NEW CANADIAN SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

ROBERT TREMBLAY ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE, MONTREAL, CANADA AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Robert Tremblay is Professor of Structural Engineering and Canada Research Chair in Earthquake Engineering at cole Polytechnique of Montreal, Canada. He received his Bachelor and Master degrees from Universit Laval in 1978 and 1988, and completed his Ph.D. in 1994 at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Before undertaking his doctoral studies, Prof. Tremblay worked for 10 years in the industry. His current research work is mainly directed towards the seismic design and response of steel structures. He is a member of the CSA-S16.1 Technical Committee on Steel Structures for Buildings and of the Canadian Committee on Earthquake Engineering. He is also a member of the AISC-SSRC Task Committee on Stability.

ABSTRACT Significant modifications have recently been incorporated in the 2001 edition of the CSA-S16 Canadian Standard for the design of steel structures in Canada and extensive changes to the seismic provisions have been proposed for inclusion in the upcoming 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Modifications to the S16-01 are mainly related to material, detailing, and capacity design rules for the various seismic force resisting systems. New system categories have also been introduced, such as the Limited-ductility moment-resisting frame and the Ductile plate wall systems. Force modification factors have been revisited for several systems based on observed performance in recent earthquakes and latest research developments, and minimum ductile detailing requirements have been added for Conventional steel constructions. In the 2005 NBCC, the seismic hazard will be specified by means of site specific Uniform Hazard Spectra established for a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. Frequency- and intensity-dependant site coefficients are now used to account for local soil effects. Irregularities and methods of analysis are better defined. The expression for the minimum lateral earthquake force has also been modified to include two force modification factors, one related to ductility and one related to structural overstrength. This paper outlines the major changes in both code documents, with particular emphasis on the new detailing requirements in CSA-S16-01 and the development of the NBCC 2005 force modification factors. Keywords: Braced frames, buildings, ductility, earthquakes, force modification factors, moment-resisting frames, overstrength, plate walls, seismic, spectrum, steel.

NEW CANADIAN SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

ROBERT TREMBLAY ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE, MONTREAL, CANADA

INTRODUCTION Several changes have been incorporated in the 2001 edition of the Canadian CSA-S16 Standard for the design of steel structures. In particular, significant modifications were made to the design provisions for ductile seismic response, resulting from the considerable experience gained in recent earthquakes and new technical data from research conducted in Canada and elsewhere around the world. Seismic provisions for new systems such as ductile plate walls have also been introduced in S16-01. In parallel, the earthquake loading requirements in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) have been entirely revisited and the revised NBCC document will be published in 2005. The main motivation that drove this revision was the integration of the improved knowledge of seismic hazard, which resulted in the adoption of a new probability level and the development of site specific Uniform Hazard Spectra. In the 2005 NBCC, several irregularity types are defined that affect the choice of the analysis method. Structural overstrength will also be considered explicitly for the first time in the calculation of the design earthquake loads, and restrictions and special provisions have been added to eliminate situations prone to undesirable seismic response. This paper reviews the main requirements included in CSA-S16-01 and highlights the new provisions proposed for the 2005 NBCC with emphasis on the development of the force modification factors.

SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES General Provisions Clause 27 of CSA S16-01 (CSA 2001) provides the design requirements for eight classes of steel seismic force resisting systems (SFRS) for which ductile response is required under earthquake loading: Ductile moment-resisting frames (Type D, with R = 5.0) Moderately ductile moment-resisting frames (Type MD, with R = 3.5) Moment-resisting frames with limited ductility (Type LD with R = 2.0) Moderately ductile concentrically braced frames (Type MD, with R = 3.0) Limited-ductility concentrically braced frames (Type LD, with R = 2.0) Ductile eccentrically braced frames (R = 4.0) Ductile plate walls (Type D, with R = 5.0) Limited-ductility plate walls (Type LD, with R = 2.0).

The force modification factor, R, is used in the calculation of the seismic loads in accordance with the current 1995 National Building Code of Canada (NRCC 1995). As indicated, all the systems qualify for an R factor equal to or greater than 2.0 and capacity design principles must therefore be applied. Capacity design is aimed at providing significant yielding in those elements known to have ductile response, while limiting inelastic demand in the other elements and avoiding all potential brittle failure modes. This results in a structural system with a controlled hierarchy of yielding to maximise the energy dissipation. Strict requirements are provided in S16-01 to ensure

consistency in design and structural integrity from the floor and roof diaphragms to the foundations. Clause 27 also contains special seismic provisions for steel structures of conventional construction for which an R factor of 1.5 is specified. These provisions are discussed at the end of this section. In the upcoming 2005 NBCC, it is proposed to replace the R factor by a ductility-related factor Rd. This change is discussed in the second part of the paper. For all steel SFRS, the behaviour of connections is often critical for good performance and it is required in S16 that engineers specify the design loads as well as the connection types and details. Minimum specifications have been also added in S16 for base metal and weld filler metal properties (yield strength, toughness) to achieve ductile response. Requirements for bolted connections are also specified to ensure energy dissipation by friction in connections and avoid premature brittle failure. As in AISC provisions (AISC 2002), a probable yield stress of 1.1 Fy, but not less than 385 MPa, must now be used when evaluating the demand on capacity protected elements. P-delta effects must be accounted for by amplifying forces and moments due to earthquakes by the factor U2 = 1 + (Cf R) / (Vfhs), where Cf is the column axial load, the product R is the anticipated inelastic storey drift, Vf is the first-order storey shear, and hs is the storey height. This provision ensures that the system can develop an effective storey shear resistance equal to Vf at the maximum expected deflection. In addition, the stiffness of the structure shall be such that U2 does not exceed 1.4. Thus, contrary to several codes in other countries, P-delta effects must be considered for all structures, regardless of their relative importance. Moment-Resisting Frames Seismic provisions adopted in S16-01 for Type D (ductile) and Type MD (moderately ductile) frames have been modified to be in line with the recommendations included in the FEMA 350 document (FEMA 2000). Except for single-storey buildings, a weak beam-strong column design strategy must then be adopted for both frame categories and members and connections are selected and braced to ensure that severe inelastic straining can take place. Connection details have to be demonstrated by means of physical testing as satisfying deformation criteria under the action of cyclic load. Results of previously tested connection assemblies may be used for this purpose, subject to close similarity in size, material, and geometry. Alternatively, it is possible to select a connection detail from a choice of prequalified connections for which design criteria have been developed based on test results. Unless panel zone yielding has been found appropriate by testing for the selected connection, limited yielding is only permitted in panel zones of Type D and Type MD frames with concurrent beam yielding. This is achieved by specifying a ceiling for the panel zone shear capacity, compared to previous code editions. For both frame systems, lateral bracing must be provided at least at the level of one beam flange when plastic hinges occur in beams. The need for additional beam lateral bracing must be verified assuming that the seismic moment at one end of the beam is the plastic moment, Mp, and that zero seismic moment exists at the other end, unless other moment distributions can be justified by analysis. If plastic hinging occurs near the column top end, lateral bracing must be provided at the level of both beam flanges. When plastic hinges are anticipated at the column base, the base plate and the anchorage to the foundations must be sized to resist the expected plastic moment capacity of the columns. For structures located in high seismic zones, an upper limit is specified for the axial load in columns in which plastic hinging is expected to develop. The differences between Type D and Type MD moment-resisting frames essentially relate to the deformation capacity level required for the beam-to-column joints (interstorey drift angle of 0.04 radians vs 0.03 radians) and the axial load limit for columns in which plastic hinging is expected (0.30 Py vs 0.50 Py). Requirements for laterally unsupported distance for beams in Type MD frames are based on ordinary plastic design provisions. More stringent limits are imposed for beams of Type D frames. Limits on width-to-thickness ratios for beam cross-sections are also relaxed for Type MD frames, compared to Type D moment-resisting frames. Type LD (limited-ductility) moment-resisting frames are newly introduced in S16. This system is anticipated to undergo less inelastic demand consistent with the higher earthquake loads used in design (R = 2.0). Connection design must still be based on test data, however, with a minimum deformation capacity corresponding to an interstorey drift angle of 0.02 radians. Alternatively, when I-shaped beams and columns are used, traditional welded connection detailing is permitted provided that special welding requirements are met, such as removal of weld backing and run-off plates, and that beams frame to strong column axis. The moment resistance of such connections must be equal to 1.1Ry times the beam plastic moment or the moment induced by the gravity loads plus the seismic

loads determined with R = 1.0. For the latter case, the governing failure mode of the connections must be ductile to account for the possibility of overloading resulting from the uncertainty in ground motion amplitude and building response. This can be achieved by using well proportioned extended-end-plate or flange plate moment connections, or bolted connections in which the governing failure mode corresponds to bolt bearing. Type LD moment-resisting frames can be used in buildings not exceeding 12 storeys in height and located in low seismic zones. Strong column-weak beam design is not required but frames with weak columns will be considered as having a Discontinuity in Capacity - Weak Storey irregularity according to the upcoming 2005 NBCC, and additional limitations will therefore apply. Concentrically Braced Frames As in past editions of S16, two CBF categories are described in the Standard. System designations have been modified, however, to reflect more closely the anticipated performance of each category: Ductile Concentrically Braced Frames are now referred to as Type MD (moderately ductile) Concentrically Braced Frames and Type LD (limited-ductility) Braced Concentrically Frames is used in lieu of Concentrically Braced Frames with Nominal Ductility. For both systems, it is assumed that lateral loads are entirely resisted by truss action and compliance to capacity design rules is enforced so that energy can be dissipated through inelastic response of the bracing members. Concentrically braced frames is the most common steel lateral force resisting systems in Canada and the seismic detailing requirements implemented in 1989 with modifications in 1994 had a considerable impact on the industry. In particular, the need for sizing brace connections, as well as beams and columns, to resist forces associated to the full tension yielding of the braces increased significantly the costs compared to previous usual design practice. In several cases, these design forces were amplified further because larger brace sizes had to be selected to meet the limits on brace slenderness or brace cross-section width-to-thickness ratio imposed for ductile response. This also had serious consequences on the design of foundations and diaphragms. Therefore, in addition to incorporating new knowledge gained from research and experience from recent earthquakes in the 2001 edition of S16, efforts were also devoted to refine the application of the various ductility provisions and allow relaxation where possible. The former Ductile CBF category only included tension-compression (T/C) bracing, and ordinary V- or chevron bracing could not be considered in that category. Brace slenderness was limited to KL/r = 100 (for Fy = 350 MPa) and width-to-thickness (b/t) ratio limits corresponding to plastic design or lower were prescribed. In S16-2001, the limit on KL/r was extended to 200, recognising that tension-compression braced frames with slender braces possess sufficient storey shear overstrength from tension-acting braces to compensate for the reduction in energy dissipation capacity. This limit is higher than that prescribed in other codes. For instance, the limits on KL/r in New Zealand Standard (SNZ 1997), AISC, and Eurocode 8 (ECS 2003) specifications are respectively 120, 140, and 150 for Fy = 350 MPa. Inelastic straining due to buckling is reduced in slender braces and relaxation was also introduced in S16 to width-to-thickness ratio limits for braces having slenderness between 100 and 200. These changes are expected to allow the selection of bracing members that fit more closely the prescribed strength requirements and, thereby, reduce the force demand on brace connections and other capacity protected components. V- and chevron bracing are now permitted in Type MD CBFs, provided that the beams can resist the forces induced after buckling and yielding of the braces, as in AISC provisions. Because limited flexural yielding in beams has limited effects on the response of low-rise chevron braced frames, a reduced brace tension load (0.6AFy vs AFy) is however specified for the design of beams in structures up to 4-storeys, which represents a large portion of the building stock. For these structures, beam connection must be designed with shear forces associated with the development of plastic hinging at beam mid-span. Type MD braced frames not exceeding four storeys can also be built with tension-only bracing, provided that the limits on brace KL/r and b/t are met to ensure brace ductile response and minimum energy dissipation capacity. In spite of these limitations, tension-only design can still represent an economical solution in several applications such as lightly loaded structures. In order to allow tension-only bracing to be used as Type MD frames, the rule that required that at least 30% of the storey shear had to be resisted by tension braces and at least 30% by compression braces needed to be modified. In S16-01, braces must be proportioned and arranged such that the ratio of the contribution to storey shear resistance of the tension-acting braces in opposite directions is between 0.75 and 1.33. This new provision better reflects the fact that lateral resistance after brace buckling is mainly governed by the

tension capacity of the braces and, hence, should be more effective in achieving symmetry in response. A similar, although more stringent, requirement exists in Eurocode 8. In S16-01, brace connections must be designed to carry the expected brace tension capacity and 1.2 times the brace probable compressive resistance. Both brace resistances are determined with the expected yield strength RyFy. When verifying net section fracture of the brace under this tension load condition, the resistance of the unreinforced brace can be multiplied by Ry/ as both the load and the strength are associated to the same material. An upper limit on the anticipated brace forces is also specified in S16-01. That limit corresponds to the forces determined with an R factor of 1.0, i.e. the forces associated to elastic response, except that occurrence of brace buckling or yielding must be accounted for when determining member forces under R = 1.0 seismic loads. A value is also given in the Standard for the expected post-buckling brace compression resistance. All these provisions should lead to capacity design more consistent with anticipated structural response. As for Type LD moment-resisting frames, the governing failure mode of brace connections must be ductile if the elastic upper limit on brace forces is adopted in design (e.g., bolt bearing, gross yielding, gusset plates proportioned for ductility, welded connections comprising fillet welds loaded primarily in shear, etc.). Brace connections must also be detailed to allow ductile rotation upon brace buckling. Alternatively, brace connections can be designed to resist the anticipated flexural capacity of the bracing members so that plastic hinging will develop in the braces, at some distance from the connections. Multi-storey concentrically braced frames have limited capability to redistribute vertically the inelastic demand after brace buckling and yielding has developed at a given level. This phenomenon is more pronounced in tall frames where concentration of inelastic demand and large storey drifts typically develop in the bottom floors or in the upper levels. This can eventually lead to dynamic instability due to P-delta effects and/or brace fracture due to excessive inelastic deformations. The use of Type MD tension-compression bracing is therefore restricted to structures up to 8 storeys unless stable inelastic response can be demonstrated. That limit is reduced to 4 storeys for tension-only braced frames. Two-storey or taller column tiers are common in multi-storey steel structures and this column continuity can be very beneficial in mitigating discontinuity in storey drift demand in successive levels. Therefore, S16-01 requires that all columns in multi-storey structures be continuous and of constant cross-section over a minimum of two levels (4 levels for tension-only bracing). Columns in braced bays must have compact cross-section and be designed as beam-columns to resist the anticipated flexural demand in combination with axial loads induced by truss action. This requirement does not apply to gravity load columns because reduced gravity loads are considered in load combinations that include earthquake effects, which frees up sufficient capacity to resist these secondary bending moments. However, all column splices in buildings must have be a minimum shear resistance associated to the column flexural strength. All these requirements also apply to Type LD concentrically braced steel frames except that several relaxations are permitted because the design loads are 50% higher than those specified for Type MD frames and the anticipated inelastic demand is reduced accordingly. For instance, beams in V- or chevron bracing in buildings up to four storeys need not be designed to resist the forces induced after brace buckling has occurred. As in S16-94, however, beams attached to braces from below in these braced frames must be proportioned to carry their tributary gravity loads assuming no vertical support is provided by the braces. Height limits for Type LD tension-compression and tension-only bracing are increased to 12 and 8 storeys, respectively, reflecting the reduced likelihood of dynamic instability in frames designed for higher lateral loads. For tension-only braced frames, column continuity is required only over two storeys and the limit on brace slenderness is increased to 300 for single- and two-storey structures. When braces with KL/r greater than 200 are used, their width-to-thickness ratio need not meet limits prescribed for Type MD structures. For Type LD frames located in low seismic zones, the limits on brace width-to-thickness ratios are increased, the design shear forces for column splice connections need not be considered for gravity columns, and the brace connection detailing requirement for ductile rotational response or flexural resistance need not be applied when brace slenderness exceeds 100. Eccentrically Braced Frames There is only one category of eccentrically braced steel frames and the applicable seismic design requirements in S16-01 essentially correspond to those found in AISC seismic provisions, except that additional provisions have been introduced for the design of the braced bay columns. In the top two storeys, column loads due to yielding of the links must be multiplied by 1.3Ry, instead of 1.15 Ry as in other floors, due to the higher likelihood that all links in the top floors reach simultaneously their maximum strength. Column moments arising from variations in inelastic

drifts between adjacent storeys are accounted for by limiting the axial and flexure interaction summation to 0.85, instead of 1.0. For the top column tier, that summation is reduced further to 0.65 as more pronounced storey drift differences are anticipated in the upper part of structures due to higher mode effects. For the same reason, amplified design shear forces are also specified for the splice connection at the base of the top column tier. Plate Walls Steel plate walls are formed by thin wall plates framed by beams and columns. Pioneered research work on this new SFRS has been mainly conducted in Canada and seismic design provisions have been introduced for the first time in CSA S16-01 for this lateral resisting system. Two systems are described in S16-01: Type D (ductile) and Type LD (limited-ductility) plate walls. For both systems, seismic input energy is dissipated by yielding of web panels in tension along inclined lines, which results in a pinched hysteretic response under cyclic reversals of inelastic loading. Full-scale testing has demonstrated that the inelastic response can be improved if moment connections are used between the beams and columns surrounding the web panels, allowing additional energy dissipation capacity by the development of plastic hinges in these framing members. In ductile plate walls, beams in the braced bay must therefore be rigidly connected to columns. For Type LD plate walls, beams can be attached to columns using pinended connections. Design provision for Type D plate walls aim at developing tension yielding of the web plate at the base of the wall prior to the columns attaining their factored resistance. Therefore, framing members must be proportioned to resist local bending moments and axial loads that develop upon tension yielding of the web plates. Column axial loads are determined from the seismic overturning moment corresponding to the probable shear resistance of the web panel, but that moment need not be greater than that associated to the seismic loads determined with an R factor of 1.0. The connection of the plate to the framing members must develop the tensile strength of the web. Beam-to-column connections must have a flexural resistance equal to 1.1Ry times the beam plastic moment, or be demonstrated as resisting the beam flexural capacity under cyclic loading through a minimum a storey drift angle of 0.02 radians. Column must be reinforced at their bases so that plastic hinges form at a minimum distance of 1.5 times the column depth above the base plate. Anchorage of columns to the substructure must resist the probable flexure capacity of the columns or the maximum anticipated column tension load from overturning moments. No specific seismic detailing rules are specified for Type LD plate walls. However, the system is limited to structures up to 12 storeys. For Type D and Type LD wall systems, minimum flexural stiffness requirements must be met for the column members and the roof beam to ensure uniform tension field in the web plates. Provisions are also given to properly anchor the web plate to the foundations at the base of the wall. Conventional Constructions In the past, structures designed with R = 1.5 have been assumed to have sufficient inherent energy dissipation capacity arising from traditional design and fabrication practices that no additional requirements were necessary. However, since energy dissipation properties can only be mobilized if brittle failure is avoided, minimum requirements were introduced for connections in structures located in higher seismic zones to achieve this ductile behaviour. Connections must be either designed to exhibit a ductile failure mode, as discussed earlier, or resist the lesser of the gravity loads plus amplified seismic loads and Ry times the nominal gross section strength of the members being joined. Upcoming modifications and improvements Although CSA-S16-01 just came out of press, several issues have already been identified that will require attention in the near future to keep the Standard up-to-date with recent developments. The list of items includes, but is not limited to: Harmonizing S16-01 with upcoming 2005 NBCC seismic provisions that are described next. This process has already been initiated so that S16 will be ready when NBCC 2005 is published. Examining the possibilities of taking further advantage of the inherent ductility of steel such that further relaxation of seismic detailing requirements can be introduced when appropriate (lower seismic zones, lowrise structures, etc.) or design force levels beyond which no special detailing is required can be lowered. Providing additional guidelines for the design of simple connections exhibiting ductile failure modes.

Proposing a more rational approach to account for global stability (P-delta) effects in seismic design. Following up on the application of the seismic provisions for plate walls as the system is progressively introduced in practice. For this system, examining further higher mode effects and overturning moment response. Addressing SFRS that do not fit exactly into the system categories currently covered by the Standard. Developing or adapting provisions for recently developed SFRS such as buckling restrained braced frames or special truss moment frames. PROPOSED NBCC 2005 SEISMIC PROVISIONS

Seismic Hazard and Soil Classes The seismic hazard maps in current NBCC 1995 (NRCC 1995) were developed in the early 1980s. The design spectrum at a site was a function of two seismic parameters, the zonal peak ground acceleration and the zonal peak ground velocity, that were established for a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years. For the 2005 NBCC, it is proposed to use site specific Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) that are determined for a reduced probability level of 2% in 50 years (Adams and Atkinson 2003). For a given geographical location, UHS ordinates are computed directly at different structural periods, which results in a much better estimate of earthquake effects at all periods compared to a standard spectral shape scaled to a peak acceleration- or velocity-related parameter, as been done so far. In the 1995 and earlier editions of NBCC, some conservatism built-in the provisions used to provide some margin against structural collapse, and the actual probability of failure due to earthquakes was in fact much lower than the probability level adopted for the seismic maps. Hazard calculations at different probabilities of exceedance indicated however that that margin was not uniform across Canada because the slopes of the seismic action amplitude vs probability curves vary considerably in different parts of the country. The adoption of a lower hazard probability level, nearer to the target reliability level for structures, is expected to provide for a more uniform safety margin against collapse (Heidebrecht 2003). Median (50th fractile) spectral values were adopted for inclusion in the 2005 NBCC, instead of the mean or 84th percentile values, the main reason being that the median values are less affected by the uncertainty incorporated into the hazard model and, hence, will not change significantly as the knowledge of the hazard improves in the future. Coincidentally, the seismic loads determined with the median UHS were found to approximately correspond, on average across the country, to those specified in the 1995 NBCC and, therefore, no calibration was needed to maintain similar design load levels. However, spectral acceleration estimates at short periods (< 0.5 s) were generally higher than in previous code editions, which would have had a significant impact considering that shortperiod structures represent a large portion of the building stock. Such an increase did not seem justified for this period range considering that these structures have not suffered much damage in past earthquakes and a cut-off on the design forces was therefore adopted for short-period structures, as shown later. In order to capture various opinions as to the causes and locations of future earthquakes, complete probabilistic hazard calculations were performed using two different hazard models. At each site and each period, a robust approach was thereafter adopted to determine the design value, i.e. selecting the larger spectral ordinates obtained from the two models. For parts of the country where no or very few events had been observed, a floor hazard level was considered in the models. Along the Pacific west coast, the hazard posed by great earthquakes from the Cascadia subduction zone located west of the Vancouver Island was also included in the process. This hazard was however treated in a deterministic manner assuming an M8.2 earthquake scenario compatible with the adopted probability level. Spectral ordinates resulting from this severe event were retained when they exceeded those induced by intra-plate earthquakes. In the 2005 NBCC, UHS ordinates are specified at periods T of 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 s and the values are determined for a reference ground condition corresponding to NHERP (BSSC 1994) site class C with an average shear wave velocity of 360-760 m/s (Adams and Halchuk 2003). Effects of local soil conditions are incorporated in design by applying the intensity- and frequency-dependent acceleration-based and velocity-based site coefficients, Fa and Fv, which were obtained by adjusting the factors specified in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (ICBO 1997) (Finn and Wightman 2003). The design spectral acceleration S(T) is equal to FaSa(0.2) for T < 0.2 s, the smaller of FvSa(0.5)

and FaSa(0.2) for T = 0.5 s, FvSa(1.0) for T = 1.0 s, FvSa(2.0) for T = 2.0 s, and FvSa(2.0)/2 for T > 4.0 s. For periods between 0.2 s and 4.0 s, S is obtained by linear interpolation. Irregularities and Analysis Methods In NBCC 2005, the method of analysis and applicable design provisions depend whether the structure is designated as a regular or irregular structure. A total of 8 types of irregularities are defined in the code. They are related to the vertical variation in lateral stiffness, seismic weight, and geometry, as well as to in-plane discontinuity, out of plane offsets, discontinuity in capacity (weak storey), torsional sensitivity, and non-orthogonality. The criteria are similar to those prescribed in the 2003 International Building Code (ICC 2002), except that the requirements are more stringent for the weak storey irregularity (a weak storey is one in which the storey shear strength is less than in the storey above) and less severe for torsional sensitivity (a structure is irregular when the maximum storey drift exceeds 1.7 times the average storey drift). For all structures, a dynamic analysis method is required with the exception that the equivalent static force procedure may be used for: a) structures located in relatively low seismic area, b) regular structures less than 60 m in height and with fundamental lateral period less than 2.0 s, and c) irregular structures less than 20 m in height and with fundamental lateral period less than 0.5 s, except those which are torsionally sensitive. In the static equivalent procedure, the design lateral earthquake force at the base of the structure is given by (Humar and Mahgoub 2003): [1]

V=

S(Ta ) M V I E W 2 S(0.2) I E W Rd Ro 3 Rd Ro

where S(Ta) is the design spectral response acceleration, Ta is the design fundamental period, MV is a factor to account for higher mode effects on base shear, IE is the earthquake importance factor, W is the seismic weight, and Rd and Ro are the ductility-related and overstrength-related force modification factors, respectively. The design period can be determined using methods of mechanics except that it must not be taken greater than 2.0 times the value obtained from empirical expressions that are specified for the various SFRS. These upper limits on periods are prescribed because of concerns that structural models generally overestimate the flexibility of structural systems and, thereby, their period. The adjustment factor MV takes a value greater than 1.0 for flexible structures such as slender walls or braced frames with Ta longer than 1.0 s, when the design spectrum exhibits a steep descending gradient from the short period peaks to the long period values. The factor IE takes a value of 1.0, 1.3, and 1.5 for the normal, high, and post-disaster importance building categories, respectively. The force modification factors Ro and Rd depend on the structural system used and are discussed in more detail in the following section. The upper limit in Equation [1] corresponds to the cut-off on design forces for short-period structures, as discussed earlier. For periods longer than 2.0 s, the force V must be determined using S(2.0) to account for uncertainty in ground motion effects on tall structures. In the static force method, the seismic force V is distributed over the structure height according to: [2]

Fx = (V Ft ) Wx h x /( Wi h i )
i =1

where Wx and Wi are the seismic weights at levels x and i, respectively, hx and hi are the elevation of the corresponding levels from the base, and the force Ft is a concentrated lateral force applied at the roof level for higher mode effects. For Ta < 0.7 s, Ft = 0. For longer periods, it is given by: Ft = 0.07 TaV < 0.25 V. Dynamic analysis methods assuming linear or nonlinear structural response are accepted. In design, linear dynamic analysis such as the modal response spectrum analysis method or the linear time history analysis method are more convenient as both methods are commonly available in computer aided design tools. For response spectrum analysis, the design spectrum S(T) is used directly as the input whereas ground motion histories used in time history analyses must be compatible with S(T). Results of linear dynamic analysis methods must still be scaled relative to the static force V, again because of concerns that the resulting forces may be too low due to modeling assumptions adopted in the analysis. A lateral design earthquake force, Vd, is first determined from the base shear obtained from the dynamic analysis, Ve: [3]

Vd =

Ve I E V Rd Ro

, and the results of the linear dynamic analysis are then multiplied by the ratio Vd/Ve to obtain the design values. In equation [3], the parameter is equal to 0.8 except that = 1.0 for irregular structures requiring a dynamic analysis procedure. In-plane torsion and accidental eccentricities must be accounted for in both the static and dynamic methods of analysis. Accidental eccentricity can be incorporated by adding the static effects of torsional moments due to the lateral loads Fx acting at distances equal to 0.10 Dnx from the center of mass, where Dnx is the plan dimension of the building in the direction perpendicular to the loading. For non torsional sensitive structures, accidental eccentricity can be accounted for by performing a 3-dimensional dynamic analysis with the centres of mass shifted by distances equal to 0.05 Dnx. Rd and Ro force modification factors The 1995 NBCC the minimum lateral seismic force at the base of the structure, V, was given by V = (Ve / R) U, where Ve was the equivalent lateral force at the base of the structure representing elastic response, R was the force modification factor, and U was a calibration factor (U = 0.6). The force Ve was determined from the product of the zonal velocity ratio, the seismic response factor, the importance factor, the foundation factor, and the seismic weight. The force modification factor, R, reflected the capability of a structure to dissipate energy through inelastic behaviour. A major change from the NBCC 1995 code is the elimination of the calibration factor, U, and the introduction of two force modification factors, one for ductility and one for overstrength. The ductility-related force modification factor, Rd, essentially corresponds to the R factor used in previous code editions. In the proposed 2005 NBCC, the Rd factor ranges from 1.0 for brittle SFRS such as unreinforced masonry to 5.0 for the most ductile systems such as ductile moment-resisting steel frames. This range is believed to be realistic for multi-degree-of-freedom structures. It also corresponds to the range adopted in Eurocode 8 (ECS 2003) for the ductility-related force modification factor, q. In order to exhibit the necessary ductility and energy absorption to qualify for a given value of Rd specified in the NBCC, the structural system must be carefully designed and detailed in accordance with the applicable CSA standard. The ground motion level in the 2005 NBCC has been chosen to represent a relatively rare event with a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. During such a severe event, it is expected that structures would be damaged but would not collapse. Consequently, the actual capacity of the structure may be fully mobilised with the more ductile structures undergoing significant inelastic action. Traditionally, structures have been designed such that the members have factored resistances equal to or greater than the effects from factored loads. However, it has been shown that structures, particularly the more ductile ones, can have considerable reserve of strength that was not explicitly considered in the 1995 and previous NBCC editions. Figure 1 illustrates the stages of response of a simple frame structure as the lateral load is increased from the design factored load V1 to the load V3 that produces a collapse mechanism. The lateral load V1 corresponds to factored moments Mbf and Mcf in the beams and the columns, respectively. It takes a greater load, V2, to develop the actual yield strength of the beams Mb,yield. This larger resistance is due to the fact that the size of the beams is typically somewhat larger than that required and that the actual yield stress is generally greater than the minimum specified yield strength. When capacity design procedures have been adopted, a further increase in the resistance of the structure is possible. For the simple frame shown, with the columns fixed at their bases, capacity design requires that the columns be designed to ensure that plastic hinging will form first in the beams, with the full capacity of the system being reached only when the columns yield at their bases (i.e., weak-beam, strong-column concept). For this to be possible, the ductile beams must be carefully detailed to sustain their capacity (Mb,capacity) under large inelastic deformations without strength degradation until the column capacities (Mc,capacity) are reached to form a collapse mechanism under load V3. The proposed 2005 NBCC includes an explicit overstrength-related force modification factor, Ro, to account for this reserve of strength. In lieu of increasing the factored resistance to account for overstrength, the design force level is reduced by including the Ro factor in the denominator of Equations [1] and [3]. This approach is more in line with usual design procedures where the factored resistance is compared to the factored load effects as obtained from linear analysis. Figure 2 shows the resulting reduced design force, V. For design purposes, only the so-called dependable or minimum overstrength may be used. For a particular structural system, this dependable overstrength

arises from the application of the design and detailing provisions prescribed in the appropriate CSA standard and the Ro values proposed in the 2005 NBCC have been determined in a consistent manner for all SFRS in conformance with the CSA provisions. The derivations of the overstrength-related force modification factors Ro for steel structural systems are summarised in Table 1. In order to account for the various components contributing to Ro, the following formulation was chosen: [4] Ro = Rsize R Ryield Rsh Rmech
(a) (b)

(c)

Mbf

Mbf

Actual Mb, yield

Mb, capacity

Mc, capacity Mcf V1 Mcf V2 1 V3

(d)

V
V3 V2 V1

Fig. 1 Stages in the response of a frame structure.

V
Ve

Vy = Ve / Rd V = Ve / RdRo

Fig. 2 Determination of the lateral design force, V, including ductility- and overstrength-related force modification factors. The parameter Rsize accounts for the fact that structural shapes or plate elements are chosen by selecting the next (stronger) standard product available from the industry. It has also been shown that standard shapes have sectional properties that are typically somewhat higher than the nominal values. The Rsize factor is taken equal to 1.05 for

structural shapes, based on a survey of typical structures. For the web plate of plate walls, a value of 1.10 has been chosen assuming that the plate thickness is rounded upwards to the next available plate thickness. The factor R is included in Equation [4] because it is appropriate to use nominal resistances when designing for an extremely rare event such as earthquake effects corresponding to a return period of 2500 years. It is taken as 1/0.9 = 1.11 as the resistance factor, , associated with ductile failure modes is equal to 0.9 in steel structures. The factor Ryield accounts for the fact that the minimum specified material strength typically underestimates the actual strength. A value of 1.10 has been adopted for Ryield that corresponds to the average ratio of the actual yield stress to the minimum specified yield for W shapes. The factor Rsh accounts for the ability of strain hardening to develop in the material at the anticipated level of deformation of the structure. Therefore, it varies with the type of material as well as with the extent of inelastic action that can develop in the structural system. Hence, more ductile structures, designed with higher Rd values, have larger Rsh values. This factor is approximately 1.3 for short links yielding in shear in eccentrically braced frames, 1.15 for plastic hinges in beams, and 1.05 in tension elements. A value of 1.15 was chosen for the ductile and the moderately-ductile moment-resisting frames since both systems are designed and detailed to achieve large plastic deformations. A value of 1.05 is used for frames with limited ductility. For concentrically braced steel frames, strain hardening develops only in braces yielding in tension, resulting in a value of Rsh equal to 1.05. For eccentrically braced frames, a conservative value of 1.15 was adopted assuming flexural yielding rather than shear yielding. In plate walls, strain hardening arises mainly from tension field action in the plates and a value of 1.05 was selected. The parameter Rmech accounts for the additional resistance that can be mobilised before a collapse mechanism forms in the structure. A structure can only display this additional resistance if it is redundant and if yielding takes place in a sequence rather than all at once (see Fig. 1). Figure 3a illustrates the static collapse mechanism for a simple frame structure with N storeys. If it assumed that due to design requirements, the flexural strength of each column is times that of each beam, then it can be shown from plastic analysis (equating internal work and external work) that the overstrength arising from hierarchy of yielding is given by: [5]

R mech =

N+ N +1

Table 1. Derivation of overstrength-related force modification factors for steel seismic force resisting systems. Calculation of Ro Rsize Type D moment-resisting frames Type MD moment-resisting frames Type LD moment-resisting frames Type MD concentrically braced frames Type LD concentrically braced frames Type D eccentrically braced frames Type D plate walls Type LD plate walls Conventional construction 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.05 R 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 Ryield 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Rsh 1.15 1.15 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 Rmech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.05 1.00 Ro 1.47 1.47 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.47 1.63 1.48 1.28 Ro NBCC 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3

Seismic force resisting systems

(a)

(b)
1.20

Mpb

Mpb

Fx hsx hx Rmech

1.15 1.10 1.05

= 1.34

Mpc RoV

Mpc = Mpb

1.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Number of floors

(c)

(d)

Fig. 3 Overstrength arising from the formation of collapse mechanisms: (a) Simple frame collapse mechanism; (b) Influence of number of floors on Rmech for simple steel frames; (c) Concentrically braced steel frame; (d) Steel plate wall. Figure 3b shows that Rmech from Equation [5] decreases with the number of storeys, N. In this figure, a typical value for for ductile moment-resisting steel frames of 1.34 has been assumed. The reduction of Rmech with increasing values of N is due to the fact that the contribution of the yielding of the columns at their bases to the capacity of the system diminishes with the number of storeys. The assessment of Rmech for more realistic frames is generally more complex as other parameters must be considered. Figures 3c and 3d show the mechanism that can develop in concentrically braced steel frames and ductile plate walls, respectively. In tension-compression CBFs, overstrength arises once buckling of the compression brace has occurred and additional force is required to develop yielding in the tension brace. For the ductile steel plate wall system, yielding occurs first in the plate with the full mechanism developing only after plastic hinging occurs in the more flexible surrounding steel frame. For moment-resisting frames, the factor Rmech is greater than 1.0 when plastic hinges can form at the column bases after yielding in the beams. Since frames with pinned column bases are common in steel, the value of Rmech was conservatively set to 1.0. In concentrically braced steel frames, for which the braces are designed for compression forces, a reserve capacity is typically provided by the tension braces for tension-compression systems or by the compression braces for braced frames designed as tension-only systems. However, a conservative value of 1.0 was adopted for Rmech to account for the strength degradation of the compression braces under reversed cyclic loading. For low-rise buildings with tension-only bracing, it is permitted to use very slender braces exhibiting negligible compression strength for limited-ductility braced frames. Therefore, Rmech is equal to 1.0 for that category. An Rmech of 1.0 is also prescribed for eccentrically braced steel frames because a collapse mechanism is formed after yielding of the beam link segments. In plate walls, the compression strut that develops in the web plate and the elements of the moment-resisting frame provide additional lateral resistance to the system. Values of 1.10 and 1.05 were adopted for Rmech in ductile walls and walls with limited ductility, respectively, to account for this behaviour. Deflections and Drift Limits Lateral deflections from linear analysis must be multiplied by multiplied by RdRo and divided by IE to obtain realistic estimates of anticipated inelastic deflections. In the analysis, the upper limit on the period need not be applied in the calculation of the lateral force V, such that forces consistent with modeling assumptions are used to

determine the deflections. The inelastic storey drift is limited to 0.01 hs for post-disaster buildings (IE = 1.5), 0.02 hs for schools (IE = 1.3), and 0.025 hs for other structures, where hs is the storey height. Restrictions and Special Provisions Several restrictions and special provisions have been included in the 2005 NBCC to improve seismic performance by using more appropriate analysis methods or mitigating problems associated with poor structural configurations (DeVall 2003). Some of these requirements are summarised herein: Stiff non structural elements, such as concrete, masonry, brick or precast walls or panels, must be separated from all structural elements such that no interaction takes place as the building undergoes the calculated deflections, or such elements must be made part of the seismic force resisting system and designed accordingly. For combinations of different types of SFRS acting in the same direction in the same storey, the product RdRo must be taken as the lowest value of RdRo corresponding to these systems. When different structural SFRS are used over the height of a building, the value of RdRo considered in the design of any storey must not exceed the lowest value of RdRo used for the storeys above. Structures with a Weak storey irregularity are only permitted for non post-disaster buildings when located in low seismic zones (IEFaSa(0.2) < 0.2). For these structures, the design forces must be multiplied by 1.5 RdRo, thus 50% greater than the forces associated to elastic response. A structural system qualifying for an Rd factor of 2.0 or greater must be selected for post-disaster buildings. These structures must not have a Weak storey irregularity. When IEFaSa(0.2) > 0.35, the structures must also be regular in terms of the vertical variation of stiffness and geometry, in-plane discontinuity, out of plane offsets, and torsional sensitivity. For structures located at sites where IEFvSa(1.0) is greater than 0.3, walls must be continuous from their top to the foundation, without in-plane discontinuity or out of plane offsets. For buildings less than 20 m in height and with Ta less than 0.5 s, in-plane discontinuity and out of plane offset irregularities are permitted provided that the seismic design forces and deflections are increased by 50%. Diaphragms and their connections shall be designed so as not to yield under design loads established in accordance with capacity design principles. For structures located at sites where IEFaSa(0.2) is equal to or greater than 0.35, the elements supporting any discontinuous wall, column or braced frame, must be designed for the forces developed above the discontinuity as the lateral load capacity of the structure is reached. Where earthquake actions can produce forces in a column or wall due to lateral loading along both orthogonal axes, account must be taken for the effects of potential concurrent yielding of other elements framing into the column or wall from all directions at the level under consideration and as appropriate at other levels.

Upper limits on earthquake forces are also specified in the 2005 NBCC for the design of non-ductile elements. This limit corresponds to the forces determined with RdRo = 1.0 for SFRS designed with Rd 2.0 and RdRo = 0.70 for less ductile systems. Design forces for a structural system can also be limited by the rocking capacity of the foundations, since it is permitted in the 2005 NBCC to design foundations for a moment capacity consistent with seismic forces determined with RdRo = 2.0 (Anderson 2003).

CONCLUSIONS Significant modifications have been incorporated in CSA-S16-01 and major changes are being proposed for the 2005 NBCC to improve the expected seismic performance of steel structures. The 2001 edition of the S16 Standard includes additional rules to mitigate the potential for brittle material or connection failure modes. Revised provisions in line with FEMA 350 recommendations have been adopted for steel moment-resisting frames, and a new Limitedductility moment-resisting frame category has been introduced for ease of design and construction for low-rise buildings located in low seismic zones. Design requirements for concentrically braced steel frames have been extensively modified to better reflect the inelastic response of the system. In particular, several detailing rules have relaxed for brace design and an upper limit is now explicitly specified for brace connection forces, which should lead to more cost-effective structures. Building height limits have however been incorporated for the various CBF configurations and secondary moments and shear forces must be accounted in column design. Recent research work has led to changes to the eccentrically braced steel frame provisions that are mainly related the design of the columns of the bracing bents. Seismic design rules have been added for two plate wall systems: the Ductile wall system in which the seismic loads are resisted by shear and tension in the web plates in combination with momentresisting frame action in the surrounding framing members, and the Limited-ductility plate wall system in which the framing beams and columns can be pin-connected. Provisions have also been added to avoid brittle failure in connections of steel frames of conventional construction. The changes to the NBCC seismic provisions are also very significant. In particular, major revisions were made to the seismic hazard calculations, including the choice of a lower probability level and the use of site specific Uniform Hazard Spectra. It is anticipated that these modifications, together with the adoption of frequency- and amplitudedependant site coefficients, will provide for more consistency and uniformity of seismic level of protection throughout the country. Another major change from the 1995 NBCC is the elimination of the calibration factor, U, and the introduction of an overstrength-related force modification factor, Ro, to account for the reserve of strength in the SFRS. For steel structures, this modification factor varies between 1.3 and 1.6. Other modifications include the definition of irregularities in a systematic manner and the preference given to the dynamic method of analysis. The static equivalent force procedure is still permitted under certain conditions but it is based on the same design spectral values as used in dynamic analysis and includes higher mode effects as well as changes in period calculations. Restrictions and special provisions have also been included to mitigate undesirable structural performance. It must be noted that the design and detailing requirements given in this paper correspond to those in the CSA Standard and the draft version of the NBCC available at the time of writing. Once the NBCC 2005 is finalised, it is expected that some of the CSA provisions will be revised. Designers are cautioned that while this paper provides some guidelines for design and detailing requirements, the latest CSA standards and the approved NBCC documents must always be used. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author acknowledges the members of the Canadian National Committee on Earthquake Engineering (CANCEE) and the members of the Technical Committee of the CSA-S16 Standard for the many discussions and input during the development of the proposed provisions for seismic design. Large portions of this paper were prepared based on the CISC Commentary to Clause 27 of CSA-S16-01, which was prepared by the members of the CSA-S16 Task Group on seismic design, as well as on a paper published in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering on the development of the NBCC ductility- and overstrength-related factors which was co-written with D. Mitchell, E. Karacabeyli, P. Paultre, M. Saatcioglu, and D. Anderson. REFERENCES Adams, J. E. and Atkinson, G.M. 2003. Development of Seismic Hazard Maps for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 2, 255-271.

Adams, J. and Halchuk, S. 2003. Fourth Generation Seismic Hazard Maps of Canada: Values for Over 650 Canadian Localities Intended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. Open File No. 4459, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON. Anderson. D.L. 2003. Effect of Foundation Rocking on the Seismic Response of Shear Walls. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 2, 360-365. AISC. 2002. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago, Il. BSSC. 1994. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1: Provisions. Report No. FEMA 222A, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC. CSA. 2001. Limit States Design of Steel Structures, CSA-S16-01. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON. DeVall, R.H. 2003. Background Information for Some of the Proposed Earthquake Design Provisions for the 2005 Edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 2, 279-286. ECS. 2003. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, prEN 1998-1:200X, January 2003 Draft. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels. FEMA. 2000. FEMA-350, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Finn, W.D.L. and Wightman, A. 2003. Ground Motion Amplification Factors for the Proposed 2005 Edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 2, 272-278. Heidebrecht, A.C. 2003. Overview of NBCC 2005 Seismic Provisions. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 2, 241-254. Humar, J.L., and Mahgoub, M. A. 2003 Determination of Seismic Design Forces by Equivalent Static Load Method. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 2, 287-307. ICBO. 1997. Uniform Building Code. International Council of Building Officials, Whittier, CA. Mitchell, D., Tremblay, R., Karacabeyli, E., Paultre, P., Saatcioglu, M., and Anderson, D. 2003. Seismic Force Modification Factors for the Proposed 2005 NBCC. Can. J. of Civ. Eng., 30, 2, 308-327. NRCC. 1995. National Building Code of Canada 1995, 11th ed. Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON. Saatcioglu, M. and Humar, J.L. 2003. Dynamic Analysis of Buildings for Earthquake Resistant Design. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 2, 338-359. SNZ. 1997. Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404: Part 1. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.