This presentation is part of the project "Development and Validation of a Resilience-based Seismic Design Methodology for Tall Wood Buildings." This presentation is specifically is about identifying suitable details for connecting the drywall partition walls to a structural system called the Timber Rocking Wall.

1. PRE-TEST SEISMIC EVALUATION OF DRYWALL
PARTITION WALLS INTEGRATED WITH A
TIMBER ROCKING WALL
H. HASANI, K. RYAN2, A. AMER3, J. RICLES4 AND R. SAUSE5
1 G R A D U A T E S T U D E N T R E S E A R C H E R , D E P T . O F C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G , U N I V E R S I T Y O F N E V A D A R E N O
2 A S S O C I A T E P R O F E S S O R , D E P T . O F C I V I L A N D E N V I R O N M E N T A L E N G I N E E R I N G , U N I V E R S I T Y O F N E V A D A R E N O
3 P H . D . S T U D E N T , A T L S S E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H C E N T E R , L E H I G H U N I V E R S I T Y
4 P R O F E S S O R , A T L S S E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H C E N T E R , L E H I G H U N I V E R S I T Y
5 P R O F E S S O R A N D D I R E C T O R , A T L S S E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H C E N T E R , L E H I G H U N I V E R S I T Y
T u e s d a y , J u n e 2 6

2. Introduction
2
Project: Development and Validation of A Resilience-
based Seismic Design Methodology for Tall Wood
Buildings
- Need to consider performance of non-structural
components as well:
1. CLT rocking walls sustain large drifts without
damage
2. Non-structural components susceptible to damage at
very low intensity drifts
3. Connections of CLT rocking walls to floor diaphragms
may result in localized diaphragm deformation

3. Introduction
Study is on Partition Walls:
Literature shows get damaged at very small drifts.
3
Damage of Joints Hinge forming Tearing along top track fasteners
Ryan D. Davies et al

4. Introduction
•Slip track connection detailing: better performance than conventional full connection in in-plane
loading.
•Problem: connection to the return wall
4
Ryan D. Davies et al

5. Literature review
5
Damage occurs at low drift:
Rihal (1982):
Full Connection
Cracking noise: (0.07%-0.26%) drift
Noticeable damage: 0.39% drift
Failure: 0.52% drift
Restrepo and Bersofsky (2010):
Full Connection
DS1: (0.05%-1%) drifts
DS2: (0.5%-1.5%) drift
DS3: (0.5% to 3%) drift
Slip-track Connection:
Partition distress: 0.07% drift

6. Literature review
6
Timber framing vs Steel framing (Tesligedik et al-
2012)
-Damage occurs at: Steel framed (0.3% drift)
Timber framed (0.75% drift)
--Steel framed behave more ductile
Low damage detailing (Tesligedik et al-2013)
-Low damage detailing:
-Providing gap between wall and gypsum
-Gypsum only connected to studs, not tracks.
-Prevent damage up to 2% drift
Contribution of infilled walls: Steel framed (83% drift)
Timber framed (77% drift)
Tesligedik et al

7. Literature review
7
Low Damage Detailing: Sliding/Frictional Connection (Araya-Letelier and Miranda, 2012)
-Top track sandwiched between steel plate above (attached to the beam) and a tube section below. The tube section
attached to the steel plate via fasteners, and axial force determined by spacing. Top track slides via friction and has
holes to accommodate sliding.
-No damage at 1.5%, Damage State 1 at 2.1%; wall replacement at 3%.
Cross-section Elevation
Araya-Letelier and Miranda

8. Literature review
8
Low Damage Detailing: (Retamales et al-2013)
-Slip-track connections reduced damage associated with drift but increased the damage in the joints between the
perpendicular walls
Developed Gap detailing: Most of damage DS1 Concentrated corners. (Testing was in-plane)
[Ryan D. Davies et al]

9. Literature review
9
Loading: (Lee et al-2007)
- Compared quasi static and dynamic loading on slip-track detailing:
- Damage was not amplified by dynamic loading
- Damage concentrated at the contact perimeter of partition walls and ceiling and structure.
- Cost of repair: Initial cost: 2% drift
Twice of initial cost: 8% drift

10. Literature review
System-Level Tests
10
Wang et al (2011) Soroushian et al (2016) Jenkins et al (2016)
-Moderate damage: 0.66%-
1.09% drift
-Severe damage: 2.08%-2.75%
drift
-Damage related to vertical shaking was
observed
-Tested full, slip track, sliding/frictional connection
-Slip-track best configuration, but caused damage at
corners
-Sliding/frictional connection experienced damages
same as full connection
[Wang et al ]
[Soroushian et al] [Jenkins et al]

11. Knowledge Gaps
11
• Lack of system level test with systematic loading (quasi-static)
• Lack of bi-directional loading
Ryan D. Davies et al Jenkins et al

12. Partition Wall Testing at NHERI@Lehigh EF
•Bidirectional tests of partition walls integrated with CLT rocking walls will be performed
•Single story, 2-bay by 1-bay CLT post tensioned rocking wall system.
•Dimension: 30’ x 15’ in plan and 12.5’ high
12

13. Partition walls
Phase I: Characterize slip behavior of two walls with
different slip detailing: slip track and telescoping slip track.
Background
◦ Slip track connection is considered the best practices detailing
to minimize damage in nonstructural walls.
◦ Telescoping slip track is commonly used by industry to
accommodate vertical deflection, but has not been tested for
horizontal slip. (FEMA E-74 suggested for lateral movement)
Test Objective
◦ Confirm ability to replicate desired slip behavior in both walls
in this test setup with the more flexible timber diaphragms,
including possible diaphragm distortion induced by rocking
walls.
◦ Compare response of two walls to identify best slip detailing.
13
SSMA
Longer leg
track

14. Partition walls
14
Phase I:
• Test Details
– Two single walls (no corners or intersections)
– Wall 1 uses “slip track”, Wall 2 uses “telescoping slip track” detail
• Setup

15. Partition Walls
Phase II: Evaluate two different gap detailing approaches
Background
◦ Even with best practices slip detailing, damage is introduced at wall corners and intersections
due to interference with the perpendicular walls.
Test Objective
◦ Evaluate two different approaches to reduce intersection damage in a channel shaped wall with
two corners. Both approaches might be attractive and applicable in different situations.
◦ Approach 1: Gap at corner that allows intersecting walls to penetrate (or slip) into the corner space
without interference. This detail can be made fire resistant with mineral wool.
◦ Approach 2: 0.5” expansion joints spaced every 4 ft along length of wall and at corners to absorb the
differential movement between in-plane and intersecting walls. There are several standard details that
can easily be incorporated without code changes. (Typically for relieving stresses due to expansion and
contraction)
15

16. Partition Walls
16
Phase II: Evaluate two different gap detailing approaches
• Test Details
– Two channel shape walls laid out on raft foundation as shown in figure below.
– Wall 1 with intersection gaps
– Wall 2 with frequent expansion joints
– Both walls use traditional slip detailing
Wall 2
Wall 1

17. Partition Walls
17
Wall 1

18. Partition Walls
Wall 2:
18
Corner (not fire-rated) In span (not fire-rated) In span (fire-rated) Corner (fire-rated)

19. Partition Walls
Phase III: Refined gap detailing and T-walls, plus encapsulated CLT wall
Background
◦ T walls are also commonly used in practice. We can expand the complexity by introducing T-intersection
and corner intersection in same test
◦ CLT walls will often need to be encapsulated by nonstructural walls for fire code in tall timber buildings.
Test Objective
◦ Refine gap detailing based on lessons learned from Phase II, and incorporate T-walls
◦ Evaluate gap detailing approaches on the other slip detailing if desirable. (We anticipate that Phase II will
most likely use slip track, whereas this Phase III can try the same approaches with telescoping slip track,
which will be more difficult.)
19

20. Partition Walls
Phase III: Refined gap detailing and T-walls, plus encapsulated CLT wall
Test Details
◦ Two walls as shown below.
◦ Wall 1 with intersection gaps, refined based on lessons learned in Phase 2
◦ Wall 2 with frequent expansion joints, refined based on lessons learned in Phase 2
◦ Both walls use same slip detailing; telescoping slip track if possible.
◦ Encapsulated wall test with gap detailing if possible.
20

21. Loading Protocol
21
• Base of loading protocol : FEMA 461
• Three sub-cycle : in-plane, bidirectional, and bidirectional with increased out of plane
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Drift%
Cycle

22. Concluding Remarks
• Current State of Knowledge: Partition walls generally get damaged at low drifts. The resiliency of
partition walls should be improved.
Knowledge Gaps:
1) Effects of bidirectional loading
2) System level interaction of partition walls and CLT rocking walls with flexible floor diaphragms
Objectives of Upcoming Tests
1) Evaluate slip behavior of conventional slip track and telescoping slip track.
2) Evaluate different gap details for improved resiliency
3) Evaluate effects of bidirectional loading and system level interaction.
22

23. Reference
1. Taghavi S, Miranda E. Response assessment of nonstructural building elements. Report PEER 2003/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley 2003: 96.
2. Buchanan A, Deam B, Fragiacomo M, Pampanin S, Palermo A. Multi-storey prestressed timber buildings in New Zealand. Structural Engineering
International: Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) 2008; 18(2): 166–173. DOI:
10.2749/101686608784218635.
3. Ganey RS. Seismic design and testing of rocking cross laminated timber walls. 2015.
4. Mosqueda G. Interior cold-formed steel framed gypsum partition walls - Background document FEMA P-58/BD-3.9.32., 2016.
5. Davies RD, Retamales R, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A. Experimental seismic evaluation, model parameterization, and effect of cold-formed steel-
framed gypsum partition walls on the seismic performance of an essential facility-MCEER-11-0005., 2011.
6. Rihal SS. Behavior of non-structural building partions during earthquakes. Symposiom on Earthquake Engineering 1982; 1: 267–277.
7. Restrepo JI, Bersofsky AM. Performance characteristics of light gage steel stud partition walls. Thin-Walled Structures 2011; 49(2): 317–324. DOI:
10.1016/j.tws.2010.10.001.
8. Tasligedik AS, Pampanin S, Palermo A. In-Plane cyclic testing of non-structural drywalls infilled within RC frames. In 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, 2012.
9. Tasligedik AS, Pampanin S, Palermo A. Low damage seismic solutions for non-structural drywall partitions. In Vienna Congress on Recent Advances
in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013 (VEESD 2013), 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-014-9654-5.
23

24. Reference
10. Lee T-H, Kato M, Matsumiya T, Suita K, Nakashima M. Seismic performance evaluation of non-structural components: Drywall partitions.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36: 367–382. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.638.
11. Retamales R, Davies R, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A. Experimental seismic fragility of cold-formed steel framed gypsum partition walls. Journal of
Structural Journal of Structural Engineering 2013; 139(August): 1285–1293. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000657.
12. Araya-Letelier G, Miranda E. Novel sliding/frictional connections for improved seismic performance of gypsum wallboard partitions. In 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2012; 0–9.
13. Wang X, Pantoli E, Hutchinson TC, et al. Seismic performance of cold-formed steel wall systems in a full-scale building. 2015; 141(2011): 1–11.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001245.
14. Soroushian S, Maragakis EM, Ryan KL, et al. Seismic simulation of an integrated ceiling-partition wall-piping system at e-defense . II : evaluation
of nonstructural damage and fragilities. 2016; 142(2): 1–17. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001385.
15. Jenkins C, Soroushian S, Rahmanishamsi E, Maragakis EM. Experimental fragility analysis of cold-formed steel-framed partition wall systems.
Thin-Walled Structures 2016; 103: 115–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2016.02.015.
16. Miranda E, Mosqueda G. Seismic fragility of building interior cold-formed steel framed gypsum partition walls-FEMA P-58/BD-3.9.2. Redwood
City, California, 2011.
17. John A. Blume and Associates. First progress report on racking tests of wall panels-Report NVO-99-15. San Francisco, California, U.S.A., 1966.
18. John A. Blume and Associates. Second progress report on racking tests of wall panels-Report NVO-99-35. San Francisco, California, U.S.A., 1968.
24

25. Reference
19. Freeman SA. Third progress report on racking tests of wall panels-Report JAB-99-54. San Francisco, California, U.S.A., 1971.
20. Freeman SA. Fourth progress report on racking tests of wall panels-Report JAB-99-55. San Francisco, California, U.S.A., 1974.
21. Freeman SA. Racking tests of high-rise building partitions. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Structural
Engineers 1976; 103(8): 1673–1685.
22. Restrepo JI, Lang AF. Study of loading protocols in light-gauge stud partition walls. Earthquake Spectra 2011; 27(4): 1169–1185. DOI:
10.1193/1.3651608.
23. Lee T-H, Kato M, Matsumiya T, Suita K, Nakashima M. Seismic performance evaluation of nonstructural components: drywall partitions. In
Annals of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, 2006; 177–188.
24. Chen M, Pantoli E, Wang X, et al. BNCS Report #1: Full-scale structural and nonstructural building system performance during earthquakes and
post-earthquake fire – specimen design, construction, and test protocol. Report SSRP-13/09. 2013; (December 2013): 1–338.
25. Applied Technology Council. Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage – A practical guide - FEMA E-74., 2012.
26. Applied Technology Council. Interim testing protocols for determining the seismic performance characteristics of structural and nonstructural
components -FEMA 461., 2007.
27. Retamales R, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A, Reinhorn A. New experimental capabilities and loading protocols for seismic qualification and fragility
assessment of nonstructural systemsl. Report MCEER-08-0026 2008.
25

26. Acknowledgement
- This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
No. CMMI-1635363 and CMMI-1635227.
26

27. Slip Track
Telescoping Slip Track

28. Inspection plan based on the damages of
slip-track configuration in previous tests:
# Drift% # Drift% # Drift% # Drift% # Drift%
1 0.2 5 1.00 9 2.15 13 3.4 17 5
2 0.4 6 1.16 10 2.32 14 3.86
3 0.62 7 1.35 11 2.82 15 4.37
4 0.81 8 1.99 12 3.00 16 4.65
Resilient Tall Wood Buildings
Note: Each inspection needs 20 minutes (includes: taking notes & picture, marking the damages)
Total Inspection Time: ~ 6 hours

29. Resilient Tall Wood Buildings
Instrumentation:
Desired Measurable Quantities
• Lateral movement of top diaphragm (actuators?)
• Lateral movement of base diaphragm if non-negligible – the load cells are
the constraints against movement
• Relative vertical movement between diaphragms – string pots
• Relative slip for the different slip track details – displacement transducers
• Relative movement across expansion joints – displacement transducers

30. Load cells for non-
structural walls
S-Beam load cells (10K) from
Omega $600 have been ordered
In plane
load
cells
Out of
plane
load cell
Two separate
CLT panels
Non-
structura
l walls

31. Transducer – Phase 1:
Resilient Tall Wood Buildings
Telescoping Slip Track: Measuring
movement between outer track
and inner track
Conventional Slip Track: Measuring
movement between top track and
stud
Goal: Comparing slip movement of slip-track configuration and the telescoping configuration

32. Transducer – Phase 2 - PW 2- A:
Corner Gaps
Goal: understand movement of gap in both direction .
Resilient Tall Wood Buildings
1
2
3
1 2 3
View
View
View

33. Transducer – Phase 2 - PW 2- A:
Distributed Expansion Joints
Goal: evaluating the effectiveness of the
expansion joint in resilient nonstructural
walls
Resilient Tall Wood Buildings
1
2
3View
View
View
DLS25 & DLS26 are between
the main wall and the corner
wall
1 2 3