236

Development of seismic force modification

factors for cold-formed steel strap braced walls
G. Comeau, K. Velchev, and C.A. Rogers

Abstract: Seismic force modification factors to be used in conjunction with the National building code of Canada are rec-
ommended for two cold-formed steel (CFS) concentrically braced frame categories; limited ductility (LD) (Rd = 2.0, Ro =
1.3, height limit 20 m) and conventional construction (CC) (Rd = 1.25, Ro = 1.3, height limit 15 m, not permitted in high
seismic zones). Nonlinear time history dynamic analyses of multi-storey CFS framed structures were carried out following
an approach adopted from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P695 on the quantification of building
seismic performance factors. Input earthquake records (both synthetic and recorded) were scaled to the site specific uni-
form hazard spectra for Vancouver, Calgary, Quebec City, and Halifax. The calculated inelastic storey drifts and the fail-
ure probabilities from the FEMA P695 incremental dynamic analysis procedure showed that the Canadian seismic design
procedures for type LD and CC strap braced walls in the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) S213 North American
CFS lateral design standard are acceptable for the multi-storey buildings that were analysed.
Key words: cold-formed steel, braced wall, building, seismic, force modification factor, dynamic analysis.
Resume : Des facteurs de modification de la force sismique a etre jumeles au Code national du batiment du Canada sont
recommandes pour deux categories de charpentes contreventees de maniere concentrique par de lacier plie a froid
( CFS ) : une ductilite limitee ( LD ) (Rd = 2,0, Ro = 1,3, hauteur limite 20 m) et une construction conventionnelle
( CC ) (Rd = 1,25, Ro = 1,3, hauteur limite 15 m, interdite dans les zones a haut e sismicite). Des analyses dynamiques
non lineaires de lhistorique temporel des charpentes CFS a plusieurs etages ont ete realisees en suivant une approche
adoptee de FEMA P695 sur la quantification des facteurs de comportement sismique des batiments. Les donnees sismiques
entrees (synthetiques et enregistrees) ont ete mises a lechelle par rapport aux spectres de risque uniforme specifiques au
site pour Vancouver, Calgary, Quebec et Halifax. Les deplacements inelastiques calcules des etages et les probabilites de
defaillance tirees de la procedure FEMA P695 danalyse dynamique incrementielle ont montre que les procedures de cal-
cul sismique canadiennes, pour les murs de type LD et CC contreventes par des courroies, comprises dans la norme nord-
americaine AISI S213 de calcul de conception lateral CFS sont acceptables pour les batiments a niveaux multiples qui ont
ete analyses.
Mots-cles : acier plie a froid, mur contrevente, batiment, sismique, facteur de modification de force, analyse dynamique.
[Traduit par la Redaction]

Introduction
The National building code of Canada (NBCC) (NRCC
2005) specifies a seismic hazard with a probability of ex-
ceedance of 2% in 50 years to provide a uniform margin
against structural collapse across the country (Heidebrecht
2003). The NBCC also contains additional seismic design
information, such as force modification factors and height
limits, for masonry, wood, steel, and reinforced concrete lat-
eral framing systems. To further address the potential for
collapse design standards, such as Canadian Standards Asso-
Received 30 March 2009. Revision accepted 29 September
2009. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
cjce.nrc.ca on 4 February 2010.
G. Comeau, K. Velchev, and C.A. Rogers.1 Department of
Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Macdonald Engineering Building, 817 Sherbrooke Street West,
Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 30 June 2010.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: colin.rogers@mcgill.ca).
ciation (CSA) S16 (CSA 2009) for steel structures, contain
seismic detailing and design provisions to ensure adequate
ductile performance of a buildings structure during an
earthquake. In contrast, the NBCC and the CSA S136 speci-
fication (CSA 2007) contain no provisions for the design of
seismic force resisting systems (SFRSs) constructed of cold-
formed steel (CFS) framing.
Engineers in Canada when presented with the challenge
of designing a CFS structure for seismic loads have little
guidance and would likely need to rely on design documents
from outside the country. The most recent North American
lateral design standard for CFS (AISI 2007) was updated to
include seismic force modification factors and height limits
for limited ductility (LD) and conventional construction
(CC) braced walls for use in Canada (Table 1); however,
the R-values were based on the results of single-storey wall
assembly tests (Al-Kharat and Rogers 2008) whereas height
limits were chosen using engineering judgement. To verify
the applicability of the strap braced seismic design informa-
tion listed in Table 1 and to justify inclusion of these values
in the NBCC it was necessary to carry out nonlinear dy-
namic time history analyses of multi-storey CFS framed
structures following an approach adopted from the Federal

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37: 236249 (2010) doi:10.1139/L09-153 Published by NRC Research Press
Comeau et al.
Table 1. R-values and height limits for braced cold-formed steel seismic force resisting systems in Canada.
Diagonal strap braced (concentric) walls Rd
Limited ductility braced wall a 2.0
Conventional construction b 1.25
Note: NP, Not permitted.
a
Seismic force resisting system specifically detailed for ductile seismic performance. Capacity-based design approach applied assuming the braces act as
the energy-dissipating element (American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) S213 (AISI 2007) Section C1.1).
b
Lateral system not specifically detailed for ductile seismic performance (AISI S213 (AISI 2007) Section C1.2).
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P695 (FEMA
2009) methodology on the quantification of building seismic
performance factors. The inelastic performance of limited
ductility braced frames was evaluated using earthquake re-
cords (both synthetic and recorded) scaled to the site spe-
cific uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) for Vancouver.
Similarly, CC strap braced frames were analysed using
ground motion records scaled to the UHS for Calgary, Hali-
fax, Quebec City, and Vancouver. Inelastic storey drifts and
the associated failure probabilities were then obtained using
the FEMA P695 incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) proce-
dure.
Background
The CFS strap braced walls rely on four main elements as
well as their connections to transfer lateral seismic loads
through a structure: diagonal flat strap braces, horizontal
tracks, vertical chord studs, and holddownanchor rod fix-
tures. Al-Kharat and Rogers (2007, 2008) were able to iden-
tify shortcomings in the design and detailing of these
elements, which have been addressed in the North American
lateral design standard for CFS framing of the American
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) (2007). Velchev et al. (2006,
2007) as well as Comeau and Rogers (2008) and Velchev
and Rogers (2008) describe a procedure for the design (ma-
terial, member, and connection selection) of LD walls such
that the ductility of the lateral system can be maximized.
A two-storey CFS framed strap braced structure was dy-
namically tested by Kim et al. (2006). It was concluded that
overall good behaviour of the strap braces can be expected
only if brace fracture caused by improper weld or screw
connections is prevented. AISI S213 was revised to contain
provisions to address the design of these brace connections.
Kim et al. (2007) matched their shake table test of a two-
storey CFS structure using dynamic analysis. It was noted
that a simple model which incorporates an inelastic truss
bar element to represent strap behaviour can be used to re-
produce overall wall performance. Both phases of the study
by Kim et al. (2006, 2007) were carried out in the context of
USA-based seismic design practice, and as such did not pro-
vide specific design recommendations for use in Canada.
Barton (1997) and Gad et al. (1999) completed dynamic
tests of a single-storey strap braced one room house, which
was designed for the low seismicity found in Australia. Dy-
namic analysis was used to derive a response modification
coefficient for seismic design; however, this study did not
address the impact of multiple storeys or the effect of the
much higher seismic risk in Canada. Pastor and Rodrguez-
237
Building height limitations (m)
IEFaSa (0.2) IEFvSa (1.0)
Ro <0.2 0.2 to <0.35 0.35 to 0.75 >0.75 >0.3
1.3 20 20 20 20 20
1.3 15 15 NP NP NP
Ferran (2005) developed a hysteretic model that can be used
for nonlinear dynamic analysis of braced walls. It was con-
cluded that accurate predictions of reversed cyclic behaviour
could be obtained using a hysteresis model that included an
initial stiffness, a post-yield stiffness (strain hardening), and
strap slackness after yielding. Multi-storey structures were
not modeled nor were any recommendations made as to R-
values and building height limits.
A procedure to determine test-based Rd and Ro values for
use with the NBCC was presented by Boudreault et al.
(2007) and used to evaluate the performance of individual
single-storey strap braced wall assemblies as described by
Velchev et al. (2010). The ductility-related seismic force
modification factor, Rd, was developed using the Newmark
and Hall (1982) period specific equation. The overstrength-
related seismic force modification factor, Ro, was found us-
ing the relevant components as detailed by Mitchell et al.
(2003). A major shortcoming with the test-based R-values is
that they do not account for the impact on strap braced wall
response of multiple storeys, pinched resistance versus de-
formation hysteretic behaviour, nor dynamic loading.
Although R-values from wall assembly tests were recom-
mended, a need still existed to validate specific seismic
force modification factors and height limits for use with the
NBCC by means of a procedure that could account for the
shortcomings noted above. Use of the FEMA P695 method-
ology provided an approach that incorporates multiple stor-
eys, wall hysteresis, and dynamic effects; as well, it
addresses the probability of failure due to seismic hazard.
FEMA P695 based R-factor and height limit
verification
The FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009) methodology to quantify
seismic response parameters and building system perform-
ance relies on nonlinear dynamic analyses, and incorporates
uncertainties in ground motion, modeling, design and test
data. The methodology makes use of the IDA approach
(Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) to determine collapse prob-
abilities and levels of safety for design level earthquakes. It
has been developed for use with the USA model building
codes; as such, it was necessary to modify some aspects of
the procedure to make it compatible with Canadian seismic
design philosophy.
The design procedure and structural performance require-
ments must initially be established such that the structure is
able to resist earthquake loading. The AISI S213 CFS lateral
design standard and the proposed seismic design parameters
(Table 1) were relied on for this stage. Knowledge of the
Published by NRC Research Press
238 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 1. 6SV-minbrace model; (a) elevation, (b) plan view.

(a) (b)
N S A B C D E
18140 12140
3140 1000 1860 6140
6 1
3050

3000
5 2

1140
3050

1860
4 4

1600
3050

18140
1470 1470
18910

3
6
3050

1600
2
8

1860
3050

1140
1
10
3660

3000
0 11
Dimensions in mm Dimensions in mm

Table 2. Short and long period spectral acceleration categories in 2005 National building code
of Canada and American Iron and Steel Institute S213.

City IEFaSa(0.2)a IEFvSa(1.0)a LD height limit CC height limit

Calgary, AB 0.15<0.2 0.041<0.3 20 m 15 m
Halifax, NS 0.20.23<0.35 0.069<0.3 20 m 15 m
Quebec, QC 0.350.59<0.75 0.14<0.3 20 m NP
Vancouver, BC 0.94>0.75 0.33>0.3 20 m NP
Note: NP, not permitted; LD, limited ductility; CC, conventional construction.
a
Site class C (Fa = 1.0 and Fv = 1.0), IE = 1.0.

structural system and its inelastic performance is desired,
e.g., inelastic resistance versus. deformation characteristics
obtained from laboratory testing or performance of real
buildings during an earthquake. Laboratory test programs
completed by Al-Kharat and Rogers (2007, 2008), Velchev
et al. (2010) and Kim et al. (2006) were utilized to provide
the necessary lateral performance information. Structural
configurations may then be selected and their design carried
out. These configurations will vary given the range of pa-
rameters that are to be examined. The dynamic analysis soft-
ware of choice is then used to develop nonlinear inelastic
models of each structure. The important characteristics of
structural behaviour, especially stiffness and inelastic behav-
iour, should be accounted for. Ground motion selection and
scaling is done using the recommended ground motion set
and hazard spectrum model period matching. In this case
ground motions representative of the hazard in Canada were
selected. Finally, performance evaluation of each model or
group of models under the same design criterion is carried
out. Collapse probability (fragility) curves are developed
and adjusted to account for modeling uncertainty. Tabulated
acceptable collapse probabilities are then compared with
analysis results to determine whether the approach taken in
design is acceptable, including the assumed R-values and
height limit.
Building selection and design
Cold-formed steel strap braced lateral load carrying sys-
tems were designed for multi-storey buildings located in
Calgary, Halifax, Quebec City, and Vancouver (Fig. 1; load-
ing in the eastwest direction). These cities were selected
because their short period (IEFaSa(0.2)) and long period
(IEFvSa(1.0)) spectral accelerations, adjusted for type C soil
conditions and normal importance, cover the range identi-
fied in Table 4.1.8.9 of the 2005 NBCC (NRCC 2005)
(Table 2). The buildings situated in Vancouver were de-
signed with both LD and CC strap braced frames, whereas
the buildings located in the other three cities were designed

Published by NRC Research Press

Comeau et al. 239

Table 3. Design parameters of building models.

Design No. of Height, Design base No. of braced NBCC Ta =

category Model name storeys hn (m) shear (kN) wall towers 0.025hn (s) NBCC 2Ta (s) T (s)
LD 6SV-minbrace 6 18.9 545.1 5 0.47 0.95 1.09
LD 6SV-2brace 6 18.9 545.1 5 0.47 0.95 1.04
LD 7SV-minbrace 7 22.0 561.7 6 0.55 1.10 1.22
LD 7SV-2brace 7 22.0 561.7 6 0.55 1.10 1.16
CC 2SV-minbrace 2 6.7 434.8 4 0.17 0.34 0.41
CC 2SQ-minbrace 2 6.7 235.6 3 0.17 0.34 0.53
CC 2SH-minbrace 2 6.7 84.8 2 0.17 0.34 0.74
CC 2SC-minbrace 2 6.7 51.5 2 0.17 0.34 0.85
CC 4SV-minbrace 4 12.8 787.8 7 0.32 0.64 0.56
CC 4SQ-minbrace 4 12.8 357.5 4 0.32 0.64 0.85
CC 4SH-minbrace 4 12.8 146.2 3 0.32 0.64 1.17
CC 4SC-minbrace 4 12.8 90.3 2 0.32 0.64 1.39
CC 5SV-minbrace 5 15.9 918.5 7 0.40 0.80 0.67
CC 5SQ-minbrace 5 15.9 370.3 4 0.40 0.80 1.03
CC 5SH-minbrace 5 15.9 154.6 3 0.40 0.80 1.39
CC 5SC-minbrace 5 15.9 100.7 2 0.40 0.80 1.69
Note: T, fundamental period as obtained from dynamic model.

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic of a six-storey shear wall tower, and layout of (b) shear model and (c) full bracechord stud model.
2.74m 2.74m
(a) (b) F6 (c) F6
EA = EA =
m6 m6 m6
2 2
3.05m K EA = EA =
K K
F5 K K F5
EA = EA =
m5 m5 m5
2 2
3.05m K EA = EA =
K K

F4 K K F4
EA = EA =
m4 m4 m4
2 2
3.05m K EA = EA =
K K
18.91m F3 K K F3
EA = EA =
m3 m3 m3
2 2
3.05m K EA = EA =
K K

F2 K K F2
EA = EA =
m2 m2 m2
2 2
3.05m K EA = EA =
K

F1 K K F1
EA = EA =
m1 m1 m1
2 2
3.66m K EA = EA =
K K
K K

using CC CFS frames. Six- and seven-storey structures were
chosen for the LD braced frames because they fall just be-
low and above the building height limit of 20 m, whereas
two-, four-, and five-storey buildings were designed with
CC braced frames (Table 3). The five-storey CC structures
have a height of 15.9 m, just above the 15 m limit.
The 2005 NBCC equivalent static force procedure, incor-
porating the R-values listed in Table 1 and the Canadian de-
sign provisions found in AISI S213, was used to determine
the design base seismic shear values, seismic force distribu-
tion over the height of each building, and the subsequent
brace dimensions. The fundamental lateral period, Ta, for
each building was first determined using the empirical equa-
tion for braced frames from the NBCC (NRCC 2005), Ta =

Published by NRC Research Press

240 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 3. Example of matched hysteretic behaviour between model and laboratory test result.
Net deflection (mm)
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
40

30

20
Wall resistance ( kN )
10

-10

-20

Experimental hysteresis
-30
Bilinear with slackness model

-40
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Rotation ( rad x 10-3 )

Fig. 4. Ground motion spectra scaled to site class C uniform hazard spectrum (UHS): (a) Calgary, (b) Halifax, (c) Quebec City, (d) Van-
couver.
(a) (b)
0.4 0.6
Spectral acceleration, S(g)
Spectral acceleration, S(g)

0.3
0.4

0.2

Calgary 0.2
Halifax
0.1 Design UHS Design UHS
Ground motions Ground motions

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period, T(s) Period, T(s)
(c) (d)
1.2
2.5
Spectral acceleration, S(g)

Spectral acceleration, S(g)

0.8
1.5

1 Vancouver
0.4 Quebec
Design UHS
Design UHS
Ground motions
Ground motions 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period, T(s) Period, T(s)

0.025 hn, where hn is the height of the structure. It was as- signed using the fundamental period of vibration obtained
sumed that 2Ta could be used to determine the equivalent from the software (Table 3). Rigid diaphragm action along
static seismic force as permitted by the building code. Ruau- with tension-only brace behaviour was assumed. The floor
moko (Carr 2000), which was utilized for the time history structure considered for the design of the modeled buildings
analyses, was then relied on to obtain the lateral period of comprised a concrete slab supported on CFS joists, hence a
each building to verify the 2Ta value. In two cases, it was rigid diaphragm. In contrast, a floor structure composed of
shown that 2Ta was too long; hence, the building was rede- CFS framing overlain with structural wood panels may be-

Published by NRC Research Press

Comeau et al. 241

Fig. 5. Inter-storey drift for UHS-scaled earthquakes (scaling factor = 1.0) for conventional construction design five-storey buildings:
(a) Calgary, (b) Halifax, (c) Quebec City, (d) Vancouver.
(a) (b)
5 5
Calgary, AB Halifax, NS
Mean Mean
Mean +1SD Mean +1SD
Ground motion Ground motion

4 4
Storey

Storey
3 3

2 2

1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Inter-storey drift (%hs) Inter-storey drift (%hs)

(c) (d)
5 5

4 4
Storey
Storey

Quebec, QC
Mean Vancouver, BC
3 Mean +1SD
3 Mean
Ground motion Mean +1SD
Ground motion

2 2

1 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Inter-storey drift (%hs) Inter-storey drift (%hs)

have as a flexural diaphragm, which would result in a distri-
bution of lateral forces based on simple beam spans between
the braced walls of the structure. Torsional loading effects
were taken as 10% of the seismic load at each storey assum-
ing a symmetrical shear wall layout. Notional loads equal to
0.5% of the design gravity load given the seismic load case
used (eq. [1]) were included in the base shear calculation.
Gravity loads were calculated and used in the models to in-
clude second order (P-D) effects. Inter-storey drift was
checked against a 2.5% inelastic drift limit for the LD walls,
while a 1% drift limit was applied for the CC walls based on
the observations made by Al-Kharat and Rogers (2007).
Wind loads were not considered in the design of the build-
ings.
1 1:0D 1:0E 0:5L 0:25S
where D, E, L and S represent the NBCC defined dead,
earthquake, live, and snow loads, respectively. Dead loads
were estimated to be 0.69 kPa at the roof, and 2.87 kPa at
floors (includes a concrete slab Hambro1 framing system
(Canam Group 2008)). The live load on floors was defined
as 1.9 kPa (residential occupancy). The snow load was de-
pendent on the building location: Vancouver, S = 1.64 kPa;
Quebec City, S = 3.48 kPa; Halifax, S = 2.12 kPa; Calgary,
S = 0.98 kPa.
Two brace selection criteria were used for the LD framing
systems; (i) braces were chosen using a minimum brace size
selection criterion (most economical in terms of weight of
steel), and (ii) braces were chosen using only two sizes over
the height of the building, with the change in brace size oc-
curring at the fourth or fifth storey for the six-or seven-
storey high buildings, respectively. The CC braced buildings
were designed using the minimum brace size approach; that
is, each brace over the height of the building was different

Published by NRC Research Press

242 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 6. Inter-storey drift for UHS-scaled earthquakes (scaling factor = 1.0) for limited ductility design six- and seven-storey buildings:
(a) 6SV-minbrace, (b) 6SV-2brace, (c) 7SV-minbrace, (d) 7SV-2brace.
(a) (b)
6 6

5 5

4 4

Storey
Storey

Vancouver, BC Vancouver, BC
3 (6SV-minbrace) 3 (6SV-2brace)
Mean Mean
Mean + 1 SD Mean + 1 SD
Ground motion Ground motion

2 2

1 1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Inter-storey drift (%hs) Inter-storey drift (%hs)
(c) (d)
7 7

6 6

5 5
Storey

Storey

4 4
Vancouver, BC Vancouver, BC
(7SV-minbrace) (7SV-2brace)
Mean Mean
3 Mean + 1 SD 3 Mean + 1 SD
Ground motion Ground motion

2 2

1 1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Inter-storey drift (%hs) Inter-storey drift (%hs)

because it was selected to carry the shear force at a particu-
lar storey. Stiffness irregularity was then checked according
to the 2005 NBCC; if the code requirements were not met
then the brace size was increased accordingly. All brace
widths were rounded up to the nearest 12.7 mm (1/2) to
provide for final brace sizes of consistent thickness and
common widths, simplifying construction. Braced walls
were 2.74 m in length, with a ground floor storey height of
3.66 m; all remaining storeys were 3.05 m in height. Design
parameters for each of the buildings are provided in Table 3.
A detailed description of the final design of each building
can be found in Comeau and Rogers (2008) and Velchev
and Rogers (2008). Model names are given in Table 3, e.g.,
6SV-minbrace refers to a six-storey building in Vancouver
designed using the minimum brace size approach. The in-
ter-storey drift was calculated based on the axial stiffness of
the strap braces alone. No adjustment was made in the stiff-
ness calculation to reflect the fact that lower stiffness values
were obtained during testing due to elongation of the hold-
downs and anchor rods (Velchev et al. 2010; Comeau and
Rogers 2008; Velchev and Rogers 2008). This was inten-
tionally done in keeping with the procedure that a typical
designer would follow. Note that the dynamic models de-
scribed below did, however, incorporate a reduced wall stiff-
ness from that used in design to accurately reflect what was
observed during testing. The building design was not con-
trolled by the inelastic inter-storey drift limit.
Hysteresis calibration and building models
Two-dimensional models of a braced wall tower from
each building were utilized for the nonlinear dynamic time
history analyses (Fig. 2a). A bilinear with slackness spring
element incorporated in Ruaumoko (Carr 2000) was relied
on to represent the inelastic lateral resistance versus defor-
mation behaviour of a single storey in the braced wall. Rep-
resentative spring elements were calibrated with the reversed
cyclic test data as presented by Velchev et al. (2010)
(Fig. 3). The wall configurations that were tested exhibited

Published by NRC Research Press

Comeau et al. 243

Fig. 7. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and fragility curves for five-storey buildings conventional construction design: (a) Calgary,
(b) Halifax, (c) Quebec City, (d) Vancouver.
(a)
6.0 1.0

5.0
0.8

Collapse probability
Scaling factor, SF

4.0
0.6
SCT=3.49 0.5
3.0

0.4

ACMR=SCT=3.49
2.0
Failure IDA
criterion Fragility Curve
SMT=1.0 Calgary, AB Calgary, AB
5 storey 0.2
1.0 5 storey
IDA curve Lognormal fit
Mean 0.05 Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
SMT=1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 2 4 6
(b)
6.0 1.0

5.0
0.8

Collapse probability
Scaling factor, SF

4.0
0.6
0.5
3.0
SCT=2.99
0.4

ACMR=SCT=2.99
2.0 Failure
criterion IDA Fragility Curve
Halifax, NS Halifax, NS
5 storey 0.2 5 storey
1.0
SMT=1.0 IDA curve Lognormal fit
0.07
Mean Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
SMT=1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 2 4 6
(c)
6.0 1.0
IDA
Quebec, QC
5.0 5 storey
IDA curve 0.8
Collapse probability

Mean
Scaling factor, SF

4.0 Failure
criterion
0.6
0.5
3.0
0.4
ACMR=SCT=1.74

2.0
0.23 Fragility Curve
SCT=1.74
Quebec, QC
0.2 5 storey
1.0
SMT=1.0 Lognormal fit
Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
SMT=1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 2 4 6
(d)
6.0 1.0
IDA
Vancouver, BC
5.0 5 storey
IDA curve 0.8
Collapse probability

Mean
Scaling factor, SF

4.0
Failure 0.6
criterion 0.5
3.0
0.4
0.4
ACMR=SCT=1.21

2.0
SCT=1.21 Fragility Curve
Vancouver, BC
1.0 0.2 5 storey
SMT=1.0 Lognormal fit
Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
SMT=1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 2 4 6
Peak storey drift (%hs) Scaling factor, SF

Published by NRC Research Press

244 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 8. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) analysis and fragility curves for six- and seven-storey buildings limited ductility design:
(a) 6SV-minbrace, (b) 6SV-2brace, (c) 7SV-minbrace, (d) 7SV-2brace.
(a)
6.0 1.0
IDA
Vancouver, BC
5.0 6SV-minbrace
IDA curve 0.8

Collapse probability
Mean
Scaling factor, SF

4.0
0.6
0.5
3.0
SCT=2.73
0.4
2.0

ACMR=3.41
Fragility Curve

SCT=2.73
Vancouver, BC
0.2 6SV-minbrace
1.0
Failure SMT=1.0 Lognormal fit
criterion 0.051 Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 SMT=1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
(b)
6.0 1.0
IDA
Vancouver, BC
5.0 6SV-2brace
IDA curve 0.8

Collapse probability
Mean
Scaling factor, SF

4.0
0.6
0.5
3.0

0.4
SCT=2.39
2.0

ACMR=2.99
Fragility Curve

SCT=2.39
Vancouver, BC
0.2 6SV-2brace
1.0
Failure SMT=1.0 Lognormal fit
criterion 0.072
Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 SMT=1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

(c)
6.0 1.0
IDA
Vancouver, BC
5.0 7SV-minbrace
IDA curve 0.8
Mean
Collapse probability
Scaling factor, SF

4.0
0.6
0.5
3.0

SCT=2.56 0.4
2.0
ACMR=3.32

Fragility Curve
SCT=2.56

Vancouver, BC
0.2 7SV-minbrace
1.0
Failure SMT=1.0 Lognormal fit
criterion 0.054 Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
SMT=1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

(d)
6.0 1.0
IDA
Vancouver, BC
5.0 7SV-2brace
IDA curve 0.8
Collapse probability

Mean
Scaling factor, SF

4.0
0.6
0.5
3.0
SCT=2.18 0.4
2.0
ACMR=2.84

Fragility Curve
SCT=2.18

Vancouver, BC
0.2 7SV-2brace
1.0
Failure SMT=1.0 Lognormal fit
0.082
criterion Adjusted curve
0.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 SMT=1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Peak storey drift (%h s) Scaling factor, SF

Published by NRC Research Press

Comeau et al. 245

Table 4. FEMA P695 parameters for determining conventional construction braced frame model acceptance.

Parameter Calgary, AB Halifax, NS Quebec City, QC Vancouver, BC

SCT (2-storey) 3.73 3.00 1.90 1.11
SCT (4-storey) 3.67 2.90 1.93 1.16
SCT (5-storey) 3.49 2.99 1.74 1.21
SMT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Ductility, m 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
SSF 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
bTOT 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
ACMR = SSFSCT/SMT (2-storey) 3.73>1.88 3.00>1.88 1.90>1.88 1.11<1.88
ACMR = SSFSCT/SMT (4-storey) 3.67>1.88 2.90>1.88 1.93>1.88 1.16<1.88
ACMR = SSFSCT/SMT (5-storey) 3.49>1.88 2.99>1.88 1.74<1.88 1.21<1.88
ACMR average 3.63>2.61 2.96>2.61 1.86<2.61 1.16<2.61
Collapse probability for MCE 2-storey 0.04<0.2 0.07<0.2 0.20 = 0.2 0.44>0.2
Collapse probability for MCE 4-storey 0.04<0.2 0.08<0.2 0.19<0.2 0.42>0.2
Collapse probability for MCE 5-storey 0.05<0.2 0.07<0.2 0.23>0.2 0.40>0.2
Average collapse probability for MCE 0.04<0.1 0.07<0.1 0.21>0.1 0.42>0.1
Note: ACMR, adjusted collapse margin ratio; MCE, maximum credible earthquake; SSF, spectral shape factor.
a
Acceptable ACMR values of ACMR 20% = 1.88 and ACMR 10% = 2.61 from FEMA P695 (2009).

Table 5. FEMA P695 parameters for determining limited ductility braced frame model acceptance.

Parameter Vancouver, BCMinbrace Vancouver, BC2Brace

SCT (6-storey) 2.73 2.39
SCT (7-storey) 2.56 2.18
SMT 1.0 1.0
Ductility, ma (6-storey) 11.5 13.2
Ductility, ma (7-storey) 10.6 12.0
SSF (6-storey) 1.25 1.25
SSF (7-storey) 1.30 1.30
bTOT 0.75 0.75
ACMR = SSFSCT/SMT (6-storey) 3.41>1.88 2.99>1.88
ACMR = SSFSCT/SMT (7-storey) 3.32>1.88 2.84>1.88
ACMR average 3.36>2.61 2.92>2.61
Collapse probability for MCE (6-storey) 0.051<0.2 0.072<0.2
Collapse probability for MCE (7-storey) 0.054<0.2 0.082<0.2
Average collapse probability for MCE 0.052<0.1 0.077<0.1
Note: ACMR, adjusted collapse margin ratio; MCE, maximum credible earthquake; SSF, spectral shape factor.
a
Calculated based on pushover analysis results at 6.0% drift, m = D6.0%/Dy.
b
Acceptable ACMR values of ACMR 20% = 1.88 and ACMR 10% = 2.61 from FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009).

a resistance versus deformation behaviour that was consis-
tent and predictable; this allowed for the identification of
modifications that needed to be made to the calculated wall
parameters, such as lateral stiffness, to properly represent
the strap braced walls by means of a hysteretic model. The
strap sizes selected for the buildings were not necessarily the
same size as those tested; hence, a relationship was identi-
fied between the predicted elastic slope and the actual elas-
tic slope measured during testing, i.e., a 20% reduction in
calculated lateral stiffness. The average post yield slope
from the test data was used to establish the strain hardening
segment of the hysteretic model. The yield load was taken
as the test based yield load for the hysteresis matching;
however, for modeling of the LD systems, the brace yield
strength was calculated using the probable yield capacity of
the wall as defined in AISI S213. The yield load for the CC
systems was simply taken as the nominal yield strength mul-
tiplied by the nominal cross-sectional area of the brace.
Two braced wall tower model configurations were consid-
ered (Fig. 2). A stick model was created in which behaviour
was limited to the shear resistance versus deformation of
each storey and flexural displacement of the lateral frame
due to axial shortening and lengthening of the column mem-
bers (in this case chord studs) was considered to be negli-
gible. Seismic masses corresponding to the tributary area of
the braced frame (as per lateral loading and assuming rigid
diaphragm action) were applied at each storey level. The
stick model relied on two linked columns to represent the
braced wall system (Fig. 2b). A column of infinite axial
stiffness was used to account for P-D loading. Gravity loads
were applied and the node at each storey was rigidly con-
nected to the corresponding node in the braced wall tower
stick model. The tributary area for these P-D gravity loads
was the same as that used for the seismic mass calculations.
A more complex model (Fig. 2c) made use of the braces in
their proper inclined orientation and included chord stud

Published by NRC Research Press

246
members (modeled as elastic springs) whose size was se-
lected based on the capacity approach used in design. This
model also included a floor segment above each braced
wall that allowed for the strap braces to be positioned accu-
rately. The floor segment was defined as being infinitely
rigid due to the lack of test data on the shear stiffness of
this building component. Studies that aim to identify the in-
fluence of the floor segment on lateral drifts are ongoing.
An evaluation of the impact of flexural deformations on the
overall lateral performance of the wall tower was carried out
with this second model. Seismic mass and P-D effects were
taken to act the same as in the simpler stick model. Bilinear
spring elements with strain hardening and slackness charac-
teristics were used in the stick model to account for both
sets of braces at each storey. The inelastic brace elements
in the bracechord stud model were also defined using bilin-
ear springs; however, these elements functioned only in ten-
sion and the properties were adjusted to account for the
inclined position of the brace. The brace sizes as obtained
in the design of the buildings were used to calculate the lat-
eral elastic stiffness, inelastic stiffness, and strength at each
storey; these parameters were modified as necessary to rep-
licate the behaviour observed in the laboratory, as noted
above. A comparison of the pushover response and dynamic
response of the stick and bracechord stud models showed
that the impact of flexural deformations on lateral perform-
ance of these walls, which reached a maximum of 20 m in
height, was not significant (Comeau and Rogers 2008).
Based on this finding the stick (shear) model (Fig. 2b) was
used for all subsequent dynamic analyses.
Ground motion selection and scaling
A total of 45 earthquake records were used for the nonlin-
ear dynamic analyses. The suite of ground motions com-
prised three types of records; simulated earthquakes,
recorded earthquakes, and a single closely matched earth-
quake. All earthquake records were either recorded on or de-
veloped for site class C soil conditions. The simulated site
specific earthquake time histories were selected from a data-
base of ground motions for Canada that are compatible with
the 2005 NBCC UHS. To establish this database, Atkinson
(2009) relied on a seismological model that was based on
the stochastic finite-fault method, which includes the effects
of geometry of larger ruptures, for example, and their influ-
ence on ground motion excitation and attenuation. FEMA
P695 recommends the use of 44 recorded ground motions
from earthquakes with either strike-slip or reverse thrust
sources. These ground motions were recorded on sites clas-
sified as either C or D and may be considered as representa-
tive of the hazard due to shallow crustal earthquakes along
the west coast of the United States. Twelve of these earth-
quakes, which could be identified as having been recorded
on site class C, were incorporated in this study for the Van-
couver location. An additional 32 synthetic site class C re-
cords for the Pacific coast of North America, with various
epicentral distances, were then selected from the Atkinson
database (Atkinson 2009); half of these records were magni-
tude M6.5 and the remaining were magnitude M7.5. In the
case of Calgary, Halifax, and Quebec City, 44 synthetic re-
cords (M6 and M7) were selected from the database of site
class C ground motions for eastern North America. The
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
FEMA P695 recommended ground motions were not consid-
ered representative of the seismic hazard in these cities.
Also, one earthquake record that was closely matched to the
representative UHS was included for each of the four cities.
Details of the ground motions are found in Comeau and
Rogers (2008) and Velchev and Rogers (2008).
Scaling factors were applied to the synthetic and recorded
ground motions such that the spectral acceleration of the
ground motion and the uniform hazard spectra were approx-
imately equal at the average fundamental period of the mod-
els (Fig. 4). The second period of vibration of the building
models was also given consideration as to how well each re-
cord matched the UHS.
Dynamic analyses
Dynamic analyses for each of the models were first car-
ried out using the 45 earthquake records scaled to the re-
spective UHS. The distribution of storey drift over the
height of the building was then investigated. Following this,
incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were completed. The
incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) method is useful for de-
termining collapse probabilities and levels of safety against
design level earthquakes. Scaling of an earthquake record is
increased until it results in failure of the building or the
achievement of a specified inelastic drift limit. Damage
measures such as maximum inter-storey drift or rotation can
be used to evaluate the performance of the building as the
intensity of the earthquake is increased. The pre-scaled
ground motion records were considered as the baseline max-
imum credible earthquake (MCE) because of their match to
the UHS, and thus were assigned an IDA specific scaling
factor of 1.0. Each of the records was then scaled incremen-
tally from 0.2 to a maximum of 6.0 and applied to the build-
ing models. This IDA scaling factor was used in the
evaluation of the results of analyses, instead of the spectral
acceleration associated with each ground motion record be-
cause of the ease of comparison with the scaling factor (SF)
of 1.0 that corresponds to the UHS. The examined damage
measure was defined as the maximum inter-storey drift for
each analysis irrespective of the storey in which it took
place. Inter-storey drift-based failure criteria of 6.0% for the
LD system and 1.0% for the CC system were considered.
The 6.0% limit reflects a minimum drift level that all 1:1
aspect ratio test specimens were able to attain without brace
fracture during monotonic testing in the laboratory (Velchev
et al. 2010). The 1.0% limit was deemed to be a reasonable
failure criterion for walls designed and detailed without us-
ing a capacity approach, as per the findings of Al-Kharat
and Rogers (2007).
Performance evaluation
Each of the building models was first subjected to the
ground motion records scaled to the UHS of the respective
cities. The inter-storey drift over the height of the building
was obtained from these analyses and graphed for the five-
storey CC frames (Fig. 5) as well as the six- and seven-
storey LD frames (Fig. 6). The overall building performance
is typically evaluated using the mean values and mean plus
one standard deviation (+1 SD) of all 45 records. The lim-
ited ductility walls tested by Velchev et al. (2010) were
able to reach drift levels of above 6% for the monotonic
Published by NRC Research Press
Comeau et al.
protocols and above 4.5% (maximum actuator stroke) for the
cyclic protocols. The drift at each level of the six-storey
walls was well within these measured displacement values.
The mean drift was in the range of 1% over the height of
the building designed using the minimum brace criterion.
The mean + 1 SD reached a maximum of 1.5% drift at the
first storey. Brace yielding occurred at every storey except
at the top of the building. The six-storey walls designed us-
ing the two brace criterion exhibited slightly larger drifts in
the first storey; however, these drifts could be sustained by
the walls as shown by tests (Velchev et al. 2010). The
seven-storey walls experienced concentration of deformation
demand in the first and fifth storeys along with mean and
mean +1 SD drifts that were somewhat higher than the six-
storey walls, but again within the measured deformation ca-
pacity of the test walls. The CC five-storey walls for build-
ings in Calgary and Halifax exhibited relatively consistent
drifts below 0.4%; less than the accepted deformation ca-
pacity of 1% for this type of framing system. The inter-
storey drift for the building situated in Quebec City showed
greater variability with a number of the individual earth-
quake records reaching close to 1% at the second and forth
storeys. The CC building in Vancouver illustrated substan-
tially higher mean and mean +1SD drifts, which at a number
of storeys exceeded the 1% limit. The results of these dy-
namic analyses with UHS-scaled earthquake records pro-
vided an indication that the CC strap braced framing system
should not be used in the higher seismic zone (Vancouver),
and also may not be appropriate for locations with a seismic
hazard similar to Quebec City.
The results of the incremental dynamic analyses and fra-
gility curves for the five-storey CC walls, as well as six-
and seven-storey LD walls have been provided in Figs. 7
and 8. Each fragility curve represents the probability of fail-
ure resulting from the ground motions included in the dy-
namic analyses. They are composed of data points that
correspond to the number of ground motion records at a par-
ticular scaling factor, which cause the building model to fail
divided by the total number of records (45) used in the anal-
yses. Failure of the buildings was assumed to occur when a
small increase in the scaling factor caused the IDA curve to
flatten or when the curve reached a predetermined deforma-
tion limit, which was defined as 1% for the CC walls and 6%
for the LD walls. The failure probabilities were plotted ver-
sus the SF and a lognormal distribution was fit through the
points to create the initial fragility curve. This cumulative
distribution function is defined by the natural logarithm of
the median SF and the standard deviation of the data set.
The median SF corresponds to a 50% probability of collapse,
i.e., the SF which resulted in half of the input ground mo-
tions causing an inter-storey drift, at any storey, greater than
the failure criterion. The standard deviation reflects variation
in the results and controls the slope of the resulting fragility
curve. Note, a SF of one represents the MCE obtained when
the ground motion is scaled to the 2005 NBCC UHS.
The ratio of the SF at which a probability of collapse
equal to 50% is obtained (SCT) to the SF assumed for the
MCE (SMT = 1.0) is defined by FEMA P695 as the collapse
margin ratio (CMR = SCT/SMT). To account for uncertainty
within the analysis two adjustment factors are also defined;
the spectral shape factor (SSF) and the total collapse uncer-
247
tainty, bTOT. Once obtained, the SSF is used to offset the
mean scaling factor, i.e., SSF  SCT becomes the mean of
the adjusted fragility curve, while bTOT becomes the lognor-
mal standard deviation of the adjusted fragility curve
(Figs. 78).
The SSF is a function of the seismic design category
(SDC), the ductility capacity, m, and the fundamental period,
T, and is applied directly to the CMR to give an adjusted
collapse margin ratio (ACMR). For the LD system, an SDC
of D was assumed because this parameter is specific to the
US loading standard ASCE 705 (ASCE 2005). It is inter-
esting to note, however, that this is the seismic design cate-
gory for Seattle, Wash., the closest American city to the
design location of Vancouver. A worst case scenario was as-
sumed for the CC strap-braced system in which the struc-
tures ductility was taken as one (nonductile) which results
in an SSF of one, regardless of the seismic design category.
The ductility for each type of LD model was calculated as
the ratio of the ultimate lateral deflection, Dult (taken at
6.0% drift, the failure criterion), to the yield deflection, Dy.
Static pushover analyses, carried out using the same dy-
namic models, were used to calculate Dy. These analyses in-
corporated a continuous ramp loading function applied over
the height of the structure. The resulting ductility values
ranged from 10.6 to 13.2 (Comeau and Rogers 2008).
The total system collapse uncertainty, bTOT, was calcu-
lated based on four uncertainty factors: record-to-record, de-
sign requirements, test data, and modeling, as defined by
FEMA P695. Each factor is assessed as either superior (b =
0.20), good (b = 0.30), fair (b = 0.45) or poor (b = 0.65),
and corresponding values assigned, with the exception of re-
cord-to-record uncertainty, which FEMA P695 defines as
0.40. The design requirements-related collapse uncertainty,
bDR, was selected as good. Using Table 3-1 of FEMA P695
(FEMA 2009), confidence in the basis of the design require-
ments was chosen as high because evidence obtained
through laboratory testing (Velchev et al. 2009) has illus-
trated that the seismic design requirements of AISI S213
lead to wall performance as intended. The completeness and
robustness of the design method was selected as medium be-
cause the Canadian sections of the CFS lateral design stand-
ard have only been employed by this study and quality
assurance requirements related to fabrication, erection, and
final construction with this seismic force resisting system
(SFRS) are not fully addressed in any design documents.
These ratings correspond to a bDR value of good (= 0.30).
The test data related collapse uncertainty, bTD, was also
selected as good (Table 3-2, FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009)).
The confidence in test results level was selected as high be-
cause it has been well documented that if capacity design
principles are followed and appropriate brace material is
specified, as required by AISI S213, the desired behaviour
of the SFRS can be achieved (Al-Kharat and Rogers 2007,
2008; Kim et al. 2006; Velchev et al. 2010). Completeness
and robustness of the test data was chosen to be medium be-
cause most, but not all of the general testing issues listed in
FEMA P695 have been adequately addressed in the various
test programs. Deficiencies lie in the lack of gravity loads
on the test walls, shake table data, and documented seismic
event performance. The reproducibility of construction qual-
ity in the field is also unknown because quality control
Published by NRC Research Press
248
measures are not part of the design requirements. The final
value of bTD was chosen as good (= 0.30).
The modeling related collapse uncertainty, bMDL, was se-
lected as fair (Table 5-3, FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009)). Mod-
erate confidence can be placed in the structural behavioural
characteristics of the models because they do not allow for
complete collapse, i.e., drifts continue past the failure crite-
rion. Furthermore, modeling data from previous research
with this type of system in a multi-storey setting is not avail-
able. Model accuracy and robustness was selected as me-
dium because the model only accounts for brace yielding
and does not include all wall components. A high confidence
level is reserved for only the most complete and extensive
models and medium is the norm. For these reasons a bMDL
value of fair (= 0.45) was applied. FEMA P695 specifies
that given the values assigned for each of the uncertainty
factors a total system collapse uncertainty, bTOT, can be de-
fined as 0.75 (Table 7-2, FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009)).
Acceptable values for the ACMR are listed for different
total system collapse uncertainties (Table 7-3, FEMA P695
(FEMA 2009)) such that a comparison can be made with
the ACMR values obtained by means of the dynamic analy-
ses. Acceptable collapse probabilities of 10% and 20% are
used to define acceptable values of the adjusted collapse
margin ratio; ACMR 10% and ACMR 20% which range
from 2.02 to 4.65 and 1.59 to 2.75, respectively. The accept-
able minimum ACMR values for the braced frame analyses
were considered to be 1.88 for ACMR 20% and 2.61 for
ACMR 10%. For a given grouping of models the acceptance
criteria to evaluate the proposed seismic design method, in-
cluding R-values and height limits, are as follows; the aver-
age ACMR must be greater than ACMR 10%, and ACMR
for each individual model must be greater than ACMR
20%. Furthermore, the probability of collapse when a build-
ing is subjected to the MCE (UHS-scaled records) must be
less than 20% for an individual model and less than 10%
on average.
Tables 4 and 5 contain the parameters for determining CC
and LD CFS strap braced frame model acceptance according
to FEMA P695. The adjustments for uncertainties of the fra-
gility curve are based on written descriptions provided in
FEMA P695 and are subject to interpretation; efforts to
make conservative choices were taken as described above.
With respect to the LD framing system, the adjusted col-
lapse margin ratios for the individual models and on average
(grouped according to brace selection criteria) were within
the acceptable values. Similarly, the probability of collapse
under the maximum credible earthquake was less than 20%
for each of the models and less than 10% on average. These
results indicate that the seismic force modification factors
and height limit for the LD framing system as listed in Ta-
ble 1 are appropriate for design. The results for the CC
framing system also showed to be adequate for the buildings
designed for Calgary and Halifax, which fall in the two
lower seismic categories as defined by the NBCC. In this
case average values were taken for groups that consisted of
two-, four-, and five-storey CC models. In contrast, the
ACMR values and collapse probabilities for the models that
were subjected to ground motions scaled to the UHS for
Quebec City and Vancouver showed that the proposed R-
values and height limit do not result in an acceptable level
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
of risk in terms of building failure. This result is also in
agreement with the R-values and 15 m height limit recom-
mended for CC buildings in Table 1. The use of CC strap
braced framing would not be permitted in the two higher
seismic zones in Canada.
Conclusions and recommendations
Dynamic analyses were used to evaluate the seismic force
modification (R) factors for LD (Rd = 2.0, Ro = 1.3, height
limit 20 m) and CC (Rd = 1.25, Ro = 1.3, height limit 15 m,
not permitted in high seismic zones) strap braced CFS lat-
eral framing systems. Inter-storey drifts obtained for earth-
quakes scaled to the UHS for Calgary, Halifax, Quebec
City, and Vancouver were examined, followed by the use of
FEMA P695 to determine the validity of seismic design pa-
rameters. Various designs and configurations of representa-
tive structures located in the four cities were modeled using
nonlinear dynamic shear models. The input suite of earth-
quake records, scaled to the appropriate 2005 NBCC uni-
form hazard spectrum, consisted of 45 time histories
comprising both synthetic and recorded ground motions.
The structures were designed using the 2005 NBCC equiva-
lent static force procedure as per the procedure a practicing
engineer would likely follow.
No soft storey effects were seen when the minimum brace
selection criterion was used (most economical brace size at
each storey); brace yielding occurred at every storey except
at the top of the building. With the two-brace selection crite-
rion (brace size changes only once over the height of the
structure) concentration of inter-storey drifts was observed.
In this case, the drifts did not exceed acceptable limits as
defined by testing and adequate energy dissipation without
collapse was still present for the LD walls. The CC models
designed for Vancouver and Quebec City showed that inter-
storey drifts approached the 1% limit.
The FEMA P695 evaluation procedure illustrated that the
braced walls designed using the LD provisions in AISI S213
were able to meet the acceptable failure probabilities and
collapse margin ratios. Similarly, the CC braced walls lo-
cated in the two lower NBCC defined seismic categories
performed adequately. The use of CC strap braced walls in
the higher seismic zones in Canada proved, however, not to
be desirable because of elevated failure probabilities and in-
adequate collapse margin ratios. These results confirm the
use in conjunction with the NBCC of the proposed seismic
force modification factors and height limits for CFS strap
braced walls.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support pro-
vided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation,
the Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute, and the Ameri-
can Iron and Steel Institute. Materials for the test specimens
were supplied by Bailey Metal Products Ltd., Simpson
Strong-Tie Co. Inc., ITW Buildex, and Grabber Construction
Products.
References
Al-Kharat, M., and Rogers, C.A. 2007. Inelastic performance of
Published by NRC Research Press
Comeau et al. 249

cold-formed steel strap braced walls. Journal of Constructional tors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building
Steel Research, 63(4): 460474. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.06.040. Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30(2):
Al-Kharat, M., and Rogers, C.A. 2008. Inelastic performance of 308327. doi:10.1139/l02-111.
screw connected cold-formed steel strap braced walls. Canadian NRCC. 2005. National building code of Canada. National Research
Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(1): 1126. doi:10.1139/L07- Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
081. Newmark, N.M., and Hall, W.J. 1982. Earthquake spectra and de-
AISI. 2007. North American standard for cold-formed steel fram- sign. Engineering Monograph. Earthquake Engineering Research
ing lateral design. AISI S213. American Iron and Steel Insti- Institute, Berkeley, Calif.
tute, Washington, D.C. Pastor, N., and Rodrguez-Ferran, A. 2005. Hysteretic modelling of
ASCE. 2005. Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc- x-braced shear walls. Thin-walled Structures, 43(10): 1567
tures. ASCE 705. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 1588. doi:10.1016/j.tws.2005.06.010.
Va. Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C.A. 2002. Incremental dynamic
Atkinson, G.M. 2009. Earthquake time histories compatible with analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3):
the 2005 National building code of Canada uniform hazard spec- 491514. doi:10.1002/eqe.141.
trum. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(6): 9911000. Velchev, K., and Rogers, C.A. 2008. Inelastic performance of
doi:10.1139/L09-044. screw connected CFS strap braced walls. Research Report. De-
Barton, A.D. 1997. Performance of steel framed domestic struc- partment of Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics, McGill
tures subject to earthquake loads. Ph.D. thesis, Department of University, Montreal, Que.
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Velchev, K., Comeau, G., Balh, N., and Rogers, C.A. 2010. Eva-
Australia. luation of the AISI S213 seismic design procedures through test-
Boudreault, F.A., Blais, C., and Rogers, C.A. 2007. Seismic force ing of strap braced cold-formed steel walls. Thin-walled
modification factors for light-gauge steel-frame wood structural Structures, 48: In press.
panel shear walls. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34(1):
5665. doi:10.1139/L06-097. List of symbols
CSA. 2007. North American specification for the design of cold-
formed steel structural members. Standard CSA-S136. Canadian ACMR adjusted collapse margin ratio
Standards Association (CSA), Mississauga, Ont. CMR collapse margin ratio
CSA. 2009. Limit states design of steel structures. CAN/CSA-S16. D NBCC defined deal load
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Mississauga, Ont. E NBCC defined earthquake load
Canam Group. 2008. Hambro Technical Manual. Boucherville, Fa acceleration based site coefficient
Que. Fv velocity based site coefficient
Carr, A.J. 2000. RUAUMOKO Inelastic dynamic analysis. De- hn building height
partment of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, IE earthquake importance factor of the structure
L NBCC defined live load
Christchurch, New Zealand.
R seismic force modification factor
Comeau, G., and Rogers, C.A. 2008. Inelastic performance of
Rd ductility-related seismic force modification factor
welded cold-formed steel strapped braced walls. Research Re- Ro overstrength-related seismic force modification factor
port. Department of Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics, S NBCC defined snow load
McGill University, Montreal, Que. Sa(T) 5% damped spectral response acceleration expressed
FEMA. 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance fac- as a ratio to gravitational acceleration for a period of T
tors. FEMA P695. Federal Emergency Management Agency, SCT scaling factor at a probability of collapse equal to 50%
Washington, D.C. SMT scaling factor at the maximum credible earthquake
Gad, E.F., Duffield, C.F., Hutchinson, G.L., Mansell, D.S., and (SF = 1.0)
Stark, G. 1999. Lateral performance of cold-formed steel-framed SF ground motion record scaling factor
domestic structures. Journal of Engineering Structures, 21(1): SSF spectral shape factor
8395. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(97)90129-2. t brace thickness
Heidebrecht, A.C. 2003. Overview of seismic provisions of the pro- T period of vibration
posed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Ta fundamental lateral period of vibration of the building
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30(2): 241254. doi:10. Dult ultimate lateral deflection
1139/l02-068. Dy lateral yield deflection
Kim, T.W., Wilcoski, J., Foutch, D.A., and Lee, M.S. 2006. Shake- m ductility capacity
table tests of a cold-formed steel shear panel. Engineering Struc- b uncertainty factor
tures, 28(10): 14621470. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.01.014. bDR design requirements related collapse uncertainty
Kim, T.-W., Wilcoski, J., and Foutch, D.A. 2007. Analysis of mea- bMDL modelling related collapse uncertainty
bTD test data related collapse uncertainty
sured and calculated response of a cold-formed steel shear panel
bTOT total collapse uncertainty
structure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(1): 6785.
Mitchell, D., Tremblay, R., Karacabeyli, E., Paultre, P., Saatcioglu,
M., and Anderson, D.L. 2003. Seismic force modification fac-

Published by NRC Research Press