partial-Height Metal Stud Walls
partial height partition wall (EQE).
Metal stud partitions that terminate at a suspended
ceiling should be braced independently to the building
structure, as shown in Figure 9-14. Normal office height
partitions can be braced by a single diagonal angle or
stud brace.

9.6.7 Parapet Bracing

Heavy parapets should be braced back to the roof
Figure 9-14: Bracing for partial height
stud wall (EQE). structure. This is a typical problem with unreinforced
masonry buildings, which often have large unsupported
parapets. Figure 9-15 shows bracing for an existing ma
sonry parapet; the roof structure should also be securely
tied to the wall (not shown).

Figure 9-15: Bracing for existing

unreinforced masonry parapet.

9-18 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

 Figure 9-16:
Typical duct bracing system
(Mason Industries Inc).

9.6.8 Sheet Metal Ductwork

Figure 9-16 shows a typical support and bracing system for large duct-
work in a high seismic zone. The seismic code specifies the size of ducts
and length of support that require seismic bracing.

9.6.9 Piping
Figure 9-17 shows typical bracing for large diameter piping. The seismic
code specifies the types and diameter of piping, and length and type of
hanger, that require seismic bracing.

Figure 9-17:
Typical bracing for piping
(Mason Industries Inc).

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-19

 9.6.10 Vibration-Isolated Equipment
Equipment mounted on spring vibration isolators needs
to be fitted with “snubbers” that limit lateral motion to
prevent the equipment toppling off the isolators and
suffering damage (Figure 9-18). The frequency of the
isolation system is usually such that the motion of the
equipment is greatly increased by earthquake forces. The
snubbers are faced with resilient material that cushions
any impacts that may occur. Detailed guidelines for the
design of seismic restraints for mechanical, electrical,
and duct and pipe are in FEMA publications 412, 413
and 414.

9.6.11 Emergency Power Equipment

Batteries for emergency power need positive restraint.
Figure 9-19 shows a custom designed rack, constructed
from steel sections, to support and restrain a set of bat
Figure 9-18: Vibration-isolated teries. The batteries are also strapped to the rack for
chiller with snubbers to restrict
positive restraint. Alternative emergency power sources,
lateral movement (Mason
Industries Inc). such as gas or oil, need flexible utility connections and
restrained equipment.

9.6.12 Tall Shelving

Tall shelves, such as library shelves, are often heavily
loaded and acceleration sensitive. They need longi
tudinal bracing and attachment to the floor. The top
bracing should be attached to the building structure and
strong enough to resist buckling when the heavy shelves
attempt to overturn (Figure 9-20).

9.6.13 Gas Water Heaters

Gas water heaters need restraint to prevent the heater
tank from toppling and breaking the gas connection,
causing a fire risk. Figure 9-21 shows a domestic hot
water heater installation. A flexible gas connection is de
sirable but not essential if the tank is well restrained. The
bottom restraint can be provided by an additional strap,
Figure 9-19: Emergency power
battery rack support. or by securely bolting the base support to the floor.

9-20 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Figure 9-20: Typical layout of Figure 9-21: Anchorage of free-
bracing for tall shelving. standing upright liquid storage tank.
SOURCE: EQE.

9.7 THE NEED FOR SYSTEMS DESIGN

Following a damaging earthquake, whether large or small, the public ex
pects to be able continue to use many building types. The building types
that have the mandate for some post-earthquake operation tend to be
essential facilities, such as acute care hospitals and those buildings where
the owners see a clear financial benefit for continued operation. Unfor
tunately, the expectations of the performance of our essential facilities
are often not realized, and a number of modern healthcare facilities
close with all too much regularity following even moderate earthquakes.

Over the years, codes have become more and more sophisticated with re
spect to structural seismic integrity. Unfortunately, there remains a lack
of understanding by many with respect to building function, in which the
nonstructural systems play the key role. The philosophy of code imple
mentation carried out via the model codes, including the International
Building Code (IBC), is based on the seismic provisions developed in the
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), which uses the Structural Engineers Asso
ciation of California recommendations. Both require simple component
anchorage, which does not address function to the necessary level, espe
cially for essential facilities.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-21

 Other design professions outside the building industry have long recog
nized that there is a need for systems design when continued function is
necessary. The practice of systems design can be witnessed in aerospace
design, naval design, nuclear power design, weapons design, and even
race car design. As an example, few would accept rides on modern
aircraft if it was not believed that the aircraft had been designed from
a systems engineering point of view. It would not be acceptable for the
landing gear to pinch the hydraulic brake lines when the wheels fold
into the fuselage.

Systems failures in health care facilities throughout the impacted area

in the Northridge earthquake prompted the California Seismic Safety
Commission to sponsor Senator Alfred Alquist’s Hospital Seismic Safety
Act of 1994. This legislation was clear in its direction to the industry
and design professionals to maintain the operability of health care facili
ties following future damaging earthquakes. The legislation called for
consideration of systems design. Hospitals and other essential facilities
complying with the legislation will have a lower risk of failure in future
earthquakes.

The California Hospital Seismic Safety Act of 1994 took the further step
of identifying building contents within the design parameters. Prior to
the implementation of this legislation, building contents had been left
out of the qualification procedures in almost all codes, unless they met
certain criteria. Without consideration of building contents, hospitals
continue to be more vulnerable to failure due to earthquake shaking.

9.8 WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN?

There is no clear answer for the responsibility of many nonstructural

design issues. In order to help designers determine who is responsible
for nonstructural issues for both systems and components, Table 9-3
is provided as a guide. Architects may wish to use this as a guide in
establishing contractual relationships with their consultants prior to be
ginning design. It is certainly helpful to all design professionals to know
who is responsible for specific tasks. It should be noted that there are
many cases where design responsibilities are not clear, even when a re
sponsibility chart such as that below is used. The architect, as the design
professional in charge, must ensure that the assigned responsibilities are
clearly defined.

9-22 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Table 9-3 Design Responsibilities for Nonstructural Components

The following list can be reviewed and modified by architects for their specific project. The table is not intended to apply to every project, but
rather to act as a check list and a guide.

Mechanical Engineer
Structural Engineer

Electrical Engineer
Architect
Nonstructual System other design
or Component professionals Remarks

curtain wall 1 2 consider a specialty consultant Small glazing panes perform better in
earthquakes. Avoid window film unless
properly applied.

doors / windows 1 Consider how doors will avoid

racking in nonstructural walls.
access floors 1 consider a specialty consultant Consider in-the-floor ducts rather
than raised floors where practical

HVAC systems 2 1 Systems that require vibration isolation

also require snubbing.
plumbing systems 2 2 Vertical plumbing runs are subject
to floor to floor drift

communication systems 2 1 1 Some communications systems

consider a specialty consultant come as a package. Make sure that
they interface with the building
appropriately.
data systems 2 1 1 Consider support systems such as
consider a specialty consultant cooling environments.
elevator systems 1 2 2 2 2 Design some elevators to operate
after the earthquake
emergency power 2 2 1 2 2 All systems interfaces need to be
supply system considered as their vulnerability can
cause an entire facility to become
non-operational.
fire protection systems 2 2 1 1 Floor to floor piping is subject to
consider a specialty consultant story drift.

kitchen systems 1 2
consider a specialty consultant

lighting systems 2 1

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-23

Table 9-3 Design Responsibilities for Nonstructural Components (continued)

Mechanical Engineer
Structural Engineer

Electrical Engineer
Nonstructual System Architect other design
or Component professionals Remarks

medical sytems 1 2 2 2 1 Often, the architect needs to provide

consider a specialty consultant protection to equipment as it is outside
the code requirements.

ceiling systems 1 2 2 2 Avoid drop ceiling elevation changes.

Avoid Large ceiling cavities.

unbraced walls and parapets 1 2

interior bearing walls 1 2

interior non-bearing 1 Consider earthquake effects on

walls doors for egress.
prefabricated elements 1 2
(architectural appendages)

chimneys 1 2

signs 1 2

billboards 2 1 2 2
consider a specialty consultant

storage racks 1 2 Proprietary manufactured racks may

consider a specialty consultant or may not include seismic design
considerations.
cabinets and book stacks 1 2 Architect needs to provide
proper wall backing.

wall hung cabinets 1 1 Architect needs to provide

proper wall backing.
tanks and vessels 2 2

electrical equipment 2 2 1

plumbing equipment 2 2 1

Note: 1 = Primary Responsibility 2 = Support Responsibility

9-24 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

9.9 NONSTRUCTURAL CODES
The early 1970s saw the first inclusion for nonstructural provisions other
than walls, parapets, and chimneys. The provisions have grown to in
clude a wide variety of nonstructural components and building systems
since the mid-1970s, but the seismic codes have yet to recognize the need
for qualification of owner-supplied equipment that is not fixed to the
building. The codes have also yet to come to grips with systems quali
fication and continued performance for facilities. A discussion of the
philosophy of codes for nonstructural components and systems is pre
sented in Chapter 6, Section 6.6.

9.10 METHODS OF SEISMIC QUALIFICATION

Qualification involves the acceptance of components and systems for
use in a seismic environment and compliance with code requirements.
There are numerous methods by which seismic qualification can be re
alized. Each method has a narrow window of applications for effective
seismic qualification. These are:

❍ Design Team Judgment

❍ Prior Qualification

❍ Physical Tests

❍ Mathematical Analysis

❍ Static Equivalent Analysis

❍ Dynamic Analysis

9.10.1 Design Team Judgment

Design team judgment is a valuable resource in any seismic qualifica
tion program. An inappropriate selection of equipment or qualification
method by the design team may lead to nonstructural system failures
during an earthquake. The design team needs to meet early in the
programming, schematic, and design development phases to discuss
the various systems to be used in a facility design. Just as in preliminary
design the architect is interested in how deep structural members need
to be for floor spans, and how much room is needed above the finished
ceiling and below the structural system for HVAC and lighting, the

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-25

 architect and engineers need to discuss how movement of the various sys
tems will impact each other in a sizeable earthquake. Early appropriate
building configuration decisions by the design team will have a great
impact on the success of a building structure in an earthquake. Similar
appropriate decisions by the design team early in the design process
will have a profound impact on the design of nonstructural systems and
components. Following the early discussions of the design team, more
quantitative methods of qualification can be utilized, as discussed in the
following sections.

9.10.2 Prior Qualification

In some cases, a product or system can be shown to have a previous
qualification procedure that exceeds the code requirements. This might
include equipment that has been designed for shipboard installation,
where the accelerations expected and durations of those accelerations
far exceed the code requirements of a simple static mathematical model.
Such equipment is arguably considered to be qualified by prior experi
ence. Other examples might include a component manufacturer that
has had their equipment tested on seismic shaking equipment that
provides a stringent-enough test to envelope the specific installation,
providing a prior qualification. When available, the manufacturers will
provide test results and/or reports detailing the testing program for the
building official’s review.

Appropriate detailing employing prior qualification is often used by

the architect. Consider, for example, suspended ceiling systems. Most
architects use suspended ceiling details that have proven over time to be
effective, either through prior seismic experience or prior analysis. The
familiar 45o splay wires at areas of interval, such as 144 sq. ft., are such an
example. There is no need for the architect to recalculate the forces in
the resisting wires for each new application. Choosing the appropriate
detail is often sufficient. There are, however, limits on “standard details”,
and the architect should always review each detail to be used for the spe
cific application.

9.10.3 Mathematical Analysis and Other

Qualification Methods

There are two basic forms of analysis. The first is a simple static
equivalent analysis. This is the method most suited for most simple ar
chitectural problems for nonstructural design. The second is the more

9-26 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

complex dynamic analysis which requires costly engineering analysis and
is seldom used for nonstructural components. In place of, or in combina
tion with, physical testing the latter may be used.

These methods of qualification are generally not going to be employed

by architects in “normal” designs. In general, they are better suited for
product/system manufacturers and researchers that want to show either
a wide range of possible applications or to confirm predicted responses.
All of these qualification methods are expensive and time consuming.

9.11 SOME MYTHS REGARDING NONSTRUCTURAL

DESIGN
● “My Engineers take care of all my seismic design”
Many architects believe that seismic design is controlled in total by their
engineers and they should not be involved in the conceptualization or
the coordination of seismic design. As discussed throughout this work by
the various authors, successful seismic design begins and ends with the
architect. It is true that the engineers may control the details of many
components within the facility, but it is the architect who must under
stand the interrelationship between the various systems within the facility
for successful performance during and after an earthquake.

● “My building is base isolated … I don’t need to worry about

the nonstructural components”
Building base isolation in general reduces the effects of horizontal mo
tions within a building, but it does not eliminate them. The architect
and design team should be aware of the limitations of base isolation and
special conditions, such as the need for utilities to accommodate large
lateral movement where they enter the building above or below ground.

● “Window films protect windows from breakage in an

earthquake”
If properly applied, window films can reduce some glass breakage. The
film needs to be taken all the way to the edge of the glass. Often film to
be applied to the glazing, while it is mounted in its frame, and is then
cut with a razor blade against the mullions and muttons that score the
glass, making it vulnerable to breakage during violent shaking. As the

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-27

 Figure 9-22: This lathe lifted up in the air and came down about four
inches from its starting point before sliding another six inches, where it
finally came to rest in the 1983 Coalinga earthquake. The initial complete
lifting off the floor is evidence of vertical acceleration of more than 1g.

film ages, it can lose its adhesion characteristics. If films are used, they
should be cross-ply films and have undergone aging tests to predict how
they will outgas and to what extent they will become brittle.

● “My building in San Bernardino survived the 1994

Northridge earthquake … it is earthquake proof”
San Bernardino (or any other appropriate location) was a long distance
from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. While distance does not always
guarantee safety (San Francisco was approximately 60 miles from the
focus of the Loma Prieta earthquake), in general being a substantial
distance from the earthquake will lessen the effects of the earthquake on
the building and its nonstructural components. Nonstructural failures
are commonly seen at greater distances than structural failures. This is
especially the case where the building components are not designed for
the earthquake environment.

9-28 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

● “Vertical motions in earthquakes do not need to be
considered for nonstructural design”
Historically, the model earthquake codes paid little attention to the
vertical component of shaking generated by earthquakes. As a rule of
thumb, the maximum vertical ground motion is generally 60 to 70% of
the maximum horizontal ground motion. While it may be unnecessary
to consider the vertical motions of the structure as a whole, this is often
not the case with nonstructural design. The model codes have little
reference to vertical acceleration design requirements for nonstructural
components. The building, usually due to its architectural configura
tion, can act as an amplifier for both horizontal and vertical motions.
Therefore, even though the code most often does not require vertical
design resistance, the designer must be cognizant of the implications of
vertical motions during an earthquake and their potential effects (Figure
9-22).

9.12 WHAT CAN THE ARCHITECT DO TO DECREASE

NONSTRUCTURAL DAMAGE?
Not only does the architect have the obligation to coordinate the overall
design of the building, but the architect is also responsible for the basic
seismic safety of the design.

The architect should guide the other design professionals in the design
decisions, rather than simply turning the design over to the project engi
neers. Since many nonstructural issues involve the intermixing of several
engineering professions, the architect should understand how each
system will react with the other building systems. The architect needs to
be able to visualize the system, its components, and how they will interact
in an earthquake, strong winds, fire, etc. The architect should sit down
with the consulting engineers early and often, beginning with a discus
sion of the earthquake performance objectives for the facility, to permit
each of the disciplines to see the potential for interactions between
systems and components. Office standards should be developed for the
interfacing of systems and components.

Simple designs make design life easier. The current vogue for complex
shapes in architectural design increase the complexity of the nonstruc
tural systems. This increase in complexity decreases the architect’s ability
to visualize how systems and components will respond and interact.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-29

 9.13 THE COMPLEXITY OF RETROFITTING
EXISTING BUILDINGS
The nonstructural implications of retrofitting existing buildings can be
very complex. In many cases, the structural seismic retrofit may be com
promised due to historic codes or other considerations. In some cases,
buildings have grown over time, which often means that nonstructural
systems pass through more than one time era of construction. These
interfaces may make the nonstructural retrofit very difficult. California
architects and engineers are faced with a particular difficulty in this issue,
based on the 1994 law requiring the upgrading of all existing acute care
hospitals by 2030 (SB1953). In fact, the task may be essentially impos
sible, and following the expense of the retrofits, hospitals may yet run
a high risk of seismic failure due to nonstructural systems/component
failures.

A better solution than expecting performance out of systems that are

difficult if not impossible to retrofit might be a “hospital lifeboat”. The
lifeboats could be self-contained, factory-built modular buildings sized
to accommodate the expected emergency population needing attention
following a major earthquake. The lifeboats would be permanently sta
tioned on the health care campus, ready for operation as needed. These
lifeboats could be provided at a fraction of the cost of the thorough
retrofits currently required by SB1953, saving California money and
providing a much higher degree of confidence that the hospitals will be
operational for emergency services following an earthquake.

For facility types other than acute care facilities, the design team needs
to identify how the existing building will react to the new structural im
provements, and how these will impact the nonstructural elements of the
facility. The design professional may be required to determine which sys
tems/components can fail and simply protect the occupants from falling
hazards.

9.14 CONCLUSIONS
The largest immediate strides in resisting the impacts of nonstructural
failures in future earthquakes will come from designers who understand
the implications of systems design. Next, there will be great increases
in nonstructural seismic resistance by designers implementing the

9-30 NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

keep-it-simple philosophy. Apart from that, there will be great strides in
structural systems that will result in reduced-motion inputs at the non-
structural system/component interfaces. These include base isolation
as it is currently being employed. Another future structural improve
ment that will likely improve nonstructural seismic performance is the
increasing use of both active and passive seismic dampers. These systems
show promise for significantly decreasing building motions that in turn
will decrease nonstructural damage. Some active dampers under devel
opment will be able to respond to the earthquake in almost real time.

On the distant horizon is the transformation of the building structure

from its seemingly rigid skeleton to a skeleton with a muscle system
similar to an organism. Shape-memory materials such as nitinol can be
fabricated to act like muscles. The nitinol reduces its size when heated,
rather than expanding like most construction materials. These “building
muscles” can then be either tightened or relaxed with electrical input
(heat), so that the building achieves “balance” during a seismic event in
much the same way that our bodies can remain balanced when we stand
on a moving bus or train. As these shape-memory materials reduce the
effects of acceleration on the building as a whole, they will reduce the
large acceleration inputs on the nonstructural systems/components.
Shape-memory construction has been successfully utilized in aerospace
design in recent years. It will take considerable time for it to be success
fully used in building design, although some limited research has been
reported.

9.15 REFERENCES

2001. California Building Code based on the 1997 Uniform Building

Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
2003 International Building Code, International Code Council, Country
Club Hills, IL
FEMA 74, Reducing Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage, FEMA,
Washington D.C. 1994.
EQE, Structural Concepts and Details for Seismic Design, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 1991.
Mason Industries Inc., Seismic Restraint Guidelines, Mason Industries Inc,
Hauppauge, NY. 1999.

NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 9-31