Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Seismic fragility assessment of non-structural drywall partitions with screw

and adhesive fixing through multi-axis cyclic testing
Hamidreza A. Yazdi a , Javad Hashemi b ,∗, Emad Gad b
a
Etex Australia (Siniat), Matraville, NSW 2036, Australia
b
Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Drywall partitions are the most common type of non-structural walls used in modern multi-story buildings.
Drywall partitions Damage investigation of these walls during the past earthquakes has shown their vulnerability under small
Non-structural components to moderate inter-story drifts leading to significant economic losses. To propose innovative solutions to this
Multi-axis testing
problem, accurate damage assessment must be conducted using the data obtained from realistic experiments. In
Damage assessment
this study, the classic performance-based earthquake engineering framework is used as a method for performing
a probabilistic estimation of damage progression in the drywall partitions in a limited-ductility reinforced-
concrete building. The Multi-Axis Substructure Testing system at Swinburne University of Technology is used
to conduct large-scale three-dimensional cyclic tests on two assemblies of drywall partitions. The assemblies
included two types of fixings, namely, screw fixing as a common construction method, and adhesive fixing
recently developed for mitigating the creaking noise under serviceability wind loads. The results of the
experiments are used to define three levels of damage states to produce fragility curves of drywall systems
given the building inter-story drifts. Vulnerability curves are then developed to account for the uncertainties in
the building response due to record-to-record variability, and the factors controlling the progression of damage
in partition walls such as the variability in material and construction quality.

1. Introduction In recent years, light-weight steel drywalls constructed with cold-

The previous earthquakes such as San Fernando (1971), Northridge
(1994), Christchurch (2011), and recently, the 2016 Central Italy earth-
quake have shown that in some cases the damage of non-structural
components of the buildings have more significant effects on the occu-
pants safety, business interruption and the economic losses compared
to the damage of structural elements [1–4]. Among the non-structural
components, the interior and exterior partition walls are the most
sensitive and vulnerable parts since during a seismic event these ele-
ments are subjected to lateral drifts transferred from the surrounding
structural framing system. However, unlike the structural elements,
non-structural walls are not normally designed for seismic actions due
to insufficient design and construction guidelines. Therefore, these
elements are vulnerable even under low- to moderate inter-story drifts,
and consequently, take up most repair costs of the building after
an earthquake. Whitman et al. [5] investigated the economic losses
of the buildings damaged after the San Fernando earthquake (1971)
and estimated that more than half of the building repair costs were
spent on the internal and external non-structural partition walls. Thus,
alleviation of the damage to non-structural walls could significantly
reduce economic losses in buildings after seismic events.
formed steel stud and track framing system and sheathed with gypsum
lining boards (plasterboard) have been widely used as non-structural
partition walls. In these components, the level of inter-story drifts that
causes damage is usually less than the prescribed design limits in the
current standards. Under inter-story drifts imposed by the building side
sway, the drywalls suffer moderate to intensive damages that often
require repair or replacement of the walls. Furthermore, these damages
may lead to the likely loss of fire, acoustic or thermal rating of internal
partitions walls. The loss of fire rating, in particular, can be potentially
fatal to building occupants.
Further, in moderate seismicity regions, there is limited studies
conducted on the evaluation of the seismic resistant of cold-formed
steel drywalls. Kim and Shin [6] have recently used shake table tests
to assess the seismic resistance of drywalls built in regions with low-
to moderate seismic activities. The results of the large-scale shaking
table tests showed that the seismic behavior of drywalls subjected to
lateral deformation can be improved by decreasing the stud spacing.
Also, through statistical investigation, they reported that in earthquake
with low intensities, the partition walls contribute the most towards
losses due to repair or replacement.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jhashemi@swin.edu.au (J. Hashemi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109303
Received 8 October 2021; Received in revised form 2 March 2022; Accepted 5 April 2022
Available online 27 April 2022
0263-8231/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
The main factors contributing to the poor performance of drywalls
are the lack of standard assembly during construction, and the lack of
research on improving construction detailing and the development of
innovative technologies for damage mitigation of drywalls. Tasligedik
et al. [3] highlighted that after Christchurch earthquake in 2011,
the drywall partitions were mostly damaged at the corners and their
joint boundaries due to inappropriate finishing, creating moderate to
extensive crack and crush at these interfaces. Further, the loss as-
sessment from the Canterbury earthquakes conducted by Arifin et al.
[7] on a 22-story building indicated that the annual losses can be
reduced by improving the seismic resistance of building contents and
non-structural elements such as the drywall partitions as one of the
most vulnerable elements. Comparison of the cost–benefit analyses of
buildings with and without well designed drywall indicated that the
added costs for improving the performance of drywall partitions during
the construction stage are likely to be recovered due to the lowered
repair costs in a short period of time, i.e. ∼10–20 years for a 22-storey
building.
Several experimental research studies have been conducted dur-
ing the past years to investigate and propose new methods to en-
hance the strength and deformation capacities of the drywall partitions
[8–17]. Araya-Letelier et al. [17] proposed a friction/sliding connection
for drywall partitions. This connection introduced a sliding interface
between the steel top track of the wall and the supporting structural
element, which is the concrete slab. The results of quasi-static cyclic
tests carried out on three specimens indicated that after using the pro-
posed connection, the building can experience the story drift of up to
1.0% without causing any damage in drywall partitions. Furthermore,
Fiorino et al. [18] investigated the unidirectional and bidirectional
seismic performance of drywall partitions and ceiling systems using
shaking table tests considering the fixed and sliding connection con-
figurations at the wall and ceiling edges. The results of this study
show an improved seismic resistant of the test specimen using the
sliding connections in comparison to fixed connections, and the damage
states defined for the specimen with sliding connections were in higher
inter-story drift ratios (IDR).
Moreover, limited studies are available on the seismic vulnerability
assessment of drywall partitions that are validated based on large-
scale testing of the three-dimensional (3D) assemblies of partition walls
and suspended ceiling systems. The application of multi-axis testing
allows to simulate more realistically the complex load transfer at the
boundaries of the drywalls, and to capture more accurately the in-plane
and out-of-plane response of these elements and their mutual inter-
actions. Hasani and Ryan [19] investigated the effect of out-of-plane
drift on in-plane damage assessment of two different configurations
of partition walls, i.e. two straight partition walls and two C-shaped
wall assemblies, subjected to quasi-static bidirectional loading. The
effectiveness of the innovative construction details on damage states
of the drywalls was discussed, and it was shown that the distributed
gap detailing delayed the damage to about 1% inter-story drift ratio.
The focus of this study is to conduct a large-scale experimental
program on the vulnerability assessment of 3D assemblies of non-
structural drywall partitions and suspended ceiling systems under
multi-axis cyclic loading. For this purpose, the classic performance-
based earthquake engineering (PBEE) framework is implemented on
the model of a typical 5-story limited ductile reinforced-concrete (RC)
framed building. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is performed by
subjecting the building model to a set of earthquake ground motion
records with increasing intensities. The damage analysis is then con-
ducted on two large-scale rooms constructed by drywall partitions to
obtain realistically the local and global responses of drywall partitions
when subjected to the previously defined inter-story drift demands. The
first selected configuration of drywall system is the typical construction
method with screw fixing. The second specimen is a room constructed
with adhesive fixing method to secure the plasterboard to the metal
framing that has been found very effective in combating friction gen-
erated noises caused by building movement to mitigate the creaking
2
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
noise [20]. It is critical to investigate the seismic behavior of the two
selected assemblies to find how different fixing methods can affect the
performance of the drywall system under seismic actions.
The specimens are tested using the Multi-Axis Substructure Testing
(MAST) system at Swinburne University of Technology [21] that is
capable of simulating complex 6 degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) boundary
forces and deformations. The data obtained from the experimental tests
and the numerical simulation are then used to develop vulnerability
curves that present the probability of the partition walls being in a
specific damage state given a specified level of earthquake intensity.
These curves can be used to assess the risk of failure and verify the
implementation of new approaches for minimizing the damage and
improve the resilience of drywall partitions with screw and adhesive
fixing methods during seismic events.
It should be noted that in construction of these specimens, the
surrounding boundary elements of the structures are modeled only
at the top with connections to the MAST crosshead and at the base
with the strong floor to represent the detailing in actual construction.
This also allows to simulate the transfer of the inter-story drifts from
the floors to the drywalls. However, the interaction of the vertical
surrounding structural elements such as columns or shear walls to
the drywall partitions are not considered since the focus of this study
is to assess the effect of partitional wall-to-wall and ceiling-to-wall
connectivity and their mutual interactions. More information on the
importance of the simulation of structural boundary elements and the
interactions between structural and non-structural components can be
found in [11], and [18].
2. Creaking noise assessment of drywall partitions and test speci-
mens
Prior to conducting the seismic assessment study, the authors re-
cently investigated wind-induced structure-borne noise originating from
a typical light-weight wall and ceiling system due to movement in tall
structures under the serviceability wind loads [20]. The investigation
was conducted at Swinburne University Technology consisting of large-
scale 3D experiments on an assembly of drywall system composed
of cold-formed metal framing and plasterboard (drywall system). The
MAST system was used in these experiments which is a unique facil-
ity that enables full-scale 3D testing of structural and non-structural
components. In these experiments, the specimen was subjected to slow
lateral cyclic displacements from the top. The test simulated the motion
experienced by plasterboard wall and ceiling systems in a typical
high-rise building exposed to lateral wind loads.
Fig. 1 shows a typical standard assembly and junction details of
a drywall system with screw-only fixing method, which is normally
used in high-rise building. For the first round of the experiments, a
small room (2.5×2.5×3.0 m high) according to this assembly guide was
constructed incorporating cold-formed steel sections and plasterboard
lining systems fixed by using screws. The displacement protocol for
each test consisted of constant amplitude sinusoidal cycling in displace-
ment control mode up to H/500 inter-story drift limit, for serviceability
consideration. The displacement of the MAST crosshead with respect to
the strong floor induced inter-story drifts in the rigidly attached room,
thus emitting noises.
The location and magnitude of creaking noises in the test specimen
were then identified and recorded with sensitive and sophisticated
acoustic cameras and microphones, and external acoustic engineers
interpreted the results. The outcomes of the analysis of the acoustic
measurements and the test observations showed several locations with
the peak sound pressure level in the test specimen including at the
height of the wall head track, at the height of the ceiling, around
the door opening, at the floor height, etc. This indicated that noise
emissions were due to the interaction of the plasterboard with the
framing as well as at the framing junctions. Within the test routine,
few changes to the frame, plasterboards, connections, etc. were made to
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
Fig. 1. Configuration of a typical drywall assembly with screw fixing and connection details with screw and standard head track.
investigate the noise and performance of different room configurations,
which led to the development of several practical recommendations to
mitigate creaking noise. It was, however, noted that the creaking noise
was significantly reduced when mechanical connections (for example
screw connections) were reduced.
According to all acoustic measurements and the experimental ob-
servations, the following recommendations were proposed to minimize
the creaking noise in drywall partition with ceiling system assembly in
high-rise buildings:
– Using adhesive material instead of mechanical (screw) connec-
tions between plasterboard and wall studs as much as possible.
– Maximizing stud centers to 600 mm spacing using stronger pro-
files to reduce the number of mechanical fixings (fewer mechan-
ical fixings lead to fewer source points for creaking noise).
– Removing the fixing between the studs at the wall corners and
intersections.
– Fix only two sides of the ceiling to the walls.
– Using of deflection head track instead of normal track at the top
The follow up experiments indicated that the adhesive method of
securing the plasterboard to the metal framing combined with the
above recommendations can be very effective in combating friction
generated noises caused by building movement. Fig. 2 shows the typical
configuration of the recommended drywall system with adhesive fixing
method and its junction details.
While the application of the proposed solutions enhanced the ser-
viceability of drywalls, it is essential to investigate the seismic behavior
of the assemblies with the recommended improvements. In this study,
the two configurations of drywall system showed in Figs. 1 and 2,
respectively, representing the typical construction and a solution for
mitigating the creaking noise, are further studied to investigate the
seismic vulnerability under multi-axis cyclic loading.
3. Application of PBEE for seismic performance assessment of
drywall partitions
The concept of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) is
implemented on a case study RC building that houses the drywalls. The
3
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
FE model of this building is developed and calibrated using the previous
experimental data. The building is subjected to IDA analysis using a
set of suitable ground motion records. Two large-scale assemblies of a
3D room with drywall partitions and a ceiling system are constructed
and tested using the Multi-Axis Substructure Testing (MAST) system to
replicate the conditions experienced in a typical multi-story RC build-
ing. Fig. 3 shows a 3D schematic view of the RC framed building and
the first test specimen constructed under the MAST system. The drywall
partitions are constructed in-situ using cold-formed steel sections and
plasterboard lining systems following proprietary specifications showed
in Figs. 1 and 2.
The experimental testing will provide data on the correlation be-
tween drywalls damages and the structural response in terms of the
inter-story drifts that are imposed on the specimens using a bidirec-
tional cloverleaf cyclic loading protocol. The results of the experiments
are then used to accurately capture and quantify the physical damages
including the crack openings, bulging and separations of the plaster-
boards, yielding, deformation and buckling of the cold-formed steel
wall studs and tracks, and overall residual deformation of the partition
walls. The observed damages are used to define damage states (DSs)
associated to the inter-story drift of the building. Finally, by integrating
the response of the building from IDA, and the damage assessment
results of the tested drywall system, vulnerability curves are generated
that indicate the probability of the partition walls being in a DS given
a specified level of earthquake intensity. The details of the numerical
and experimental simulations are presented in the following sections.
3.1. Description of prototype RC building
The case study building consists of a symmetrical five-story (h1 =
5 m, htyp = 4 m) five-by-five bay (b = 8.4 m) RC ordinary moment
frame office building. All the columns in the building are identical
and have 500 mm × 500 mm cross-sections with a longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio of 1.3%. A 3D FE model of the building is developed
in OpenSees [22]. The developed FE model follows the strong-beam
weak-column design that is widespread in regions of low- to moderate
seismicity. The structure beams are modeled stiff-elastic and columns
are modeled using beam-with-hinges elements, where the nonlinear
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
Fig. 2. Configuration of specimen with adhesive fixing and the joints details with deflection head track.
Fig. 3. Schematic view of the prototype building and assembly of the drywall test setup under the MAST.
behavior is considered to occur within a finite-length at both ends
based on the distributed-plasticity concept. The plastic hinges of the
columns are calibrated to the experimental results of a 1:2 scale multi-
axis hybrid simulation that was conducted by Hashemi et al. [23]. As
the structure shows a soft first-story collapse mechanism, the response
of the building is purely governed by the first-story columns, which
have been calibrated to pure experimental results. This will improve
the reliability of predicting the demands on non-structural partition
walls since they are directly subjected to the movements of surrounding
structural framing system.
3.2. Seismic hazard analysis
In the hazard analysis step a series of record from past earth-
quake events is selected to conduct the incremental dynamic analysis
(IDA) to account for the uncertainty in the structural response due to
record-to-record variability. In the absence of sufficient ground motion
data from low-to moderate local earthquake records, two horizontal
components of the 22 far-field earthquake records considered within
FEMA P695 [24] were taken from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (PEER) center’s ground motion database. The selected records
are statistically enough in record number, independent of building
systems and suitable to use for different locations including low- to
4
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
moderate seismic regions. Therefore, these 22 far-field earthquake
records were used in this study by undertaking ground motion scaling,
where the pseudo-acceleration response spectrum of each ground mo-
tion was anchored to the same intensity level at the fundamental period
of vibration of the building. The details of the selected ground motions
are presented in Table 1 and their response spectra for 5% damping are
plotted in Fig. 4.
3.3. Structural response analysis
Structural response analysis was carried out to probabilistically
assess the response of the structure to the various ground motions
as the primary source of uncertainty, given a specific intensity level.
For each intensity level of earthquake hazard, nonlinear time history
analyses were conducted to estimate the structural response in terms of
a selected engineering demand parameters (EDP). There are a variety
of parameters for local and global EDPs, the most commonly used
parameter is the inter-story drift ratio that serves as the performance
metric for both structural and non-structural components, while the
spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure (Sa (T1 ))
is used as the intensity measure (IM). The incremental dynamic analysis
(IDA) was then conducted to perform nonlinear dynamic analyses of
the modeled case study building under the previously selected suite of
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303

Table 1
Details of selected ground motions.
ID Name Recording station Year M PGAdir−1 (g) PGAdir−2 (g)
12011 Northridge Beverly Hills - Mulhol 1994 6.7 0.416 0.516
12012 Northridge Canyon Country-WLC 1994 6.7 0.410 0.482
12041 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 1999 7.1 0.728 0.822
12052 Hector Mine Hector 1999 7.1 0.266 0.337
12061 Imperial Valley Delta 1979 6.5 0.238 0.351
12062 Imperial Valley El Centro Array #11 1979 6.5 0.364 0.380
12071 Kobe, Japan Nishi-Akashi 1995 6.9 0.509 0.503
12072 Kobe, Japan Shin-Osaka 1995 6.9 0.243 0.212
12081 Kocaeli, Turkey Duzce 1999 7.5 0.312 0.358
12082 Kocaeli, Turkey Arcelik 1999 7.5 0.219 0.150
12091 Landers Yermo Fire Station 1992 7.3 0.245 0.152
12092 Landers Coolwater 1992 7.3 0.283 0.417
12101 Loma Prieta Capitola 1989 6.9 0.529 0.443
12102 Loma Prieta Gilroy Array #3 1989 6.9 0.555 0.367
12111 Manjil, Iran Abbar 1990 7.4 0.515 0.496
12121 Superstition Hills El Centro Imp. Co. 1987 6.5 0.358 0.258
12122 Superstition Hills Poe Road (temp) 1987 6.5 0.446 0.300
12132 Cape Mendocino Rio Dell Overpass 1992 7.0 0.385 0.549
12141 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY101 1999 7.6 0.353 0.440
12142 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 1999 7.6 0.474 0.512
12151 San Fernando LA - Hollywood Stor 1971 6.6 0.210 0.174
12171 Friuli, Italy Tolmezzo 1976 6.5 0.351 0.315

Fig. 4. Different response spectra of the selected ground motions for 5% damping: (a) Pseudo-acceleration; (b) Displacement; (c) Acceleration–displacement..

ground motion records that were scaled to incrementally increasing IM
levels. In IDA, the model was subjected to biaxial ground excitations
using two horizontal components of each 22 selected ground motions.
The structural response was restricted to side-sway only collapse with
a drift limit of 5%. The IDA results provided the distribution of EDP
(i.e. inter-story drifts) for a given intensity measure (IM) considering
the uncertainties in record-to-record variability.
The probability density function of EDPs, for a given IM is com-
monly assumed to follow a lognormal distribution. The IDA results of
the building were used in Eqs. Eqs. (1a) and (1b) to obtain the mean
and the logarithmic standard deviation of EDP as a function of IM in a
continuous form:
𝜇EDP|IM = 𝛼1 (IM)𝛼2
cyclic test was conducted on two 3D large-scale assemblies of drywall
partitions with suspended ceiling system. Then, three discrete DSs for
the tested drywall specimens are considered. In the seismic damage
analysis, damage levels experienced by the damaged component can
show variance, even for the same value of EDP. This is mainly due
to differences in the displacement history of the response and conse-
quently different path of achieving the same value of EDP. In addition,
uncertainties associated with variability in construction quality, mate-
rial strength, failure modes and other factors influencing the extent of
damage to a component are considered in damage analysis. Note that,
the uncertainties are solely related to the onset of damage as a function
of EDP, and is independent of uncertainty associated with the IM or the
(1a) prediction of EDP [25].

𝜎ln(EDP)|IM = 𝛽1 (IM)𝛽2 + 𝛽3 (1b) 3.4.1. Drywall partition and test setup

where 𝜇EDP|IM is the mean of the EDP for a given IM, 𝜎ln(EDP)|IM is the
lognormal standard deviation of EDP given IM, and 𝛼1 , 𝛼2 , 𝛽1 , 𝛽2 and 𝛽3
are calculated factors according to the regression analysis. The 𝜇EDP|IM
starts from zero, hence, it is fitted with one term power equation.
However, the standard deviation is a measure of dispersion, hence, it
is fitted with two terms power equation. Fig. 5 shows the results of the
IDA analysis and the results of regression analysis by the fitted curves
for the mean and logarithmic standard deviation.
3.4. Seismic damage analysis
The damage analysis translates the EDP to the corresponding physi-
cal damage states (DSs) in drywall partitions. Therefore, a bidirectional
The experimental test was carried out on the Smart Structural
Laboratory at Swinburne University of Technology. Test setup details
was designed to apply displacement-controlled bidirectional cyclic load
to two 3D large-scale assemblies of drywall partitions with suspended
ceiling system. The drywall partition walls were made of light-weight
cold-formed steel framing (typically composed of studs and tracks) and
sheathed by plasterboards. This assembly is considerably popular in
the construction of internal walls of buildings in Australia and around
the world. Typically, the installation procedure of the drywall partition
includes the assembly of the cold-formed steel framing, fixing the
plasterboards to the studs, sealing the joints between the boards using
joint compound, and finally assembly of the suspended ceiling system.
The specimens are then fixed to the MAST crosshead from the top and

5
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
Fig. 5. The results of IDA and curve fitting to obtain the mean and logarithmic standard deviation of the EDP as a function of IM in continuous form: (a) IDA results for case
study building; (b) one term power function for mean value; (c) two term power function for logarithmic standard deviation.
Fig. 6. Steel frame general layout and the used stud and track profiles.
secured to the strong floor from the base using plywood boards and all
thread rods.
For the first test specimen, named Specimen-1, a full-scale room
with screw only fixing method was constructed under the MAST system
following the general construction details shown in Fig. 1. The test
specimen approximately occupies a 2.5 m square room surrounded
by 120 mm thick and 3.0 m high drywalls and 2.4 m high ceiling.
Fig. 6 shows the general layout of the steel frame in drywall and the
cold-formed steel stud and track sections that used in construction of
the two test specimens. In Specimen-1, the stud profile 92 mm (BMT
0.55 mm) appropriate to the wall height was selected. Then, standard
track 92 × 30 mm (BMT 0.50 mm) profile matching the size and gauge
of the stud was chosen as the base and head track. All sections were
selected from standard corrosion resistance products made from G300
steel (minimum yield strength of 300 MPa).
During the installation procedure of Specimen-1, the studs were
inserted into the fixed standard base and head tracks with 600 mm
spacing from centers and 100 mm spacing form each end. It is recom-
mended to face studs in the same direction to allow easier fastening of
plasterboard. A twisting action was then used to friction fit the studs
into the tracks. Then, the studs were braced to the plasterboards on
each face by using coarse threaded drywall screws. The used lining
product was 13 mm thick standard plasterboard made from a core of
6
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
gypsum laid between two layers of heavy-duty recycled paper. The
suspended ceiling system with more than 600 mm suspension depth
was hung from the top frame by a number of vertical steel rods. The
details of the suspended ceiling are shown in Fig. 7. The steel rods were
cut to the required length to slide into the hanger clip tabs. The system
was supported to the surrounding walls using fixed wall track around
the perimeter of the ceiling and walls. It is worth noting that, for both
test specimens, ceiling framing connection to the walls was screw fixed
on two sides and the other two adjacent sides were able to move freely.
Fig. 8 shows Specimen-1 including an assembly of drywall partitions
and a suspended ceiling system that was built for testing under the
MAST system. The assembly was finished with joint compound and
50 mm paper tape for both the plasterboard joints and the corners
between the walls. It is noted that in this type of assembly, the studs
were free to slide through the tracks, while the plasterboards were fixed
to the studs. Therefore, the assembly of plasterboards and studs can
slide through the tracks that are fixed to the flooring system (top and
base plywoods).
For the second test specimen (Specimen-2), the following changes
were made in comparison to Specimen-1 according to the recommen-
dations explained before to mitigate the creaking noise (see Fig. 2):
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303

Fig. 7. Configuration of the suspended ceiling with two sides screw fixed and two sides floating for both test specimens.

Fig. 8. Assembly of test setup (Specimen-1) under the MAST system.

– The adhesive fixing method for securing the plasterboard to the
metal framing was used to reduce the number of mechanical
fixings.
– The DH track 92 × 50 mm (BMT 0.55 mm) (Fig. 6) was used
instead of standard track for the head track. The DH track is a
50 mm deep profile that provide 20 mm clearance to stud and
plasterboard as shown in Fig. 2 joint details. Therefore, the studs
must be cut 20 mm shorter of the supporting structure because
this allows for the structure to deflect downwards and there is no
interaction between the sliding stud and the track.
3.4.2. Loading protocol
Accurate damage assessment of structural and non-structural com-
ponents using experimental tests requires seismic-consistent loading
protocols that represent the asymmetric lateral drift demands on the
structure during sequential ground motions [23]. This is important
as the damage evolution is path-dependent and is a function of the
history of loading on the component. A few studies have focused on
developing these load protocols for structural components in multi-
story buildings, e.g. steel columns [26]. However, there is currently a
lack of such loading protocols for non-structural components. Hence, in
the absence of the shake tables, the conventional symmetric cyclic load
protocols are commonly used for seismic assessments. The application
of symmetric cyclic displacements with increasing amplitudes may lead
to overestimation of the damage, and therefore, can be considered as a
conservative approach.
In this study, for the suitability of biaxial testing, the cyclic bidirec-
tional cloverleaf path which included the simultaneous function of two

7
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
Fig. 9. Cloverleaf cyclic loading protocol.
Fig. 10. Observed residual displacement, crack propagation, and gap opening around the opening of Specimen-1.
sine waves in X and Y perpendicular directions, was considered [27].
The test specimens were subjected to the cloverleaf cyclic loading
protocol with the ultimate drift of 3.0% over the specimen wall height
of 3.0 m (see Fig. 9). To collect data on the damages during the full
range of response, 9 sequential increasing levels were applied with
two cycles at each amplitude. Note that the direction along which the
specimen is subjected to the maximum lateral displacement is in 45◦
diagonal direction. At the end of each loading stage, the MAST system
was returned to the center and the residual physical damages observed
from the test specimen were traced and documented.
3.4.3. Experimental results
This section describes the observed damages to each of the test
specimens, which progressively included drop of gypsum dust, resid-
ual deformations, detached areas between walls and ceiling, crack
propagation, crushing and separation of the plasterboards, cracking
of joints and buckling of the steel studs and tracks. During the tests,
both test specimens experienced no observable damage under the drifts
below 1.0%, which was mainly due to the sliding of the studs through
the top tracks. Local damage and propagation of crack through the
plasterboards were initiated when the small gaps at the intersection
of the wall joints were closed during the stage of testing with 1.0%
peak drift. This caused contact and friction between the studs, tracks,
and plasterboards at the top and the base joints of the walls. After
completion of this drift ratio, most of the defects were delamination
8
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
and cracks on internal and external corners and a physical gap between
the ceiling and walls.
Pushing the specimens to the next cycle with 1.5% drift, it was
observed that all previously developed damages, including cracking,
gap openings and delamination were further extended. In Specimen-1,
the crack propagation started at 1.0% drift and developed through the
boards during the next stage of the testing with 1.5% peak drift. How-
ever, for Specimen-2 the damage was different, and the plasterboards
and studs started to separate at some locations close to the top due to
the failure of the adhesive.
Once this stage was completed for each test specimen, the wall
assembly was carefully inspected to identify residual damages. This
procedure was repeated for the larger intensity levels with the peak
drifts of 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0% to further collect the data on propagation
of the damages and possible modes of failure in both specimens.
Figs. 10 and 11 present the observed residual displacements, crack
propagations, and the gap openings located at the wall corner close
to the door opening of Specimen-1 with screw fixing and Specimen-
2 with adhesive fixing, respectively. These figures show the damages
corresponding to the last four stages of testing with 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and
3.0% peak drifts. It can be observed that the damages are increased
as larger drifts are applied to the specimens. Specimen-1 with screw
fixing observed minor damages around the door opening and most of
the damages concentrated around the opening header. In Specimen-2
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
Fig. 11. Observed residual displacement, adhesive failure, and gap opening around the opening of Specimen-2.
Fig. 12. Observed damages at the top and base of the junction of the walls without openings in Specimen-1.
with the adhesive fixing, the damaged parts were mostly in top corner
and the plasterboards detached form the studs due to adhesive failure.
Figs. 12 and 13 present the crack propagation, gap opening between
walls, and crushing of the outer plasterboards observed at the junction
of the walls without opening in both tested specimens. These figures
show the damages corresponding to the last four stages of testing
with 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0% peak drifts. It should be pointed out that
the damage was concentrated at the top corner of Specimen-2 with
adhesive fixing, while the top and bottom corners of Specimen-1 with
screw fixing suffered relatively major damages. Also, the plasterboards
were partially dislodged following screw head pull-through failure,
observed at the top and the base corners of the external walls of
Specimen -1.
The other locations of the tested specimens also suffered damages
similar to those shown in the previous figures. The multi-axis testing
of each specimen was conducted for each cycle without the repair
or changing of the damaged parts after each stage of the testing.
Therefore, the observed damage of the specimen at each stage was
accumulated damage. After finishing the experiments, all the damages
and failures for both damaged specimens were inspected and docu-
mented. Figs. 14 and 15 show the generated damages to Specimen-1
9
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
and Specimen-2 after completion of the tests, respectively. The ob-
served damages in both specimens include screw pull-out, adhesive fail-
ure, fully detached plasterboard, plasterboard crushing around open-
ing, large gap at wall junctions, dislodgement of the stud, buckling
of the steel studs and tracks, and delamination of the walls and tapes
inside the room. As shown in these figures, the types of damages in
Specimen-1 were more than the Specimen-2 and the difference was
due to the screw fixing, which caused more resistant and therefore,
transferred more forces to the framing and plasterboards. However, in
Specimen-2, more severe damages like larger gap and full detachment
of plasterboard occurred at the end of the test.
For Specimen-1 with screw fixing, most of plasterboard edges were
severely crushed and broken around screws located at the wall inter-
sections, while most of plasterboards in Specimen-2 (adhesive fixing)
were completely detached from the stud and no local damages observed
except around the door opening. The studs were buckled and dislodged
in Specimen-1, and minor damage was found on base tracks. However,
the stud dislodgement was the most common type of damage in the
framing of the Specimen-2 in addition of some minor deformation in
base tracks similar to Specimen-1. The reason that less buckling damage
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
Fig. 13. Observed damages at the top and base of the junction of the walls without openings in Specimen-2.
Fig. 14. Damaged parts at the end of the 3.0% drift in Specimen-1.
happened in framing of Specimen-2 was using the DH track that provide
20 mm clearance to stud and plasterboard.
Fig. 16 shows the ceiling residual deformation and displaced ceiling
channels at the end of the experiments that was similar for both tested
specimens. As the same ceiling construction detailing was used for
both tested specimens, it can be observed that the type of fixing of
plasterboards in drywalls has less effect in damage assessment of the
ceiling. In both specimens, the dislodged ceiling was still maintained
its vertical position and no noticeable damage was observed.
3.4.4. Development of fragility and vulnerability curves
Damage assessment is a key component to develop vulnerability
curves for drywall partitions according to the PBEE methodology. The
number of defined DSs should be at a range that cover the possible
damages at each different level of EDP. In this study, three levels of
DSs are characterized based on the observed damaged parts of the
tested specimens at each drift level of the applied sequential cyclic
loads. The damage states are defined such that they can be linked
to the repair actions that are needed to recover the partition walls
to pre-earthquake conditions. Taghavi and Miranda [28] previously
defined three DSs for the drywall partitions. According to this study, the
first damage state (DS1 ) is indicated by minor damage, which involves
10
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
insignificant damage to walls that requires minimum repair actions like
patching, re-taping, polishing, and painting. The next defined damage
state (DS2 ) is moderate damage illustrated by the local damage of the
plasterboards or studs and tracks, that requires repair or removal and
replacement of few elements. Third damage state, (DS3 ) is the major
damage that consists of extensive damage to plasterboards, stud to
board connections, and buckling of steel studs and tracks. With this
level of damage replacement of the part or whole drywall assembly is
required [29].
Table 2 summarizes the observed damages and the range of drift
threshold values related to each pre-defined damage state and the
required repair activities for each state of the damaged test specimens.
The associated drift to each damage state is similar between Specimen-1
and Specimen-2 according to the same level of repair activities needed
for each categorized damage in terms of material, labor, and time.
The tested specimens sustained the story drifts up to 1.0% with a few
damaged areas. In Specimen-1, first damage states (DS1 ) initiated when
the plasterboard dust dropped, and consequently, delamination and a
fine visible crack appeared around the opening and the corners at the
testing cycle with 1.0% peak drift. DS1 in Specimen-2 occurred when
a small gap appeared at the wall junctions and plasterboard edges due
to partially failure of the adhesive and movement of the plasterboards.
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303

Table 2
Definition of damage states and story drifts associated with each damage state.
Damage state Description of observed damage Description of observed damage Repair activity to recover the EDP (Max IDR)
(Specimen-1) (Specimen-2) wall
𝐷𝑆 0 No damage No observed damage No observed damage No repair <1.0%
𝐷𝑆 1 Minor damage Dust dropped, delamination and Appearing a small gap in wall junctions patching, re-taping, sanding, 1.0% < 1.5%
appearing a fine visible crack and painting the plasterboards
𝐷𝑆 2 Moderate Plasterboards cracked and crushed, Steel Adhesive failure, Plasterboards repair or replacement of few 1.5% < 2.5
damage studs and tracks separation, Stud detachment, Steel studs rotation and elements
dislodgement separation from track
𝐷𝑆 3 Major damage Severe cracking and crushing, Steel Severe cracking and crushing, Steel replacement of the part or 2.5%<
studs and tracks buckling, Large gap and studs and track residual deformation, entire wall assembly
residual deformation at base corners Large gap at top corners, Full
plasterboard detachment and fallout,

Fig. 15. Damaged parts at the end of the 3.0% drift in Specimen-2.

The next defined damage state, (DS2 ), occurred at the stage with
1.5% peak drift when the plasterboards were cracked, crushed at the
intersection of the wall with the other neighboring walls in Specimen-
1. The observed damages for Specimen-2 in DS2 were including the
adhesive failure that caused partial detachment of the plasterboard
from stud, and also, larger gaps were appeared due to stud rotation and
dislodgement at wall corners. At this stage, for both specimens, there
was residual displacement and small separation between the ceiling
and walls as well as the steel stud and track connections at the wall
intersections.
The third damage state, (DS3 ), was observed at the stage with 2.5%
to 3.0% peak drift when the plasterboards severely cracked, crushed or
detached, and the steel studs buckled in multiple locations leading to
extensive damage of the partition system. The observed damages and

11
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303

Fig. 16. Damaged parts at the end of the 3.0% drift in ceiling.

Fig. 17. The defined damage states (a) fragility curves and (b) vulnerability curves.

the three defined damage states showed that the screw and adhesive state for a given EDP as expressed in Eq. (2).
fixing methods are both in same level of repair activities. Therefore,
⎧1 − F DS0 (no damage)
DS1 (EDP)
the proposed construction method with adhesive fixing to mitigate the ⎪
creaking noise in drywall system, has an acceptable seismic behavior ⎪FDS1 (EDP) − FDS2 (EDP) DS1 (minor damage)
PDS|EDP =⎨ (3)
similar to the screw fixing construction method. ⎪FDS2 (EDP) − FDS3 (EDP) DS2 (moderate damage)
Based on the defined DSs, fragility curves were developed to con- ⎪F DS3 (major damage)
⎩ DS3 (EDP)
sider a range of uncertainties that are solely related to the onset
of physical damage for a given EDP (i.e. drift). Examples of these In this equation, FDS is the fragility curve of EDP and PDS|EDP is
uncertainties include variability in the history of the damage because the probability of exceeding a damage state but not exceeding the
of the specified load protocol, construction quality, material strength subsequent damage state given an EDP. Note that the summation of
the probabilities of being in a given damage state is 1.
and expected failure modes. Accordingly, a lognormal distribution was
The computed probabilities were further integrated with the dis-
assumed for EDP corresponding to three damage states with a mean
tribution of EDPs given IM to compute the probability of being in a
value of 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2.5% drifts and a dispersion (logarithmic
post-event damage state given IM as expressed in Eq. (3).
standard deviation) value of 0.35 adopted based on the recommended
values in ATC-58 [30] for a combination of ductile (steel studs) and ∑ ∞
PDS|IM = PDS|EDP fEDP|IM dEDP (4)
brittle (plasterboards) materials. The lognormal cumulative distribution ∫0
DS
function were then used to define the fragility functions:
In this equation, PDS|IM presents the vulnerability of partition walls
( )
⎛ 𝐸𝐷𝑃 ⎞ defined as the probability of being in a damage state given IM, and
⎜ ln 𝜃 ⎟ fEDP|IM is the probability density function of EDP given IM. Fig. 17(b)
FDS (EDP) = 𝛷 ⎜ ⎟ (2)
⎜ 𝛽 ⎟ presents the vulnerability curves for all damage states that shows the IM
⎝ ⎠ values primary contributing to the exceeding a specific damage state.
where FDS (EDP) is the probability of exceeding a damage state given an As can be observed, there are no damages (DS0 ) up until IM of
EDP, 𝛷 is the standard normal cumulative distribution function (CDF), 0.10 g, which is when the probability of DS1 and DS2 starts to increase.
𝜃 is the median of the fragility function and 𝛽 is the standard deviation. The probability of DS1 peaks at 36% for an IM of 0.16 g, while
Fig. 17(a) presents the developed fragility curves, which is then used the probability of DS2 peaks at 42% for an IM of 0.24 g. Lastly,
to calculate the probability of partition walls being in a certain damage the probability of DS3 rapidly increases beyond an IM of 0.30 g and

12
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
Table 3
IDR ranges corresponding to different damage states obtained from selected past
experimental studies [31].
Authors DS1 DS2 DS3
IDR range IDR range IDR range
(%) (%) (%)
Pali et al. [31] 0.06–3.12 0.50–2.84 0.69-4.30
Restrepo and Bersofsky [32] 0.05–1.00 0.50–1.50 0.50-3.00
Retamales et al. [11] 0.10–0.56 0.40–1.84 0.62-2.66
Petrone et al. [12] 0.11–0.78 0.28–2.14 0.66-5.00
Jenkins et al. [15] 0.26–2.64 0.97–2.64 1.86-2.64
Wang et al. [33] – 0.11–1.09 1.24-2.75
peaks at 77% for an IM of 0.53 g. Note that all the computations are
conditioned on no occurrence of collapse of the building.
3.4.5. Comparison with previous experimental work
Several experimental studies have conducted fragility analysis re-
porting the IDR ranges corresponding to different damage states of
drywall partitions [11,12,15,31–33]. In these studies, a number of
large-scale drywall partitions with different configurations were tested
to evaluate the seismic response, failure mechanism and fragility of
these components considering various uncertainties. Table 3 shows the
range of IDRs corresponding to the three previously defined damage
states. The comparison highlights that the IDR ranges identified in the
current research (refer to Table 2) are withing the reported ranges by
the previous studies.
In particular, Pali et al. [31] investigated the in-plane seismic
behavior of drywall partitions with different construction details un-
der a quasi-static cyclic load protocol. In these experiments, different
construction parameters including connection of the wall to the sur-
rounding elements, stud spacing, type of plasterboard linings and joint
finishing were considered. From these experiments, the specimens with
horizontal fixed connections to the surrounding elements (#9 and #10)
were closely similar to the room-assembly tested in current study in
terms of the detailing. The obtained results for these specimens show
median values of 0.79%, 1.18%, and 1.44% for DS1 , DS2 , and DS3 ,
respectively, that are slightly lower than the values obtained in the
current study, which are 1.0%, 1.50%, and 2.50% for DS1 , DS2 , and
DS3 , respectively. The difference could be attributed to the effect of out-
of-plane movements under bidirectional clover leaf cyclic loading that
could induce more damage to the drywall as opposed to pure in-plane
loading configuration.
The abovementioned results can be further used to assess the risk
of failure and propose new approaches for minimizing the damage and
improve the resilience of drywall partitions during a seismic event. This
study can also be extended to quantity the losses associated to the sus-
tainability metrics of repair activities such as the cost (economic), time
(social) and energy consumption and carbon emissions (environmental)
as described in detail in [34].
4. Conclusion
The primary aim of this study was to perform seismic vulnerability
assessment of non-structural drywall partitions, constructed with screw
and adhesive fixing method, using the PBEE methodology. In this
framework, a prototype limited-ductility RC building was numerically
modeled and calibrated based on previous experimental results. IDA
was then conducted on 3D model of the building by applying two
components of 22 ground motion records that were scaled to incremen-
tally increasing IM levels to collapse. For the damage assessment, two
large-scale room specimens with screw fixing as a common construction
method, and adhesive fixing with the application of mitigating the
creaking noise under serviceability wind loads, were constructed and
experimentally tested. Bidirectional cloverleaf loading protocols were
applied to the specimens in 9 sequential levels with increasing the
13
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
peak drift to ultimate value of 3.0%. The experiments showed that
the assembled drywall systems experienced minor damage up to 1.0%
story drift ratio. The initial damage was observed at drift ratios above
1.0% and increased considerably at the 1.5% drift. The experiment was
continued and the observed damaged parts at the end of cycle with
2.5% and 3.0% peak drifts were recorded. The first damage stage, DS1 ,
initiated when the plasterboard dust dropped and consequently a fine
visible crack appeared in the specimen (1.0–1.5% drift). The second
damage state, DS2 , was observed when the plasterboards cracked,
crushed and detached (1.5–2.0% drift). The third damage state, DS3 ,
was observed when the plasterboards started to severely crack, crush,
and fully separate from the framing, and also the steel studs and tracks
started to buckle (2.5% < drift). The observed damages showed that
the proposed construction method with adhesive fixing to mitigate the
creaking noise in drywall system, has an acceptable seismic behavior
similar to the screw fixing construction method. The data from the
numerical model of the building and the results of the experiments
were then used to develop vulnerability curves to demonstrate the
probability of being in a post-event damage state given IMs. The results
showed that the onset of damage occurred at around 1.0% story drift
ratio. In addition, the DS1 , DS2 and DS3 reached to the peak at IMs of
0.16 g, 0.24 g and 0.53 g, respectively. The demonstrated framework
can be used to define acceptance criteria for drywall partitions that
can be used for provision of design, construction and maintenance
guidelines for designers and manufactures. They can also be used to
involve the stakeholders in risk-informed decisions and post-hazard
strategic planning.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hamidreza A. Yazdi: Writing – original draft, Methodology, In-
vestigation, Conceptualization. Javad Hashemi: Writing – review &
editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Software,
Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding
acquisition, Data curation, Conceptualization. Emad Gad: Writing –
review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Investigation,
Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Siniat (Etex Australia
Pty Ltd) in conducting the experimental program by providing the
plasterboard and metal framing and the structural engineers Alireza
Bataghva and Pourya Pazandeh for their technical support. Also, the
authors thank the Smart Structure Laboratory staff for their assistant
with the experiments.
References
[1] R. Whitman, S. Hong, J. Reed, Damage Statistic for High-Rise Buildings in
the Vicinity of the San Fernando Earthquake. Optimum Seismic Protection and
Building Damage Statistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, 1973b.
[2] S. Taghavi, M.M. Miranda, Response Assessment of Nonstructural Building
Elements, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center., 2003b.
[3] A.S. Tasligedik, S. Pampanin, A. Palermo, Low damage seismic solutions for
non-structural drywall partitions, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13 (4) (2015) 1029–1050.
[4] D. Perrone, P. Calvi, R. Nascimbene, et al., Seismic performance of non-structural
elements during the 2016 central Italy earthquake, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 17 (10)
(2019) 5655–5677.
[5] R. Whitman, S. Hong, J. Reed, Damage Statistic for High-Rise Buildings in
the Vicinity of the San Fernando Earthquake. Optimum Seismic Protection and
Building Damage Statistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, 1973a.
H.A. Yazdi, J. Hashemi and E. Gad
[6] H.-J. Kim, D.-H. Shin, Shake table test program of cold-formed steel in-plane
partition walls, Structures (2021) 503–517.
[7] F.A. Arifin, T.J. Sullivan, G. MacRae, et al., Lessons for loss assessment from the
canterbury earthquakes: a 22-storey building, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19 (5) (2021)
2081–2104.
[8] K.M. McMullin, D. Merrick, Seismic Performance of Gypsum Walls: Experi-
mental Test Program, Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake
Engineering, 2002.
[9] T.H. Lee, M. Kato, T. Matsumiya, et al., Seismic performance evaluation of non-
structural components: drywall partitions, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 36 (3)
(2007) 367–382.
[10] C. Ramirez, E. Miranda, Buildingspecific Loss Estimation Methods and Tools
for Simplified Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Report (171) Ph.D.
Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University,
United State, 2009, Ph. D. Dissertation, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Stanford..
[11] R. Retamales, R. Davies, G. Mosqueda, et al., Experimental seismic fragility of
cold-formed steel framed gypsum partition walls, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (8) (2013)
1285–1293.
[12] C. Petrone, G. Magliulo, P. Lopez, et al., Seismic fragility of plasterboard
partitions via in-plane quasi-static tests, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 44 (14)
(2015) 2589–2606.
[13] S. Swensen, G. Deierlein, E. Miranda, Behavior of screw and adhesive connections
to gypsum wallboard in wood and cold-formed steel-framed wallettes, J. Struct.
Eng. 142 (4) (2015) E4015002.
[14] J. Ye, X. Wang, H. Jia, et al., Cyclic performance of cold-formed steel shear
walls sheathed with double-layer wallboards on both sides, Thin-Walled Struct.
92 (2015) 146–159.
[15] C. Jenkins, S. Soroushian, E. Rahmanishamsi, et al., Experimental fragility
analysis of cold-formed steel-framed partition wall systems, Thin-Walled Struct.
103 (2016) 115–127.
[16] L. Fiorino, T. Pali, R. Landolfo, Out-of-plane seismic design by testing of non-
structural lightweight steel drywall partition walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 130
(2018) 213–230.
[17] G. Araya-Letelier, E. Miranda, G. Deierlein, Development and testing of a fric-
tion/sliding connection to improve the seismic performance of gypsum partition
walls, Earthq. Spectra 35 (2) (2019) 653–677.
[18] L. Fiorino, B. Bucciero, R. Landolfo, Evaluation of seismic dynamic behaviour of
drywall partitions, façades and ceilings through shake table testing, Eng. Struct.
180 (2019) 103–123.
[19] H. Hasani, K.L. Ryan, Experimental cyclic test of reduced damage detailed
drywall partition walls integrated with a timber rocking wall, J. Earthq. Eng.
(2021) 1–21.
14
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109303
[20] H.A. Yazdi, A. Bataghva, P. Pazandeh, et al., Wind-induced creaking noise
assessment of a large-scale assembly of drywam system using multi-axis testing,
Aust. Struct. Eng. Conf. (2020: Online) 23 (2020) 2–239.
[21] M.J. Hashemi, R. Al-Mahaidi, R. Kalfat, et al., Development and validation of
multi-axis substructure testing system for full-scale experiments, Aust. J. Struct.
Eng. 16 (4) (2015) 302–315.
[22] F. McKenna, Opensees: A framework for earthquake engineering simulation,
Comput. Sci. Eng. 13 (4) (2011) 58–66.
[23] M. Hashemi, H. Tsang, Y. Al-Ogaidi, et al., Collapse assessment of reinforced
concrete building columns through multi-axis hybrid simulation, ACI Struct. J.
114 (2) (2017) 437–449.
[24] Applied Technology Council and Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Quantification of building seismic performance factors, 2009, Reportno. Report
Number|, Date. Place Published| : Institution|.
[25] H.A. Yazdi, M.J. Hashemi, R. Al-Mahaidi, et al., Multi-axis testing of concrete-
filled steel tube columns forming ductile soft-story in multi-story buildings, J.
Construct. Steel Res. 183 (2021) 106736.
[26] Y. Suzuki, D.G. Lignos, Development of collapse-consistent loading protocols for
experimental testing of steel columns, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 49 (2) (2020)
114–131.
[27] CEN CEdNT, 340, European Code UNI EN 15129: 2009 anti-seismic devices.
Brussels, 2009.
[28] S. Taghavi, E. Miranda, Response Assessment of Nonstructural Building Elements,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2003a.
[29] G. Araya-Letelier, E. Miranda, Novel sliding/frictional connections for improved
seismic performance of gypsum wallboard partitions, in: 15th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, 2012.
[30] P. Fema, 58-1 (2012) seismic performance assessment of buildings (volume
1-methodology), 2012, Reportno. Report Number|, Date. Place Published| :
Institution|.
[31] T. Pali, V. Macillo, M.T. Terracciano, et al., In-plane quasi-static cyclic tests
of nonstructural lightweight steel drywall partitions for seismic performance
evaluation, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 47 (6) (2018) 1566–1588.
[32] J.I. Restrepo, A.M. Bersofsky, Performance characteristics of light gage steel stud
partition walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (2) (2011) 317–324.
[33] X. Wang, E. Pantoli, T. Hutchinson, et al., Seismic performance of cold-formed
steel wall systems in a full-scale building, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (10) (2015)
04015014.
[34] M.J. Hashemi, A.Y. Al-Attraqchi, R. Kalfat, et al., Linking seismic resilience
into sustainability assessment of limited-ductility RC buildings, Eng. Struct. 188
(2019) 121–136.