Diaz Gomez Lucia V 201411 MAS Thesis

Seismic Fragility Analysis of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames
(MRF) Designed in Canada in the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010
by
LUCÍA VALENTINA DÍAZ GÓMEZ
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
© Copyright by LUCÍA VALENTINA DÍAZ GÓMEZ 2014

Seismic Fragility Analysis of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames (MRF)
Designed in Canada in the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010
Lucía Valentina Díaz Gómez
Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering

University of Toronto
2014
Abstract
A typical steel moment-resisting frame (MRF) of six stories was designed for three different
provisions of the National Building Code of Canada (1960s, 1980s, and 2010) and for two
different cities (Vancouver and Montreal). Numerical models were developed in OpenSees to
understand the seismic performance of the structures. These models accounted for strength and
stiffness degradation through the appropriate representation of the beam-column connection
behaviour. The beam-column connection models were calibrated against experimental results
available in the literature. The behaviour of the buildings was evaluated through pushover and
nonlinear time history analyses. The 1960s and 2010 steel MRFs of both cities presented strong-
column-weak-beam behaviour and the failure in the connections provoked the collapse of the
structures. The 1980s steel MRFs of both cities showed column sway mechanism. Fragility
curves were developed for the steel MRFs using nonlinear time history analyses.
ii
Acknowledgments
Thank God who created everything, including me and all the people involved in this thesis. To
Him is all the glory and honour. God made this possible financially, academically, and
emotionally through different key people.
This thesis was financially supported by Mrs Lucía Gómez Crespo, my mother, and I will be
eternally grateful for her life and her continual sacrifice for her daughters.
Academically speaking this thesis would not have been possible without the support,
supervision, and guidance of my esteemed professor Oh-Sung Kwon. He not only guided me but
exemplified hard work in his life. I really appreciate the weekly meetings and all the time
dedicated, especially when I felt overwhelmed. I am very grateful for the time and knowledge
provided by Professor Christopoulos, it had been an honour that you are the co-reader of this
thesis. Special thanks to Michael Gilmor, who helped me with his experience and accessible
attitude. Additionally, I am very grateful with the work done and the help provided by Professor
Lignos, Professor Packer, Professor Simpson, and Charles Albert.
Thanks to my classmates and members of Kwon’s team: Xu Huang (who I call my Mini-
Supervisor), Justin Binder, Saied Mojiri, Ali Ashasi, Hu Zhan, Viswanath Kammula, Steve Cha,
John Kabanda, Alex Duarte Laudon, Yumi Nakayima, Reza Hessabi, Hossein Agha Beigi, and
Amir Fathieh. Special thanks to my colleague and friend Mohammad Dabirvaziri, who
collaborated in some sections of this thesis with practical work.
I have special thanks for my best friend and the most wonderful man, my husband Krudo
Claudio de Jesús Castillo, who was always there in good and bad times. We continuously help
each other while regarding the other as a second priority after our Lord.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Regional Seismic Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 1
1.2. Seismic Fragility Functions for Regional Seismic Impact Assessment.............................. 3
1.2.1. Fragility Analysis Procedure in GEM ..................................................................... 3
1.2.2. Fragility Curves in HAZUS .................................................................................... 5
1.2.3. Fragility Analysis in ATC-13 ................................................................................. 7
1.3. Seismic Performance of Steel MRFs in Canada ................................................................. 8
1.4. Problem Definition............................................................................................................ 10
1.5. Thesis Scope and Objectives ............................................................................................ 11
1.6. Thesis Layout .................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 Evolution of Design Seismic Loads and Steel Design Provisions ............................... 13
2.1. Evolution of Design Seismic Loads .................................................................................. 13
2.2. Comparison of the Different Provisions of the NBCC ..................................................... 24
2.3. Evolution of CSA.S16 Clause 27...................................................................................... 27
Chapter 3 Design of the Reference Structure ............................................................................... 30
3.1. Representative Steel Moment Resisting Frame ................................................................ 30
3.2. Design based on NBCC 2010 and CSA.S16-2009 ........................................................... 32
3.2.1. Gravity Loads and Seismic Weight ...................................................................... 32
3.2.2. Materials, Storey Drift Limit, Type of Diaphragms and Connections ................. 34
3.2.3. Design Process ...................................................................................................... 35
iv
3.3. Design Based on NBCC 1980 and CSA.S16-1978 .......................................................... 42
3.3.1. Gravity Loads........................................................................................................ 42
3.3.2. Material, Storey Drift Limit, Type of Diaphragms, and Connections .................. 43
3.3.3. Design Process ...................................................................................................... 43
3.4. Design Process in the 1960s ............................................................................................. 49
3.4.1. Gravity Loads........................................................................................................ 49
3.4.2. Materials, Storey Drift Limit, Type of Diaphragms and Connections ................. 49
3.4.3. Design Process ...................................................................................................... 50
3.5. Comparison of the Design Process in the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 of Montreal and
Vancouver ......................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 4 Numerical Model in OpenSees .................................................................................... 58
4.1. Overview of the Inelastic Model....................................................................................... 58
4.2. Numerical Model for Main Elements ............................................................................... 62
4.2.1. Fibre Section Element ........................................................................................... 63
4.2.2. Lumped Spring...................................................................................................... 64
4.3. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 2010 ....................................................... 67
4.3.1. Experimental Results Available in Literature ....................................................... 67
4.3.2. Validation of Numerical Model Against the Experimental Results ..................... 68
4.4. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 1980s ..................................................... 71
4.5. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 1960s ..................................................... 75
4.6. Eigenvalue and Pushover Analysis ................................................................................... 79
4.6.1. Eigenvalue Analysis.............................................................................................. 79
v
4.6.2. Pushover Analysis ................................................................................................. 80
Chapter 5 Fragility Analysis through Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA) ...................... 94
5.1. Selection of Ground Motions ............................................................................................ 94
5.2. Seismic Fragility Analysis Procedure ............................................................................... 99
5.3. Time History Analysis Results and Comparison ............................................................ 111
Chapter 6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 117
6.1. Summary of Thesis ......................................................................................................... 117
6.2. Recommendations for Future Work................................................................................ 121
References or Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 123
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 129
A. Preliminary Design of 2010 Steel MRF.......................................................................... 129
B. Design Process of 2010 Steel MRF ................................................................................ 136
C. Preliminary Design of the 1980s Steel MRF .................................................................. 152
D. Design Process of the 1980s Steel MRF ......................................................................... 160
E. Preliminary Design of the 1960s Steel MRF .................................................................. 175
F. Design Process of the 1960s Steel MRF ......................................................................... 180
G. Design Results of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs ................................................................... 188
H. Pushover Curves of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs................................................................ 190
I. Selection of Ground Motion of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs.............................................. 196
J. Fragility Analysis of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs .............................................................. 200
K. Time History Analysis of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs ...................................................... 207
vi
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Structural Factor K, for NBCC 1975 to NBCC 1985.................................................. 16
Table 2-2: Force Modification Factor, R in NBCC 1990. ............................................................ 18
Table 2-3 Force Modification Factor R, for NBCC 1995 ............................................................. 19
Table 2-4: Fundamental Lateral Period, Ta for NBCC 2005. ....................................................... 20
Table 2-5: Site Class Definitions for NBCC 2005........................................................................ 21
Table 2-6: Values of Fa and Fv for NBCC 2005. .......................................................................... 21
Table 2-7: Importance Factors (IE) for NBCC 2005. .................................................................... 22
Table 2-8: Higher Mode Factor (Mv), and Base Overturning Reduction Factor (J) for NBCC
2005............................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 2-9: Ductility and Overstrength Factors Rd, and Ro for NBCC 2005. ................................ 23
Table 2-10: Higher Mode Factor (Mv), and Base Overturning Reduction Factor (J) for NBCC
2010............................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3-1: Assumed Gravity Loads. ............................................................................................. 32
Table 3-2: Importance Factor for Snow Load, Is. ......................................................................... 33
Table 3-3: Snow and Rain Load for 1% in 50 years for Different Cities of NBCC 2010. ........... 33
Table 3-4: Snow Loads for Different Cities of NBCC 2010. ....................................................... 33
Table 3-5: Seismic Weight of the Six-Storey Building in Montreal. ........................................... 34
Table 3-6: Design Summary for the Six-Storey Steel MRF 2010. ............................................... 37
Table 3-7: Final Member Sizes for the Six-Storey Steel MRF 2010. ........................................... 41
Table 3-8: Ground Snow Load for Different Cities for NBCC1980. ........................................... 42
vii
Table 3-9: Snow Loads for Different Cities for NBCC 1980. ...................................................... 42
Table 3-10: Final Member Sizes for Six-Storey Steel MRF NBCC 1980, Lower Bound. ........... 47
Table 3-11: Final Member Sizes for the Six-Storey Steel MRF 1980, Upper Bound .................. 48
Table 3-12: Ground Snow Load for Different Cities for NBCC 1960. ........................................ 49
Table 3-13: Snow Loads for Different Cities for NBCC 1960. .................................................... 49
Table 3-14: Final Member Sizes for Six-Storey Steel MRF 1960................................................ 52
Table 3-15: Base Shear Coefficients for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 Steel MRFs for Earthquake
and Wind Load for Montreal. ....................................................................................................... 54
Table 3-16: Base Shear Coefficients for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 Steel MRFs for Earthquake
and Wind Load for Vancouver. .................................................................................................... 54
Table 3-17: Summary of Main Differences for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 Steel MRFs. ........... 56
Table 3-18: Summary of the Member Sizes for Montreal and Vancouver Steel MRFs. .............. 57
Table 4-1: Mechanical Properties of LS-4 (Uang et al. 2000). ..................................................... 69
Table 4-2: Summary of Flange Plate Connection Experiments (Kim et al. 2002). ...................... 73
Table 4-3: Comparison of Lignos and Krawinkler Parameters and Kyriakopoulos’ Calibrated
Parameters. .................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 4-4: Comparison of the Periods of 2010, 1980s and 1960s Steel MRFs. ........................... 80
Table 4-5: Comparison of the Pushover Analysis of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 Steel MRF. ..... 85
Table 4-6: Comparison of the Updated Data from the Pushover Analysis of the 1960s, 1980s and
2010 Steel MRF. ........................................................................................................................... 93
Table 5-1: Spectral Acceleration for the Fundamental Period of the Steel MRFs for FE, DBE,
and MCE of NBCC 2010 Montreal. ............................................................................................. 95
viii
Table 5-2: Spectral Acceleration Bins. ......................................................................................... 96
Table 5-3: Selected Ground Motion Records. .............................................................................. 97
Table 5-4: Spectral Acceleration for the Fundamental Period of the 2010, 1980s, and 1960s Steel
MRFs of the Selected Ground Motion Records. ........................................................................... 98
Table 5-5: Structural Performance Levels and Damage for Steel MRF (ASCE 2007). ............. 101
Table 5-6: Parameters for Fitting Demand Curves. .................................................................... 102
Table 5-7: Non-structural Components: Response Sensitivity (ASCE 2007). ........................... 105
Table 5-8: Details of Ground Motion Records Used in the Time History Analyses. ................. 112
ix
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Plot of period vs seismic response spectrum for different Za/Zv in NBCC 1985....... 17
Figure 2-2: Plot of period vs. seismic response factor for NBCC 1990. ...................................... 19
Figure 2-3: Base shear coefficients of a ductile three-storey steel MRF in different cities.......... 24
Figure 2-4: Base shear coefficients of a ductile nine-storey steel MRF in different cities. .......... 25
Figure 2-5: Base shear coefficients of a ductile 20-storey steel MRF in different cities. ............. 25
Figure 2-6: Base shear coefficients of a conventional three-storey steel MRF in different cities. 26
Figure 2-7: Base shear coefficients of a conventional nine-storey steel MRF in different cities. 26
Figure 2-8: Base shear coefficients of a conventional 20-storey steel MRF in different cities. ... 27
Figure 2-9: Graph summary of the NBCC and the CSA.S16 for a conventional six-storey steel
MRF. ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3-1: Layout of the six-storey steel MRF............................................................................ 31
Figure 3-2: Elevation of the six-storey steel MRF........................................................................ 31
Figure 3-3: Typical detail of a reduced beam section (RBS) connection (Filiatrault et al. 2013). 34
Figure 3-4: Pre-qualified reduced beam section connection as prescribed in CISC-09. .............. 36
Figure 3-5: Design base shear and base shear due to wind load. .................................................. 38
Figure 3-6: Structural types shown as displacement vs. base shear (V). ...................................... 39
Figure 3-7: Force distribution due to wind load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 2010. ......... 40
Figure 3-8: Force distribution due to seismic load of the minimum base shear in kN for the six-
storey steel MRF 2010. ................................................................................................................. 41
x
Figure 3-9: Force distribution due to seismic load in kN, including notional loads, P-Delta
effects, and torsional moments for the six-storey steel MRF 2010. ............................................. 41
Figure 3-10: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF 2010. ....................................................... 42
Figure 3-11: Typical connection of the six-storey steel MRF 1980s............................................ 43
Figure 3-12: Force distribution of wind load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1980. .............. 44
Figure 3-13: Force distribution due to seismic load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1980. ... 45
Figure 3-14: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF 1980, lower bound. ................................. 47
Figure 3-15: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF 1980. upper bound .................................. 48
Figure 3-16: Force distribution of wind load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1960s. ............ 50
Figure 3-17: Force distribution of seismic load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1960s. ........ 51
Figure 3-18: Final design of six-storey steel MRF 1960. ............................................................. 53
Figure 4-1: Uniaxial material Steel 02 of OpenSees (Berkeley, 2009). ....................................... 59
Figure 4-2: Schematic representation of typical composite section. ............................................ 60
Figure 4-3: Schematic representation of the numerical models for 2010. .................................... 60
Figure 4-4: Schematic representation of the numerical models for the 1980s and 1960s. ........... 61
Figure 4-5: Idealized models of beam column elements (Deierlein et al. 2010). ......................... 62
Figure 4-6: Schematic fibre section element and stress-strain relationship. ................................. 63
Figure 4-7: Modified IK deterioration model: (a) monotonic curve; (b) basic modes of cyclic
deterioration and associated definitions (Lignos & Krawinkler 2011). ........................................ 65
Figure 4-8: Test setup (Uang et al. 2000). .................................................................................... 68
Figure 4-9: Connection detail (Uang et al. 2000). ........................................................................ 69
xi
Figure 4-10: Standard loading history. ......................................................................................... 70
Figure 4-11: Cyclic hysteretic moment-rotation of an RBS connection from a) experimental

model (Uang et al. 2000) and b) IK spring numerical model. ...................................................... 70
Figure 4-12: Overlap of numerical model and experimental results (Uang et al. 2000). ............. 71
Figure 4-13: Typical pre-Northridge connection (Naimi et al. 2013). ......................................... 72
Figure 4-14: Typical cover plate and welded flange plate connections (Kim et al. 2002). .......... 72
Figure 4-15: SAC phase II test setup (Kim et al. 2002)................................................................ 74
Figure 4-16: Overlap of moment vs. plastic rotation of experiment RC08 (Kim et al. 2002)and
numerical model with modified IK-spring. .................................................................................. 74
Figure 4-17: Frame F test specimen (Kyriakopoulos 2012). ........................................................ 76
Figure 4-18: Frame F test setup (Kyriakopoulos 2012). ............................................................... 76
Figure 4-19: Hysteresis of North connection of frame F with a backbone curve (Kyriakopoulos
2012). ............................................................................................................................................ 77
Figure 4-20: Moment vs rotation of numerical model of frame F’s connection. ......................... 78
Figure 4-21: Mode shapes of the steel MRFs. .............................................................................. 80
Figure 4-22: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 2010. .................................................. 81
Figure 4-23: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 1980, lower bound. ............................ 82
Figure 4-24: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 1980, upper bound. ............................ 83
Figure 4-25: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 1960. .................................................. 84
Figure 4-26: Comparison of the pushover curves of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 steel MRF. ...... 85
Figure 4-27: Pushover curve, plastic hinges and deformed shape of the six-storey steel MRF
2010............................................................................................................................................... 87
xii
1980s, lower bound. ...................................................................................................................... 89
1980s, upper bound. ...................................................................................................................... 90
1960s. ............................................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 5-1: Design response spectrum for different hazard levels in Montreal (NBCC 2010). ... 96
Figure 5-2: Spectral acceleration distribution of the selected ground motion records. ................ 99
Figure 5-3: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 2010 steel MRF. ............. 103
Figure 5-4: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 1980s steel MRF upper
bound........................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 5-5: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 1980s steel MRF lower. . 104
Figure 5-6: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 1960s steel MRF. ........... 104
Figure 5-7: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 2010 steel MRF. .......... 106
Figure 5-8: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 1980s steel MRF, upper
bound........................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 5-9: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 1980s steel MRF, lower
bound........................................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 5-10: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 1960s steel MRF. ...... 107
Figure 5-11: Fragility curves for 2010 steel MRF. ..................................................................... 108
Figure 5-12: Fragility curves for 1980s steel MRF, upper bound. ............................................. 109
Figure 5-13: Fragility curves for 1980 steel MRF, lower bound. ............................................... 109
Figure 5-14: Fragility curves for 1960 steel MRF. ..................................................................... 110
xiii
Figure 5-15: Fragility curves for the different frame cases. ....................................................... 111
Figure 5-16: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (2010 steel MRF)................... 113
Figure 5-17: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (1980s steel MRF upper bound).
..................................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 5-18: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (1980s steel MRF lower bound).
..................................................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 5-19: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (1960 steel MRF). .................. 116
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
Seismic impact assessment studies provide indispensable information to insurance companies
and decision makers in emergency management agencies. Relevant recent seismic impact
assessment studies in North America include Onur et al. (2005), AIR Worldwide (2013), and
Elnashai et al. (2009). One of the components of seismic impact assessment studies is fragility
functions that provide the probabilities of exceedance of a structure to certain levels of damage
caused by a seismic event. Accurately determining the actual response of a reference structure in
the fragility functions is a time-consuming task. Nowadays, several fragility curves are available
for North America but only a few of them are for Canada. Some of the studies on fragility
analysis of various building types include Ventura et al. (2005), HAZUS of FEMA (2003), and
ATC-13 (1985). A systematic procedure for fragility analysis involves seismic performance
assessments of the structures. The seismic performance assessments studies available in Canada
for steel moment-resisting frames (MRF) include Biddah and Heidebrecht (1999), Biddah and
Heidebrecht (1998), Yousuf and Bagchi (2009), and Kyriakopoulos (2012). Because developing
these seismic performance assessments for fragility curves demands high computational work,
many regional seismic impact assessment studies opt to obtain the fragility functions based on
experts’ opinions or with simplified procedures.
The following sections discuss the seismic impact assessment studies, the seismic fragility
analyses, and the seismic performance assessments of steel MRFs currently available in Canada.
1.1. Regional Seismic Impact Assessment

Regional seismic impact assessment studies evaluate the economical and societal losses due to a
scenario earthquake event. The results are expressed in terms of overall economic loss, number
of damaged structures, casualties, etc. The applications of these studies include supporting
decision makers in developing appropriate emergency plans and determining whether to conduct
retrofit projects to existing buildings. Another application is to support insurance companies in
evaluating the economic risk of potential earthquakes. There are four components that must be
estimated and defined in order to assess a regional seismic risk: i) seismic hazard, ii) building
1
inventory, iii) fragility functions, and iv) the relationship between damage and economic losses.
This section summarizes the literature on seismic impact assessment studies.
The University of British Columbia in partnership with Carleton University, British Columbia’s
insurance industry, the Geological Survey of British Columbia, the Insurance Commissions
Office, and the Ministry of Highways of British Columbia developed a seismic assessment in
south-western British Columbia (Onur et al. 2005). It was conducted to provide a better
estimation of economic losses and to allow the insurance industry to evaluate the economic risk
of potential earthquakes. In the study, the scenario seismic hazard was defined based on the
seismic hazard of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 1995 edition. The risk level in
NBCC 1995 was of 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (475 years of return period). This
hazard level is currently outdated compared to 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years in the
NBCC 2010. The building classification was based on the construction year, building height, and
structural type. The building inventory was defined with existing city databases, field surveys,
and quick visual screening of individual buildings (Onur et al. 2005).
In 1985, the Applied Technology Council published ATC-13 (ATC 1985), earthquake damage
evaluation data for buildings in California, United States. The building classification and their
damage probability matrices (DPM) for California were included in ATC-13. These DPM relate
damage to ground motion intensity, describing the probability of reaching a certain damage state
for a particular intensity of ground motion. They were obtained from the opinion of a panel of 71
experts in earthquake engineering.
In a paper on seismic fragility functions, Ventura et al. (2005) followed the same procedure as
ATC-13 and compared the fragility functions with ATC-21-1(ATC 1988). ATC-21-1 provides
the modification factors applied to ATC-13 for structures located outside California. Building
types, damage, and loss distributions were mapped on a block-by-block basis. Total damage
levels were expressed in modified damage factors MDFs for each building class at an intensity of
VIII in the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI). The MDF is the ratio of dollar loss to
replacement cost. Next, the average MDF was computed within each block and multiplied by the
replacement costs.
2
Nowadays there are several types of software used to estimate losses due to natural hazards. For
example, the HAZUS Earthquake Model is aimed at creating loss estimates for use by federal,
state, regional, and local governments in planning for earthquake risk mitigation, emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery (FEMA 2003). The main components of the HAZUS
Earthquake Model are: i) Potential Earth Science Hazards (PESH), ii) inventory, iii) direct
damage, iv) induced damage, v) direct loss, and vi) indirect economic loss. The first module,
PESH, can be defined as ground motions, ground failures, and tsunamis. The inventory includes
standardized classification systems for: i) general building, ii) essential facilities, iii)
transportation lifeline system components, and iv) utility lifeline system components. The direct
damage component estimates the probability of reaching or exceeding a certain damage state for
a given level of hazard due to the earthquake. The induced damage component evaluates effects
and losses due to inundations, fire, and debris as a consequence of the seismic event. Both direct
damage and induced damage cause direct losses. Direct losses take into account social and
economic losses. Direct social losses are expressed in terms of casualties, displaced households,
and shelters. Direct economic losses include repair and replacement costs of damaged lifeline
components and buildings, and costs due to relocation, rental loss, business interruption, and
other factors. Finally, indirect economic losses are long-term costs incurred as a consequence of
the direct impact.
A regional seismic impact assessment cannot be achieved without fragility functions. These
functions are essential to defining the relation between damage and ground motion intensities.
The following sections will discuss: i) fragility functions, ii) a general procedure for generating
these functions, iii) fragility curves in HAZUS and in ATC-13, and iv) the research motivation.
1.2. Seismic Fragility Functions for Regional Seismic Impact

Assessment
1.2.1. Fragility Analysis Procedure in GEM
The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) provides guidelines for developing analytical, empirical
and experts’ opinion-based seismic vulnerability functions (D’Ayala et al. 2013). This section
discusses the guidelines for analytical fragility functions. These guidelines provide flexibility in
developing vulnerability functions to allow for different users’ needs and capabilities (D’Ayala
et al. 2013). The process is divided into three main stages: class definition and analysis setup,
3
running of analysis and output of the engineering demand parameter (EDP), and estimation of
losses.
The first step consists of defining index buildings. The analyst will select the most appropriate
sampling technique to represent a class of buildings. The selection could range from one index
building, where a single type represents the typical case, or multiple index buildings covering a
wide range of possibilities. . For this thesis one reference building for each period and city was
selected, with the 1980s reference building being split into two reference buildings due to the
allowance of CAN/CAS.S16.1-78 (CSA 1978) in deciding whether to meet drift requirements,
resulting in a total of 8 index buildings.
The second step is selecting components to be considered in the response analysis and therefore
in the loss estimation. GEM classifies two types of components: structural and nonstructural.
Structural components are the main contributors to the response of the structure. Nonstructural
components can be categorized into two groups: those which contribute primarily to the
structural behaviour and those that contribute primarily to the cost. The scope of this thesis only
considers the structural components.
The third step is selecting the model type. The three model types are characterized by the level of
complexity and structural detail. The simplest model type is the simplified equivalent 1D model
represented by a single degree of freedom (SDOF) nonlinear spring. The next model in terms of
increasing complexity is the 2D lumped model represented by reduced multi DOF. The most
complex model is the 3D/2D elements model. The model type used in this study is a 2D steel
frame with elements model and lumped nonlinear springs for the beam-column connection
behaviour representation.
Step four is defining the damage states. GEM suggests five levels of damage: no damage, slight,
moderate, near collapse, and collapse. EDP thresholds are required to distinguish each damage
level. They provide two options to estimate the thresholds: one is the pre-set definition of the
capacities for all buildings and the other is a custom-definition for each index building that
incorporates capacity-demand correlation. For this study, the damage levels and their
corresponding thresholds were based on ASCE (2007).
4
The fifth step is selecting the analysis type in order to quantify the EDP for a given seismic
intensity measure. The simplest analysis type is a nonlinear static analysis based on simplified
mechanical models with no numerical methods. The next analysis type in terms of complexity is
a nonlinear static analysis which is based on the use of a first mode load pattern such as the
pushover analysis of a 3D/2D structure. The most complex analysis type is a nonlinear dynamic
analysis, which requires performing a time history analysis. The latter is the analysis type
implemented in this thesis.
The final step is constructing the fragility curves based on the above information.
The previous procedure, taken from D’Ayala et al. (2013), provides the schema followed in this
thesis for the analytical fragility analysis. This type of procedure is computationally expensive
and as a result other studies opt for less time-consuming tools to develop fragility curves, such as
the procedure in HAZUS and ATC-13, that will be discussed in the following sections.
1.2.2. Fragility Curves in HAZUS

The building damage functions of the HAZUS earthquake model are defined by two main
elements: capacity curves and fragility curves. The former are pushover curves of each building
class, characterised by yield and ultimate level of structural strength. The fragility curves
included in HAZUS are for: i) structural systems, ii) nonstructural components sensitive to
acceleration, and iii) nonstructural components sensitive to drift. Four damage states are
considered: slight, moderate, extensive, and complete (Kircher et al. 2006).
HAZUS defines the building capacity curve as a force-deflection plot, or pushover curve. The
capacity curve is converted to an acceleration displacement response spectrum (ADRS) format.
This pushover curve is defined by its yield capacity and ultimate capacity. The yield capacity
represents the lateral strength of the building and accounts for design strength, over-strength
expected in the materials, redundancies in the design, and conservatism requirements of the
codes. In cases where the wind loads govern instead of the seismic loads, such as in taller
buildings, the wind loads become the design strength. The ultimate capacity is considered to be
the maximum strength of the building when the structure achieved a full mechanism of collapse.
After this point the pushover curve keeps perfectly plastic, not accounting for P-Delta effects and
strength and stiffness degradation.
5
HAZUS defines the performance displacement of the building as the intersection point obtained
by overlapping the demand spectra from the codes over the building capacity in ADRS format
(Kircher et al. 2006). This procedure is very similar to the capacity spectrum method (CSM),
which is a more simplified method of assessing the performance displacement. This simplified
method is commonly used as it is computationally inexpensive and not time consuming.
The fragility curves are developed for the different damage states stated before. Each curve is
characterized by two values: the median and the lognormal standard deviation (β) of the potential
Earth science hazards (PESH) demand. Each component (structural, nonstructural sensitive to
drift, and nonstructural sensitive to acceleration) has its own PESH parameter. For example, the
first two components use the spectral displacement as the PESH parameter whereas the latter
component uses spectral acceleration. The probability of exceedance for a given damage is
represented as a cumulative lognormal distribution, as follows:
1 𝐷 (1-1)
𝑃[𝑑𝑠|𝐷] = 𝜑 [ 𝑙𝑛 ]
𝛽𝑑𝑠 𝐷 ̅𝑑𝑠
where 𝐷 is the given demand in the corresponding PESH parameter (such as spectral
̅𝑑𝑠 is the median value of
displacement or spectral acceleration), ds is a given damage state, 𝐷
demand at which the building reaches the edge of the damage state, 𝛽𝑑𝑠 is the standard deviation
of the natural logarithm of demand of damage state, and 𝜑 is the standard normal cumulative
distribution function.
The damage state median values for structural components are based on building drift ratios and
are converted to spectral displacement as follows:
̅
𝑆𝑑,𝑆 = 𝛿𝑅,𝑆𝑑𝑠 𝛼2 ℎ (1-2)
𝑑𝑠
̅
where 𝑆𝑑,𝑆 is the damage state median value in spectral displacement of structural components,
𝑑𝑠
𝛿𝑅,𝑆𝑑𝑠 is the drift ratio at the threshold of structural damage state, 𝛼2 is the fraction of the building
height at the location of pushover mode displacement, and ℎ is the typical building height. These
values are included in FEMA (2003) and the 𝛿𝑅,𝑆𝑑𝑠 were obtained mainly from OAK
Engineering (1994), which reviewed and summarized the drift/damage data available in the
literature. The lognormal standard deviation (𝛽) describes the fragility curve variability for each
6
damage state and building component. It is quantified by defining the contribution of the
corresponding lognormal standard deviation that describes: the capacity curve variability (𝛽𝑐 ),
̅
the demand spectrum variability (𝛽𝐷 ), and the uncertainty of estimating 𝑆𝑑,𝑆 . The HAZUS
𝑑𝑠
fragility curves are based on capacity obtained from the simplified methods. However, the
fragility curves of this thesis are based on the probability of the demand being greater than the
specified capacity threshold.
Calculation effort and uncertainty are inversely proportional (D’Ayala et al. 2013). Calculation
effort will be determined by the type of model and the type of analysis used. As was described
above, HAZUS fragility curves compute the demand based on simplified models. This reduces
calculation time but adds uncertainty into the computation. Therefore, the pushover curves and
the maximum inter-storey drift (ISDmax) values for different ground motions developed in this
thesis can be used to improve HAZUS fragility curve accuracy and consequently Canada’s
seismic impact assessment.
1.2.3. Fragility Analysis in ATC-13

The Applied Technology Council (ATC) was established in 1971 through the support of the
Structural Engineers Association of California and funded by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The ATC developed the Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for
California (ATC-13) project. This project’s data was the base of an impact assessment project for
California and was funded by FEMA.
Three aspects must be highlighted regarding the methodology used for the ATC-13 project. First,
due to the lack of literature regarding earthquake damage, loss, and inventory data, ATC and
FEMA generated data from the judgement of experienced experts in earthquake engineering.
Second, the earthquake shaking characterization selected for this project was the modified
Mercalli intensity (MMI) due to the large number of existing motion-damage data in the United
States for this intensity measure. Third, a building classification was done based on two criteria:
i) earthquake engineering facility classification (i.e., size, structural system, and material), and ii)
social function classification, such as economic function.
The experts consulted for the ATC project were subjected to multiple questionnaires as a means
to obtain estimates of percent physical damage for different building classes due to ground
7
motions. These estimates were expressed in terms of damage factors versus the MMI scale. The
questionnaire process consisted of three rounds. In the first round the specialists were asked to
provide low, best, and high estimates of the damage factor to specific earthquake engineering
facility types for MMI levels VI to XII. The damage factor was defined as the ratio of damage
cost due to the earthquake divided by replacement cost. The purpose of the last two rounds was
to reach an agreement on the damage factor values provided by the experts (ATC-13 1985).
These types of fragility curves are based purely on the judgement of experts’ opinions, which
represent an excellent quick analysis. Ventura et al. (2005) developed their fragility curves in the
same way. Currently, Ventura et al. (2005) are the only fragility curves available for Canada,
which means the only fragility curves available for Canada are based on experts’ opinions.
Providing fragility curves based on a systematic procedure is one of the goals of this thesis.
1.3. Seismic Performance of Steel MRFs in Canada

Based on an extensive literature review, only four seismic performance assessment studies for
steel MRFs were carried out in Canada: Biddah and Heidebrecht (1999), Biddah and Heidebrecht
(1998), Yousuf and Bagchi (2009), and Kyriakopoulos (2012). These seismic performance
assessments were for buildings in different cities (Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver, and Victoria),
with different number of stories (5-, 6-, 9-, 10-, 15- and 20-storeys), and with different design
provisions (1965-, 1995-, and 2005-NBCC).
Two of these studies were conducted by Biddah and Heidebrecht (1998 and 1999). One of these
studies evaluated the seismic performance assessment of steel MRFs designed with different
hazard levels (Victoria, Vancouver and Montreal). The other one studied the performance of
different design philosophies: strong-column-weak-beam (SCWB), weak-column-strong-beam
(WCSB), and strong-column-weak-panel (SCWP). Both studies were motivated by a lack of
seismic performance assessment studies for steel MRFs with different seismic hazard and with
different design philosophies previous to 1995 in Canada. The designs were based on the NBCC
1995 and CSA-S16.1-94. The implications of each philosophy will be briefly explained below as
this terminology will be used throughout this thesis. In addition, the reasons why one of these
three designs is currently preferred over the other will be discussed. For the SCWB design
philosophy the critical elements are the beams and they are forced to undergo inelastic actions.
8
The criterion is to design columns with a strength that is at least 20% higher than the adjoining
beams. For the opposite design philosophy, WCSB, the beams are designed to withstand 1.2
times the columns. Finally, for SCWP, the member sections were the same as SCWB. However,
the panel zones are the new critical elements and were designed with ductile and stable
behaviour. It was done by restraining the gravity and seismic shear force to less than a given
factored panel shear resistance.
The numerical models of Biddah and Heidebrecht (1999) considered P-Delta effects but only
using the corresponding gravity load of the frames (D+0.5L). The connections were defined as
bilinear rotational spring models, but inelastic actions were not allowed. Therefore only elastic
stiffness was necessary.
It can be pointed out from the pushover curve results that the different design philosophies give
approximately the same initial global stiffness. The lowest overall strength corresponds to the
SCWP for 6- and 10-story buildings because the global strength is controlled by the strength of
the weak joint panel zones. However, SCWB and WCSB designs show approximate strengths
even though their member sizes are significantly different. The SCWB philosophy is preferred
over WCSB because the latter presents a tendency to form a soft storey type of collapse. This is
why currently the capacity design in NBCC 2010 imposes SCWB.
Another important contribution to the seismic performance assessment of steel MRFs is

Kyriakopoulos (2012). He studied the Type 2 construction steel MRF of an existing hospital
building located in Quebec, Canada. Even though this research goes further and provides retrofit
designs for the structure, there are important numerical model assumptions that were considered
in this study. A verification of the design was conducted and showed adequate member sizes
regarding the Type 2 construction philosophy. Kyriakopoulos also analysed the same structure in
the region of Nanaimo, which has the same wind-loading characteristics of Quebec but higher
seismicity. One of the numerical models developed accounted for stiffness and strength
degradation based on extensive research by Lignos and Krawinkler on fully restrained moment
connections (2011). Because the applied hazard level did not significantly engage the
performance of the structure, the two models (with and without strength degradation) did not
present substantial differences.
9
The results from the pushover analysis exhibited first-storey failure mechanism and considerable
P-Delta effects. The structure achieved its maximum strength at 2.0% of inter-storey drift and an
abrupt decrease due to P-Delta effects causing early collapse. One of the frames of the structure
performed adequately for the Montreal hazard and therefore no retrofit was suggested. However,
the other one was deemed to require retrofitting to harness the interstory drift of the first floor.
For the Vancouver hazard, both frames needed retrofitting. Some of the findings of this thesis are
similar to those obtained by Kyriakopoulos (2012); for example, the 1960s steel MRF achieved
the 2% inter-storey drift without collapse, most of the deformation was concentrated in the first
three storeys, and the P-Delta effects contributed to the reduction of capacity of the frame.
However, the 1960s steel MRF did not present first-storey failure mechanism, and because the
connections behaved as hinges at the beam ends the frame performed similar to a structure with
capacity design. In the hospital building the first-storey mechanism occurred because the
structure was irregular, contrary to the reference structure selected in this study.
1.4. Problem Definition

The literature review shows that there is a lack of systematic studies that develop seismic
fragility curves for steel MRFs designed in Canada. Even if the development of these fragility
curves based on available literature was desired, the number of the available seismic
performance assessments at a system level is insufficient. The same occurs for other types of
structures such as reinforced concrete MRFs, shear walls, and braced frames. In addition, the
comparison of these studies is very difficult as different analysis and modelling assumptions
were used. This is the reason why a systematic study of seismic fragility assessment is required.
A representative structure, a six-storey steel MRF, was designed and assessed for three different
periods: 1960s, 1980s, and 2010. The layout is based on Biddah and Heidebrecht (1999) as it
provides a representative structure in Canada and the designs can be compared among
themselves. Type 2 construction was the design philosophy used in the 1960s (NBCC 1965). The
1980s employed a moment-resisting frame with limit states design (LSD) based on NBCC 1980
and CAN/CSA-S16-84. The 2010 steel MRF used a capacity design based on NBCC 2010 and
CAN/CSA-S16-09.
10
Type 2 construction design was commonly used in the 1960s (NBCC 1965). In Type 2
construction philosophy the beams are designed for gravity loads as simply supported and the
connections are designed for lateral load only, specifically for wind loads. These frames are also
known as Type 2 with wind (Geschwindner & Disque 2005). Type 2 construction philosophy
allows yielding in the connections under gravity loads. When lateral load is added, a system is
developed in which some connections are further in their plastic range and the others are moved
back and forth repeatedly from their plastic range through the elastic region (Kyriakopoulos
2012). The allowable stress design (ASD) was employed in the 1960s standards.
The 1980s steel MRFs’ connections were designed to withstand the maximum moment obtained
from the amplified load combinations with LSD. At that time, neither the SCWB philosophy nor
capacity design were considered. Even though the 1960s and the 1980s have the same type of
connections (welded flange plates and a single side shear tab), the demand used in each
connection design was very different. The 1980s connections are designed to withstand the
moments from the governing combination of gravity and lateral loads instead of only the lateral
load as was the case in the 1960s connections.
The capacity design concept was used in the 2010 steel MRF. This design philosophy intends to
localize yielding points in the beams at a certain distance from the column face and allow the
other elements to behave elastically. These yielding points are the plastic hinges and are
achieved by using, in this case, reduced beam sections (RBS). These moment connections allow
the stresses to be concentrated on the ends of the beams. This concentration of stresses can be
attained by reducing the beam flanges in specific locations.
The numerical models were developed in OpenSees. These account for strength and stiffness
degradation from Lignos et al. (2011). They were validated and calibrated with experimental
results from other authors (Kim et al. 2000; Kyriakopoulos 2012; Uang, Yu, & Gilton 2000b).
1.5. Thesis Scope and Objectives

A representative steel structure of six storeys was designed with three provisions of the National
Building Code of Canada (NBCC), 1960, 1980, and 2010, and their respective provisions of the
Steel Structures for Buildings of the Canadian Standard Association (CSA.S16). The structures
were designed for Montreal’s and Vancouver’s seismic hazard levels. Each design period and
11
city combination represents a frame case. Numerical models were built for each frame case.
These numerical models consider strength and stiffness degradation, and are validated against
experimental results from the available literature. The numerical models were used to conduct
pushover and nonlinear time history analyses. The pushover analysis was conducted to better
understand the building behaviour and mode of collapse, and the nonlinear time history analyses
are used to develop the fragility curves. The results of the Vancouver frame case were
contributed by a colleague following the same procedure explained in this thesis.
The objectives of this research are to understand the seismic performance of each frame case and
to develop the associated fragility curves.
1.6. Thesis Layout

A literature review is found in Chapter 1. It includes a review of seismic impact assessments,
seismic fragility of existing buildings, and seismic performance assessments of steel MRFs in
Canada. Chapter 2 discusses the evolution of the NBCC and the CSA.S16. Chapter 3 is dedicated
to the detailed description of: the representative building used, the general assumptions
considered, and the design procedures. The numerical models in OpenSees are stated in Chapter
4 and include the validation of the numerical models against experimental results available in the
literature. In addition, a comprehensive explanation of the numerical model assumptions for each
provision is contained within. Chapter 4 concludes with the pushover analysis results and
comparison. Fragility analysis, selection of ground motions, and time history analysis are
discussed in Chapter 5. Finally, a summary of the thesis and recommendations for future work
are discussed in Chapter 6.
12
Chapter 2
Evolution of Design Seismic Loads and Steel Design Provisions
The behaviour of the structures can be anticipated by understanding the design loads applied and
the design philosophies employed. Design loads can be gravity or lateral loads. Understanding
the evolution of the seismic design loads provides a good sense of the structure’s capacity over
time. In addition the design approaches and construction details vary over time. Therefore the
study of the evolution of the base shear coefficient was conducted to understand the evolution of
the seismic loads with the different provisions of the NBCC. Relevant information about seismic
and steel structure design as provided by the CSA.S16 is also included.
2.1. Evolution of Design Seismic Loads

An exhaustive and detailed review of the NBCC was conducted covering from its first
publication in 1941 to the 2010 edition. The evolution through the years will be shown
graphically and the calculation of the minimum base shear for static analysis will be explained in
detail in the following sections. Similar work was conducted first by Mitchell et al. (2010).
NBCC 1941
The first provision of the NBCC was published in 1941. It contained only two options for base
shear coefficient, 2% or 4%. The selection of the base shear coefficient (𝑉𝑏 /𝑊) was based on the
bearing strength of soil at the site.
𝑉𝑏 = 𝐶𝑊 (2-1)
where 𝐶 is the base shear coefficient and 𝑊 is the weight of the structure.
NBCC 1953-1960
In NBCC 1953-1960 provisions the base shear coefficient is obtained through an equation that
includes two parameters: zone factor (𝑍) and number of stories (𝑁). The zone factors were
obtained from a hazard-level map introduced for the first time in 1953. This map contained three
seismic zones and was purely qualitative with no probability of occurrence being assigned. The
seismic force for each floor can be found in Eq. (2-2) and the corresponding coefficient in Eq.
(2-3):
13
𝐹𝑖 = 𝐶𝑖 𝑊𝑖 (2-2)
0.15
𝐶𝑖 = 𝑍 ( ) (2-3)
𝑁 + 4.5
where 𝑖 is the floor in consideration, 𝑍 is the factor due to the seismic zone (1 for Zone 1, 2 for
Zone 2, and 4 for Zone 3), and 𝑁 is the number of stories above the 𝑖 th level.
NBCC 1965
In NBCC 1965, the base shear coefficient symbol changed from 𝐶 to 𝐾 to differentiate it from
another new parameter (see Eq. (2-4)). Different new parameters were introduced such as
construction type (C), importance of the building (I), foundation conditions (F), and the number
of storeys factor (𝑆):
𝐾 = 𝑅𝐶𝐼𝐹𝑆 (2-4)
where 𝑅 (formerly 𝑍) is the earthquake factor, C is the construction factor (0.75 for MRFs and
RC shear walls with ductile behaviour and 1.25 for other types), I is the importance factor (1.3
for hospitals, large assemblies of people buildings and power stations, and 1 for other types), F is
the foundation condition factor (1.5 for highly compressive soils, and 1 for the other soil
conditions), and S is the reflection of the number of stories. The 𝑆 factor is obtained as follows:
0.25
𝑆= (2-5)
𝑁+9
where 𝑁 is the total number of storeys of the building. It also established a specific distribution
of the seismic loads as follows:
𝑉𝑤𝑥 ℎ𝑥
𝐹𝑥 = (2-6)
∑ 𝑤ℎ
where 𝐹𝑥 is the lateral force at level x, V is the base shear, 𝑤𝑥 is the portion of weight assigned to
that level, ℎ𝑥 is the height in feet above the base at level x, and ∑ 𝑤ℎ is the sum of the product of
𝑤𝑥 and ℎ𝑥 of the whole building.
14
NBCC 1970
A few important changes were introduced in the 1970 provision. First of all, the term period (𝑇)
is presented for the first time in the NBCC. Two options were provided to calculate the period
depending on the structure type:
0.05ℎ𝑛
𝑇= (2-7)
√𝐷
or
𝑇 = 0.1𝑁 (2-8)
The latter formula can be used for all buildings with MRFs that resist 100% of the required
lateral load and the former for structures not meeting this description. The minimum base shear
for this provision is given by:
1
𝑉= 𝑅𝐾𝐶𝐼𝐹𝑊 (2-9)
4
where the new parameters are: K, which is a structural system-dependant factor, and C, which is
0.05
dependent on the period (0.1 for all one or two storey buildings or 𝐶 = 3 ≤ 0.1 for all other
√𝑇
buildings). The new seismic zoning map return period is 100 years (50% probability of
exceedance in 50 years). The rest of the parameters are the same as in NBCC 1965.
Another important addition to NBCC 1970 is the force at the top of the building to account for
higher mode effects. This force is a portion of the base shear and is given by:
𝐹𝑡 = 0.004𝑉(ℎ𝑛 ⁄𝐷)2 (2-10)
where ℎ𝑛 is the height of the building and 𝐷 is the plan dimension in the direction of analysis.
The force distribution along the height of the building is the same as in the previous provision
but the new concentrated force at the roof needs to be subtracted from the base shear (Vb-Ft).
NBCC 1975
In NBCC 1975, the minimum lateral seismic force, V, is equal to the product:
𝑉 = 𝐴𝑆𝐾𝐼𝐹𝑊 (2-11)
15
where 𝐴 is the horizontal design ground acceleration which depends on the seismic zone (0.02
for Zone 1, 0.04 for Zone 2, and 0.08 for Zone 3), 𝑆 is the seismic response factor
3
(𝑆 = 0.5/√𝑇 ≤ 1 where 𝑇 follows the same criteria of the previous NBCC), 𝐹 is the soil
condition factor (soft soils, compact coarse-grained, and stiff fine-grained were added to this
provision with a factor of 1.3), and 𝐾 is the structural factor depending on the lateral load
resisting system (see Table 2-1).
Table 2-1: Structural Factor K, for NBCC 1975 to NBCC 1985.

Structural Factor,
Lateral Load Resisting System
𝐾
Building with a ductile moment-resisting space frame with the capacity to
0.7
resist the total required force
Building with a dual structural system consisting of a complete ductile
moment-resisting space frame and shear walls or steel bracing designed in 0.7
accordance with the criteria in NBCC 1975-1985
Dual system of ductile moment-resisting space frame and shear walls or
steel bracing (frame must be designed to resist at least 25% of total base 0.8
shear and walls or bracing must be designed to resist 100% of base shear)
Ductile flexural walls and ductile framing systems not defined above 1
Dual system with ductile space frame with masonry infill (infilled wall
system must be designed to resist 100% of base shear and frame; without 1.3
infill must be designed to resist at least 25% of total base shear)
Systems not defined above with continuous reinforced concrete, steel
1.3
structural or reinforced masonry shear walls
Unreinforced masonry and all other structures not define above 2
Elevated tank 3
NBCC 1977
The design seismic load for the quasi-static approach remained the same as in the previous
provision.
NBCC 1980
This provision introduced the international system of units (SI) and brought with it changes in
the expressions of the spectral factor (𝑆) and the natural period (𝑇). These expressions changed
to 𝑆 = 0.5/√𝑇 ≤ 1 and 𝑇 = 0.09ℎ/√𝐷, respectively.
16
NBCC 1985
In NBCC 1985, the formula for minimum base shear was modified and new parameters were
included as follows:
𝑉 = 𝑣𝑆𝐾𝐼𝐹𝑊 (2-12)
where 𝑣 is the zonal velocity ratio. Factor 𝑣 is determined in NBCC 1985 Subsection 2.2.1. New
parameters 𝑍𝑣 and 𝑍𝑎 are the velocity zone and the acceleration zone, respectively. When 𝑍𝑣
equals 0 and 𝑍𝑎 is greater than 0 the value of 𝑍𝑣 shall be taken as 1 and 𝑣 as 0.05. The structural
type factors (𝐾) have remained the same from 1975 up to this year.
A new seismic zoning map was introduced with a hazard of 10% of probability of exceedance in
50 years. The seismic response factors (𝑆) for different scenarios of 𝑍𝑎 /𝑍𝑣 versus the structural
period are plotted in Figure 2-1. 𝑆 is in units of g and period (T) is in seconds. Prior to 0.5 sec,
ratio 𝑍𝑎 /𝑍𝑣 is directly proportional to the value of 𝑆.
0.7
Seismic Response Factor, S (g)
0.6
0.5 Za/Zv=1
0.4 Za/Zv<1
Za/Zv>1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Period, T, (sec)
Figure 2-1: Plot of period vs seismic response spectrum for different Za/Zv in NBCC 1985.
NBCC 1990
In 1990, the NBCC replaced the 𝐾 factor by the force modification factor (𝑅). The 𝑅 factors are
listed in Table 2-2. The minimum base shear was given by:
𝑈(𝑣𝑆𝐼𝐹𝑊)
𝑉= (2-13)
𝑅
17
where 𝑈 was introduced as a calibration factor (0.6) to conserve the previous design base shear.
The category of very soft-grained soils was introduced with an 𝐹 factor of 2. Because 𝑅 acts as a
denominator it must be greater than 1 in order to show the capability of the structure to dissipate
energy through inelastic behaviour. The seismic factor 𝑆 was also modified and it was not
expressed in terms of 𝑔 (see Figure 2-2).
Table 2-2: Force Modification Factor, R in NBCC 1990.

Type of Lateral Load Resisting System 𝑹
Steel Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
ductile moment-resisting space frame 4
ductile eccentrically braced frame 3.5
ductile braced frame 3
moment resisting space frame with nominal ductility 3
braced frame with nominal ductility 2
other lateral-force-resisting systems not defined above 1.5
Reinforced Concrete Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
ductile moment-resisting space frame 4
ductile flexural wall 3.5
moment-resisting space frame with nominal ductility 2
wall with nominal ductility 2
other lateral-force resisting systems not defined in 7-10 1.5
Timber Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
nailed shear panel with plywood 3
concentrically braced heavy timber space frame with ductile connections 2
moment-resisting wood space frame with ductile connections 2
other systems not included in 12-14 1.5
Masonry Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
reinforced 1.5
unreinforced 1
Other Lateral Load-Resisting Systems Not Defined Above 1
18
4.5
4
Seismic Response Factor,S

3.5 Za/Zv=1
3 Za/Zv<1
2.5 Za/Zv>1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Period, T (sec)
Figure 2-2: Plot of period vs. seismic response factor for NBCC 1990.
NBCC 1995
Additions to NBCC 1995 include new equations to estimate the period for steel and concrete
MRF buildings and new categories for structure types. Moreover some previous 𝑅 factors were
modified. The new and modified 𝑅 factors are emphasized in Table 2-3.
3⁄
T = 0.075h 4 (for concrete MRF) (2-14)
3⁄ (2-15)
T = 0.085h 4 (for steel MRF)
Table 2-3 Force Modification Factor R, for NBCC 1995

Type of Structure 𝑹
Steel Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
ductile moment-resisting frame 4
ductile eccentrically braced frame* 4
ductile steel plate shear wall* 4
braced frame 3
moment-resisting frame with nominal ductility 3
nominally ductile steel plate shear wall 3
braced frame with nominal ductility 2
ordinary steel plate shear wall* 2
other lateral-force-resisting systems not defined above 1.5
Reinforced Concrete Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
ductile moment-resisting frame 4
ductile coupled wall 4
other ductile wall systems* 3.5
moment-resisting frame with nominal ductility 2
wall with nominal ductility 2
other lateral-force resisting systems not defined in 10-14 1.5
19
Timber Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
nailed shear panel with plywood 3
concentrically braced heavy timber frame with ductile connections 2
moment-resisting wood frame with ductile connections 2
other systems not included in 16-18 1.5
Masonry Structures Designed and Detailed According to CAN/CSA-S16.1-M
reinforced with nominal ductility* 2
reinforced 1.5
unreinforced 1
Other Lateral Load-Resisting Systems Not Defined Above 1
*These lateral load resisting systems were newly added in NBCC 1995.
NBCC 2005
NBCC 2005 provided more parameters to compute the minimum base shear and more
procedures to execute the seismic design. The minimum lateral seismic force was calculated as:
𝑆(𝑇𝑎 )𝑀𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑊
𝑉= (2-16)
𝑅𝑑 𝑅𝑜
except that 𝑉 shall not be less than 𝑆(2.0)𝑀𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑊 ⁄𝑅𝑑 𝑅𝑜 and for a seismic force-resisting system
2
(SFRS) with 𝑅𝑑 ≥1.5, 𝑉 ≤ 3 𝑆(0.2)𝑀𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑊⁄𝑅𝑑 𝑅𝑜 . 𝑇𝑎 is the fundamental lateral period in the
direction of analysis and shall be determined as stated in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Fundamental Lateral Period, Ta for NBCC 2005.
Type of Structure 𝑻𝒂
MRF that Resist 100% of the Required Lateral Forces
⁄4
steel moment frames 0.085 ℎ𝑛3
3⁄
concrete moment frames 0.075 ℎ𝑛 4
other moment frames 0.1𝑁
Braced Frames
braced frames 0.025 ℎ𝑛
Other Structures
⁄4
shear walls and other structures 0.05 ℎ𝑛3
hn is the total height of the building in meters
N is the number of storeys
20
For this provision the design spectral acceleration values also include the effects of the site class.
Therefore, the acceleration-based site coefficient (𝐹𝑎 ) and the velocity-based site coefficient (𝐹𝑣 )
need to be defined first in order to compute 𝑆(𝑇𝑎 ). These coefficients are dependent on the site
class, as described in Table 2-5, and are defined in Table 2-6.
Table 2-5: Site Class Definitions for NBCC 2005.
Average Properties in Top 30 m

Ground
Site Average Standard
Profile Average Shear Wave Soil Undrained
Class Penetration Resistance,
Name Velocity, Vs (m/s) Shear Strength su
N60
A Hard rock >1500 n/a n/a
B Rock 760-1500 n/a n/a
Very dense
C soil or soft 360-760 N60>50 su>100kPa
rock
D Stiff soil 180-360 15≤N60≤50 50kPa≤su≤100kPa
<180 N60<15 su<50kPa
Any profile with more than 3 m of soil with the following characteristics:
E Soft soil -plasticity index: PI>20
-moisture content: w≤40%, and
- undrained shear strength: su<25kPa
F Other Soils Site-specific evaluation required
Table 2-6: Values of Fa and Fv for NBCC 2005.

Values of 𝐅𝐚 for site classes Values of 𝐅𝐯 for site classes
Site
Sa (0.2) Sa (1.0)
class
≤0.25 0.5 0.75 1 ≥1.25 ≤0.10 0.2 0.3 0.4 ≥0.5
A 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
B 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1
E 2.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 2.1 2 1.9 1.7 1.7
Site-specific geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analysis shall be
F
performed
21
The design spectral acceleration values of 𝑆(𝑇) shall be determined as follows using linear
interpolation for intermediate values of 𝑇:
𝑆(𝑇) = 𝐹𝑎 𝑆𝑎 (0.2)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇 ≤ 0.2𝑠
= 𝑀𝐼𝑁(𝐹𝑣 𝑆𝑎 (0.5)𝑜𝑟 𝐹𝑎 𝑆𝑎 (0.2))𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇 = 0.5 𝑠
= 𝐹𝑣 𝑆𝑎 (1.0)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇 = 1.0𝑠 (2-17)
= 𝐹𝑣 𝑆𝑎 (2.0)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇 ≤ 2.0𝑠
= 𝐹𝑣 𝑆𝑎 (2.0)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇 ≥ 4.0𝑠
NBCC 2005 introduces one more occupancy category and its respective importance factor; it is
described in Table 2-7. The other coefficients are the higher mode factor (𝑀𝑣 ), the ductility-
related force modification factor (𝑅𝑑 ), and the overstrength-related force modification
factor (𝑅𝑜 ). 𝑀𝑦 and the associated base overturning moment reduction factor (𝐽) can be taken
from Table 2-8. The ductility- and overstrength-related force modification factors are stated in
Table 2-9.
Table 2-7: Importance Factors (IE) for NBCC 2005.

Importance Category Importance Factor (𝐈𝐄 )
Low 0.8
Normal 1
High 1.3
Post-disaster 1.5
Table 2-8: Higher Mode Factor (Mv), and Base Overturning Reduction Factor (J) for
NBCC 2005.
𝑴𝒗 𝑱
Sa(0.2)/
Type of lateral-resisting systems Ta≥2.
Sa(2.0) Ta≤1.0 Ta≤0.5 Ta≥2.0
0
MRF or coupled walls 1 1 1 1
<8 Braced frames 1 1 1 0.8
Walls, wall-frame systems, and other systems 1 1.2 1 0.7
MRF or coupled walls 1 1.2 1 0.7
≥8 Braced frames 1 1.5 1 0.5
Walls, wall-frame systems, and other systems 1 2.5 1 0.4
22
Table 2-9: Ductility and Overstrength Factors Rd, and Ro for NBCC 2005.
Type of seismic force-resisting systems (SFRS) 𝑹𝒅 𝑹𝒐
1 Conventional construction of MRFs, braced frames, or shear walls 1.5 1.3
2 Ductile eccentrically braced frames 4 1.5
3 Ductile frame plate shear walls 5 1.6
Steel structures 4 Ductile moment resisting frames 5 1.5
designed and
5 Limited ductility concentrically braced frames 2 1.3
detailed according to
CSA S16 6 Limited ductility moment-resisting frames 2 1.3
7 Moderately ductile concentrically braced frames 3 1.3
8 Moderately ductile moment-resisting frames 3.5 1.5
9 Moderately ductile plate shear walls 2 1.5
10 Conventional construction (MRFs and shear walls) 1.5 1.3
11 Ductile coupled walls 4 1.7
Concrete structures 12 Ductile moment-resisting frames 4 1.7
designed and
13 Ductile partially coupled walls 3.5 1.7
detailed according to
CSA A23.3 14 Ductile shear walls 3.5 1.6
15 Moderately ductile moment-resisting frames 2.5 1.4
16 Moderately ductile shear walls 2 1.4
17 Nailed shear walls — wood based panels 3 1.7
Shear walls
18 Shear walls — wood based and gypsum panels in combination 2 1.7
19 Moderately ductile 2 1.5
Braced or MRF with
20 Limited ductility 1.5 1.5
ductile connections
21 Other wood or gypsum based SFRS(s) — not listed above 1 1
22 Conventional construction (shear walls and MRFs) 1.5 1.5
Masonry structures
designed and 23 Limited ductility shear walls 1.5 1.5
detailed according to 24 Moderately ductile shear walls 2 1.5
CSA S304.1
25 Unreinforced masonry 1 1
NBCC 2010
A few changes were made to NBCC 2010. The spectral accelerations were slightly reduced for
short-period structures. In addition, the minimum lateral earthquake force lower limit was
modified. Eq. (2-16) remains the same but should not be less than 𝑆(4.0)𝑀𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑊 ⁄𝑅𝑑 𝑅𝑜 for walls,
coupled walls and wall-frame systems, and not less than 𝑆(2.0)𝑀𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑊 ⁄𝑅𝑑 𝑅𝑜 for MRFs, braced
frames and other systems. The higher mode factor (𝑀𝑣 ) and base overturning reduction
factor (𝐽) were modified as is shown in Table 2-10.
23
Table 2-10: Higher Mode Factor (Mv), and Base Overturning Reduction Factor (J) for
NBCC 2010.
Sa(0.2)/ Type of lateral resisting Mv J
Sa(2.0) systems Ta≤1.0 Ta=2.0 Ta≥4.0 Ta≤0.5 Ta=2.0 Ta≥4.0
Moment-resisting frames 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
Coupled walls 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8
<8 Braced frames 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8
Walls, wall-frame systems 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.5
Other systems 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.6
Moment-resisting frames 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.7
Coupled walls 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.6
≥8 Braced frames 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.6
Walls, wall-frame systems 1.0 2.2 3.0 1.0 0.4 0.4
Other systems 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 0.4 0.4
2.2. Comparison of the Different Provisions of the NBCC

The method for computing the base shear coefficient (𝑉𝑏 /𝑊) for each provision of the NBCC
was previously described in this chapter. There are 13 editions of the NBCC, with the first
appearing in 1941. This section will graphically present the evolution of the 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 for three
different cities (Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto) and for three different numbers of stories (3,
9, and 20). Figure 2-3, Figure 2-4, and Figure 2-5 describe the evolution of the 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 for each
city for the three-storey, nine-storey, and 20-storey ductile steel MRFs, respectively. In the same
order, Figure 2-6, Figure 2-7, and Figure 2-8 describe the conventional steel MRFs.
0.12
0.10
0.08
Vb/W
0.06 Montreal
0.04 Vancouver
Toronto
0.02
0.00
1970 1975 1977 1980 1985 1990 1995 2005 2010
NBCC
Figure 2-3: Base shear coefficients of a ductile three-storey steel MRF in different cities.
24
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
Vb/W
Montreal
0.04
0.03 Vancouver
0.02 Toronto
0.01
0.00
1970 1975 1977 1980 1985 1990 1995 2005 2010
NBCC
Figure 2-4: Base shear coefficients of a ductile nine-storey steel MRF in different cities.
0.06
0.05
0.04
Vb/W
0.03 Montreal
0.02 Vancouver
Toronto
0.01
0.00
1970 1975 1977 1980 1985 1990 1995 2005 2010
NBCC
Figure 2-5: Base shear coefficients of a ductile 20-storey steel MRF in different cities.
Figure 2-3, Figure 2-4, and Figure 2-5 only show the 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 from 1970 to the present as ductile
steel MRFs were only included for the first time in NBCC 1970. These figures show that the
seismic zone is a very significant factor of 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 . On average Vancouver’s 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 is 1.8 times
that of Montreal and 4.05 times that of Toronto. In addition, Montreal’s 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 is 2.26 times that
of Toronto’s. The 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 trend for three-storey steel MRFs is to increase over time. Interestingly,
the peak 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 corresponds to NBCC 1970. As ASD was used prior to 1975, a factor of 2 had to
be applied to NBCC 1970 in order to compare it with the other provisions (Mitchell et al. 2010).
Contrarily, the lowest value of 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 corresponds to NBCC 1990 due to the decrease in the
spectral acceleration value. Alternatively, the 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 trend for 9- and 20-storey steel MRFs
follows the same trend as three-storey steel MRFs. However, 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 values are lower compared
25
to the values for the three-storey steel MRFs because the number of storeys is inversely
proportional to 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊.
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
Vb/W
Montreal
0.15
Vancouver
0.10
Toronto
0.05
0.00
NBCC
Figure 2-6: Base shear coefficients of a conventional three-storey steel MRF in different
cities.
0.25
0.20
0.15
Vb/W
Montreal
0.10 Vancouver
Toronto
0.05
0.00
NBCC
Figure 2-7: Base shear coefficients of a conventional nine-storey steel MRF in different
cities.
26
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
Vb/W Montreal
0.08
Vancouver
0.06
0.04 Toronto
0.02
0.00
NBCC
Figure 2-8: Base shear coefficients of a conventional 20-storey steel MRF in different cities.
Conventional steel MRFs have been present since 1941 with no special considerations or
requirements of ductility. Conventional steel MRFs are designed under greater seismic loads as
they are not expected to have ductile behaviour. In the NBCC, conventional structures have on
average 3 times the 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 of ductile structures. In addition, Figure 2-6, Figure 2-7, and Figure
2-8 show that prior to 1970, Vancouver and Montreal had the same 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊. This is because both
cities were categorized in the same seismic zone.
2.3. Evolution of CSA.S16 Clause 27

The purpose of the NBCC was to provide a standardized demand for all building structures, i.e.,
to define all load types (dead, live, snow, wind, and earthquake). However, the capacity and
design suggestions for structures are established in various Canadian Standard Association
(CSA) standards. The CSA standard classification depends on the material and structure type.
Steel Structures for Buildings, CSA.S16, provides guidelines on how to determine the capacity
of steel buildings for design purposes. Steel design requirements were stated for the first time in
the 1924.
The first seven editions of the CSA.S16, which appeared from 1924 to 1969, followed the
allowable stress design (ASD) approach and the last seven editions, from 1974 to 2009, followed
the limit state design (LSD) approach. The LSD compares the reduced resistance to the factored
loads. This approach defines several scenarios in which collapse and unserviceability can occur
27
while at the same time avoiding the reduced resistance being greater than the factored loads.
However, the ASD compares working stresses with allowable values.
Prior to 1989, the only seismic requirements for building design were stipulated in the NBCC
which basically defined the seismic base shear and the distribution of the seismic loads. As a
result, steel structures were designed with the general requirements of MRFs. The concept of
ductility was introduced for the first time in 1989 which allowed the design of ductile and
nominal ductility MRFs. Prior to this, only conventional frames were defined.
The seismic design provisions and the capacity design for steel structures were formally
introduced for the first time in the CSA-S16 in 1989. The capacity design intends to pre-
emptively define which elements will be subjected to inelastic plastic deformations and which
elements will remain elastic. The former are the ductile, or critical, components and the latter are
the brittle components. The capacity design can have three different approaches or philosophies:
strong-column weak-beam (SCWB), strong-column weak-panel (SCWP), and weak-column
strong-beam (WCSB).
After the Northridge earthquake, many changes in steel MRF connections were made, and the
CISC in Canada and the AISC in the United States developed new connections that allowed
beams to form hinges and have ductile behaviour.
Figure 2-9 graphically synthesizes the evolution of the NBCC’s 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 and the design
philosophies of the CSA.S16. The evolution of 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 corresponds to a six-storey conventional
steel MRF for three different cities (Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto). As was mentioned
before, in order to compare the 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 used in ASD and in LSD, it is necessary to multiply the
𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 of the ASD by a factor of 2 (Mitchell et al. 2010). The peak value of 𝑉𝑏 /𝑊 corresponds to
the NBCC 1970 and the lowest to the NBCC 1990. It can be inferred from this plot that the
greatest demands correspond to the 1960s and 2010, and the lowest to the 1980s.
28
Figure 2-9: Graph summary of the NBCC and the CSA.S16 for a conventional six-storey
steel MRF.
29
Chapter 3 Design of the Reference Structure
A representative steel MRF was selected and designed for different provisions of the NBCC
(1960, 1980, and 2010) and for different cities (Montreal and Vancouver). The design of the
2010 steel MRF was also possible due to the great work of Filiatrault et al. (2013). The design
methodology used in this thesis for the 2010 steel MRF meticulously follows the design guide
and example provided by Filiatrault et al. (2013). The 1960s and 1980s steel MRF designs were
also possible due to the CISC Handbooks which provide a good sense of the design practice at
that time and an interview with Michael Gilmor. This section will discuss the layout, the gravity
loads, and the design procedure for each case.
3.1. Representative Steel Moment Resisting Frame

Layout and location
The structural layout was selected from the seismic performance assessment of Biddah and
Heidebrecht (1999), as it was study conducted in Canada and can serve as a point of comparison
for the design results. The plan view consists of a rectangular layout of three-bay by four-bay.
Each span-length is 8.0 m, i.e., 24 m in the EW-direction and 32 m in the NS-direction. The
structure is symmetrical in both directions. The secondary beams are equally spaced along the
EW-direction as illustrated in Figure 3-1. The lateral load-resisting system (LLRS) in the EW-
direction perimeter consists of steel MRFs, the NS-direction perimeter consists of braced frames
(BF). Only the EW-direction is analysed in this study. In the elevation view, the building consists
of a ground floor with 4.5 m height and a typical height for the rest of the floors of 3.6 m, giving
a total height of 22.5 m, as shown in Figure 3-2.
The structure is designed for all the different provisions of NBCC 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 and is
to be located in the city of Montreal, QC, Canada. Another student followed the same procedure
and provisions under my direction for a structure located in Vancouver, BC, Canada and these
results will also be presented.
30
Figure 3-1: Layout of the six-storey steel MRF.
Figure 3-2: Elevation of the six-storey steel MRF.
Gravity loads
The roof and floors are conformed of secondary steel beams and composite concrete and steel
deck slabs. The slabs are assumed to act as rigid diaphragms. The building is to be occupied by
offices and therefore the importance category for all the provisions is normal. The site class
selected is normal or Type C for 2010, in order to avoid increments or decrements in the seismic
loads. The foundation design is not scope of this study.
31
Gravity loads were taken from NBCC 2010 and, excepting snow loads, assumed to be identical
for all the provisions. Table 3-1 provides details on the gravity loads.
Table 3-1: Assumed Gravity Loads.

Detailed Loads Load
Load Type
(kPa) (kPa)
Offices areas - 1st storey 4.8 4.8
Offices areas - above 1st
Live 2.4 2.4
story
Roof 1.0 1
Insulation and vapour barrier 0.2
Mechanical and ceiling 0.05
Dead Roof Membrane 0.3 2.95
Concrete slab and steel deck 2
Roof framing 0.4
Partitions 1
Floor finish 0.2
Dead Floor Concrete slab and steel deck 2.5 4.6
Floor framing 0.4
Mechanical and ceiling 0.5
Cladding (on the vertical
Exterior Wall 1.5 1.5
face)
3.2. Design based on NBCC 2010 and CSA.S16-2009

3.2.1. Gravity Loads and Seismic Weight
First, gravity loads need to be defined. Gravity loads are composed of dead, live and snow loads.
The dead and live loads are described in Table 3-1, and snow loads are defined based on NBCC
2010 as follows:
𝑆 = 𝐼𝑠 [𝑆𝑆 (𝐶𝑏 𝐶𝑤 𝐶𝑆 𝐶𝑎 ) + 𝑆𝑟 ] (3-1)
where Is is the importance factor for the snow load (defined in Table 3-2), 𝑆𝑆 is the 1% in 50
years of ground snow load in kPa, Cb is the basic roof snow load factor, 𝐶𝑤 is the wind exposure
factor, 𝐶𝑠 is the slope factor, 𝐶𝑎 is the shape factor, and 𝑆𝑟 is the 1% in 50 years associated rain
load in kPa.
32
Table 3-2: Importance Factor for Snow Load, Is.
Importance Importance Factor, Is
Category ULS SLS
Low 0.8 0.9
Normal 1 0.9
High 1.15 0.9
Post-disaster 1.25 0.9
The basic roof snow load factor, 𝐶𝑏 , shall be 0.8, except for large roofs where it shall be:
1 − (30⁄𝑙𝑐 )2 for roofs with 𝐶𝑤 =1 and 𝑙𝑐 ≥70 m, or 1 − (140⁄𝑙𝑐 )2 for roofs with 𝐶𝑤 = 0.75 and
𝑙𝑐 ≥ 200 m, where 𝑙𝑐 is the characteristic length defined as 2𝑤 − 𝑤 2 ⁄𝑙 , w is the smaller plan
dimension, and l the larger plan dimension of the roof in metres. The wind exposure factor, 𝐶𝑤 ,
the slope factor, 𝐶𝑆 , and the shape factor, 𝐶𝑎 , were taken as 1.0, which is the greatest value
possible. The values of 𝑆𝑆 and 𝑆𝑟 are found in Table 3-3. The resulting snow loads for different
cities are found in Table 3-4.
Table 3-3: Snow and Rain Load for 1% in 50 years for Different Cities of NBCC 2010.
Load (kPa) Montreal Vancouver Toronto
Ss 2.6 1.8 0.9
Sr 0.4 0.2 0.4
Table 3-4: Snow Loads for Different Cities of NBCC 2010.

Load
Montreal Vancouver Toronto
(kPa)
S 2.48 1.64 1.12
The seismic weight is calculated with 100% of the dead load, 25% of the snow load, and
assuming only 0.5kPa for partitions, as described in Table 3-5.
33
Table 3-5: Seismic Weight of the Six-Storey Building in Montreal.
Roof
0.25 Snow Exterior Seismic Weight
DEAD (kPa)
(kPa) Wall (kN)
2.95 0.62 1.5 3044
Intermediate Floors
DEAD-
Exterior Wall Seismic Weight
PARTISIONS+0.5kPa
4.1 1.5 3754
First Floor
DEAD-
Exterior Wall Seismic Weight
PARTISIONS+0.5kPa
4.1 1.5 3829
Total Seismic Weight = 3044 + 4x3754 + 3829 = 21888 kN
3.2.2. Materials, Storey Drift Limit, Type of Diaphragms and Connections

Rolled W shapes are used with the CSA Standard G40.21-345W (𝐹𝑦 = 345MPa) and the
probable yield stress is taken as 𝑅𝑦 𝐹𝑦 , where 𝑅𝑦 = 1.1. The inter-storey drift shall be less than
2.5% due to the normal importance category. The composite slabs are assumed to act as rigid
diaphragms and transfer the lateral loads to the MRFs. The connections used for the MRFs were
the reduced beam section (RBS). A typical detail is illustrated in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: Typical detail of a reduced beam section (RBS) connection (Filiatrault et al.
2013).
34
3.2.3. Design Process
Initially a preliminary design was done before starting the design process (see Appendix A for
further details). The purpose of the preliminary design was to quickly compute the initial sizes of
the MRF elements and obtain an indication of the general structural behaviour regarding
deflection and strength. The equivalent static method (ESM) was chosen for the design process.
In order to use this approach, the structure must be regular and the irregularities as defined in
NBCC 2010 must be eliminated (see Table A-1 for details).
The limit states design method and the capacity design philosophy were employed in the 2010
steel MRF. The capacity design philosophy pre-establishes a SCWB behaviour by focalizing
yielding points in strategic places of both the beam ends and the rest of the structure to withstand
the mechanism in the elastic range.
The design is an iterative process that verifies whether the previous selection of members is
adequate given the actual loads. Gravity loads change in each iteration when the cross sections
have been changed. In the same way the period of the structure is dependent on the members.
Each iteration starts with the computations of the new fundamental period and the process is
halted when the period is equal or closer to the previous iteration. There will be two base shears
for each iteration, one for strength (𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ) with an upper bound of 𝑇 = 1.5𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 , and the
other for drift verifications (𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑡 ),which is more relaxed, with an upper bound of 𝑇 = 2.0 𝑠𝑒𝑐.
In NBCC 2010, the seismic loads must be increased to account for torsional effects, notional
loads, and P-Delta effects. The torsional moments are due to the accidental eccentricity and
inherent eccentricity. The latter are the result of the difference of the position of mass centre and
stiffness centre. The torsional moments due to accidental eccentricities are taken from a distance
equal to 10% of the plan dimensions. Because the structure is symmetrical in both directions,
there are no inherent eccentricities due to the displacement of the stiffness centre from the mass
centre and therefore these torsional moments are zero. The seismic loads increase around 5% due
to the torsional moments. Notional loads (Ns) are equal to 0.5% of the gravity load at each level
to account for construction imperfections. In Canada, these loads are only prescribed for steel
structures. Finally, P-Delta effects are included in the design to account for secondary moments
due to the increasing displacements.
35
The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) prepared guidelines for the design of pre-
qualified moment connections (CISC 2004). This study used the reduced beam section
connection type. The geometry of the RBS is shown in Figure 3-4.
𝑐 𝑠2
𝑅= +
2 8𝑐
Plan View
b) Elevation View
Figure 3-4: Pre-qualified reduced beam section connection as prescribed in CISC-09.
The columns are designed to sustain gravity loads while the plastic hinges are developed in the
RBS within the elastic range. However, CSA.S16-09 allows yielding at the base of the columns
of the first floor, regardless of the number of storeys, and near the top of the columns of a single-
storey building. As a result, the columns of the first floor in this study were designed to develop
plastic hinges at the base.
The panel zones are located at the intersection of columns and beams. These are subjected to
higher shear demands due to the moments imposed by the beams to the columns. Because a
ductile behaviour is desired only in the RBS of the beams, the panel zones were designed to
behave elastically and avoid any type of failure in this zone.
As mentioned above, the design is an iterative process that converges when the period is closer
or equal to the previous one and when all the drift, strength, and structural irregularities limits are
satisfied. The fundamental period was obtained with the Rayleigh method. Because the
fundamental period was greater than the upper limit for drift (2 sec) in all the iterations, the two
base shears kept constant through all the iterations. The base shear for the strength limits is 337
36
kN, calculated with 1.32 sec, which corresponds to 1.5𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 (1.5(0.88sec)). The base shear for
drift limits is 165 kN, based on the upper limit of 2 sec. The strength base shear is the same as
the one calculated in the PD. However, the drift base shear decreased from the assumed 70% of
the PD base shear, 236 kN, to 165kN. This demonstrates that the assumption of 70% in the PD
was reasonable and conservative.
The design was not controlled by drift or strength limits but by irregularity requirements. Table
3-6 shows the summary of the PD and the iterations of the design process. The maximum
anticipated drift is 0.71%, which is less than 30% of the drift limit of 2.5%. However, the
stability factor, 𝜃, for P-Delta effects reached 0.315, which is 79% of the stability factor limit, or
0.4. Interestingly, the base shear that accounts for the torsional moments, notional loads, and P-
Delta effects is 574 kN, which is 1.7 times the minimum base shear for strength purposes. This
means that the structure’s yielding will not start at least until this base shear is reached.
Table 3-6: Design Summary for the Six-Storey Steel MRF 2010.
Design Summary
Preliminary Iteration Iteration Iteration Iteration Iteration
Parameter
Design Cycle 1S Cycle 2S Cycle 3S Cycle 4S Cycle 5S
Period T1 (sec) - 2.177 2.168 2.122 2.224 2.224
Ta (sec) 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32
MvS(Ta) 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.115
V/W 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154
Strength
V 337 336.58 336.58 336.58 336.58 336.58
Ft/V 0.0922 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
VN+T+U2 906 587 571 572 574 574
Ta (sec) - 2 2 2 2 2
MvS(Ta) - 0.0564 0.0564 0.0564 0.0564 0.0564
Drift V/W 0.0108 0.00752 0.00752 0.00752 0.00752 0.00752
V 236 165 165 165 165 165
Ft/V 0.0922 0.1400 0.1400 0.1400 0.1400 0.1400
Δ/hs (%) 0.78 0.64 0.67 0.67 0.71 0.71
Results
θ - 0.2208 0.3205 0.3079 0.3148 0.3148
The 2010 steel MRF was verified for two lateral load patterns, wind and seismic loads. The
quantification of the wind load is provided in NBCC 2010 (see procedure details in Appendix B).
The wind pressure is computed as follows:
37
𝑝 = 𝐼𝑤 𝑞𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑔 𝐶𝑝 (3-2)
where 𝐼𝑤 is the importance factor for wind load, 𝑞 is the velocity pressure depending on the
location of the structure, 𝐶𝑒 is the exposure factor, 𝐶𝑔 is the gust effect factor, and 𝐶𝑝 is the
external pressure coefficient averaged over the area of the surface.
The base shear due to wind load (𝑉𝑤 ) is 513 kN. The 𝑉𝑤 is greater than the seismic design base
shear (𝑉𝑑 ) and less than the elastic base shear (𝑉𝑒 ) under seismic load as shown in Figure 3-5.
Two approaches can be followed in order to ensure a capacity design when the wind load is
greater than the seismic design base shear for ductile MRFs and less than the elastic base shear.
When the structure is subjected to wind loads it should behave in the elastic range until it reaches
the maximum probable wind load. Therefore, both approaches should guarantee that the structure
withstands the wind load without yielding in any of its elements.
Figure 3-5: Design base shear and base shear due to wind load.
The first approach is to design the structure with the structural type that ensures a 𝑉𝑑 greater than
the 𝑉𝑤 . For example, the structure can be designed with moderately ductile MRF or as a limited
ductility MRF, or even as a conventional moment frame, until the criteria is satisfied.
Figure 3-6 shows the different structural types with their corresponding minimum base shear in
the Y-axis. The ductile moment resisting frame (D-MRF) and the moderately ductile moment
38
resisting frame (MD-MRF) are the only two types in which the design base shear is less than the
base shear due to wind load. Therefore, for this approach only the limited ductile moment
resisting frame (LD-MRF) and the conventional frame can be selected. If a designer is looking
for the most ductile option, then the LD-MRF is recommended. Design requirements vary for
each type of structure whereas design restrictions increase with the anticipated ductility of the
structure.
Figure 3-6: Structural types shown as displacement vs. base shear (V).
The second approach, which was followed in this study, designs the structure for a desired level
of ductility then verifies through static analysis that the structure withstands the wind loads in the
elastic range. This approach requires a certain level of experience since the verification is after
the design. In the case that the verification of the wind loads is unsatisfactory, the structure must
be re-designed. This verification is done by checking that the internal forces due to factored load
combinations, including wind loads, are less than the reduced strength of the beams. Only the
beams need verification as the columns are designed to elastically sustain the gravity loads when
the plastic hinges are formed in the beams. The reason why some experience is required is
because the designer must know beforehand that the wind load effects are going to be less than
the capacity of the final ductile design. The force distributions of the wind load, the seismic load
of the minimum base shear, and the seismic load that accounts for notional loads, P-Delta effects,
39
and torsional moments, are found in Figure 3-7, Figure 3-8, and Figure 3-9, respectively. The
calculations for the last design iteration are included in Appendix B.
The final design member sizes for the 2010 steel MRF in Montreal are listed in Table 3-7 and
shown in Figure 3-10. The final design sections for Vancouver are shown in Figure G-1. As
expected, the sections for Vancouver are greater due to the larger demand.
Figure 3-7: Force distribution due to wind load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 2010.
40
Figure 3-8: Force distribution due to seismic load of the minimum base shear in kN for the
six-storey steel MRF 2010.
Figure 3-9: Force distribution due to seismic load in kN, including notional loads, P-Delta
effects, and torsional moments for the six-storey steel MRF 2010.
Table 3-7: Final Member Sizes for the Six-Storey Steel MRF 2010.
Column Sections
Level Beam Sections
Interior Exterior
6 W360x196 W360x147 W530x66

5 W360x196 W360x147 W530x74
4 W360x216 W360x162 W530x74
3 W360x216 W360x162 W610x82
2 W360x237 W360x179 W610x82
1 W360x237 W360x179 W610x92
41
Figure 3-10: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF 2010.
3.3. Design Based on NBCC 1980 and CSA.S16-1978

3.3.1. Gravity Loads
The dead and live loads are assumed to be the same for the three periods. See Table 3-1 for these
loads. The snow loads for NBCC 1980 are defined as follows:
𝑆 = 𝐼𝑠 𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝑆 (3-3)
where 𝐼𝑠 is the importance factor for the snow load (𝐼𝑠 =1 for normal category), 𝑆𝑆 is the 1% of
probability of exceedance in 50 years the ground snow load in kPa (see Table 3-8), and 𝐶𝑆 is the
slope factor (𝐶𝑆 =1.00).
Table 3-8: Ground Snow Load for Different Cities for NBCC1980.
Load
(kPa)
Ss 2.7 1.9 1.8
Table 3-9: Snow Loads for Different Cities for NBCC 1980.
Load
(kPa)
S 2.7 1.9 1.8
42
3.3.2. Material, Storey Drift Limit, Type of Diaphragms, and Connections
Rolled W shapes are used with CSA Standard G40.21-345W (𝐹𝑦 = 345MPa). The storey drift
limits described in Appendix I of CSA.S16-80 are not mandatory for the standards. Therefore
NBCC 1980 has a lower bound and an upper bound design. The 𝐼𝑆𝐷𝐴𝑚𝑎𝑥 is 1/500 of the storey
height and the maximum building drift is 1/400 of the building height. The composite slabs are
assumed to act as rigid diaphragms and transfer the lateral loads to the MRFs. Welded flange
plate (WFP) connections were used; a typical detail is illustrated in Figure 3-11.
Figure 3-11: Typical connection of the six-storey steel MRF 1980s.
Plates are welded to the bottom and top beam flanges and to the column flanges. One side shear
tab is bolted to the web beam.

Prior to 1989 there were no seismic load provisions in CSA.S16. In addition engineers at the
time preferred to design only for wind load. (The latter information is based on an interview with
Michael Gilmor).
43
The wind pressure is defined in NBCC 1980 as follows:
𝑝 = 𝑞𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑔 𝐶𝑝 (3-4)
where 𝑞 is the velocity pressure depending on the location of the structure, 𝐶𝑒 is the exposure
factor, 𝐶𝑔 is the gust effect factor, and 𝐶𝑝 is the external pressure coefficient, averaged over the
area of the surface. (See Appendix A for further details).
The reference velocity pressure used for design in NBCC 1980 is 1% of probability of
exceedance in 30 years, compared with NBCC 2010 which uses 1%/50 years. The velocity
pressure (𝑞) for Montreal in the 1980s is about 88% of 𝑞 in NBCC 2010. The base shear
obtained from the wind load is 479kN, which is 2.9% of the seismic weight. The seismic weight
is obtained in Table 3-5.
30.96 6
60.55 5
58.95 4
57.01 3
54.51 2
57.25 1
Figure 3-12: Force distribution of wind load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1980.
The seismic loads computations are based on NBCC 1980. The base shear obtained is 394 kN,
which is 62% of the base shear due to wind load. Even though the base shear due to wind load is
greater than the seismic loads, the force distribution is different (see Figure 3-12 and Figure
3-13). Verifications for both cases should therefore be conducted. However, because our interest
is a replication of the design at the time, the verification is impractical because the engineers at
the time would not have undertaken it.
44
Figure 3-13: Force distribution due to seismic load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1980.
LSD has been implemented since 1974. The basic principle is described that the factored
resistance be greater than the effect of factored loads. The effect of factored loads is due to the
load combinations and based on CSA.S16.1-M78 (CSA 1978). (See Appendix C.2 for further
details in safety criterion and load combinations).
CSA.S16.1-M78 stipulates that the sway effects produced by the vertical loads acting on the
structure in its displaced configuration must be accounted for either in the analysis for forces and
moments (P-Delta analysis) or approximated by using effective length factors greater than 1.0.
The handbook of steel construction provides three methods to quantify the P-Delta effects: an
iterative method, a one-step, maximum deflection method; and a modified iterative method. The
iterative method is described in Appendix J of CAN/CSA.S16.1-78, which computes artificial
storey shears and adds them to the primary horizontal loads. It accounts for the sway effects, the
stiffness, and the actual deformed shape of the structure. The one-step method assumes limited
sway deflection values to compute the storey shears; these values are estimated based on the
maximum deflection. Finally, the modified iterative method replaces the expression of the storey
shears from the first method to have faster convergence.
The procedure used in this study was the iterative method, and it is summarized in Appendix
C.3. The lateral loads due to P-Delta effects increased 42% for the lower bound and 17% for the
45
upper bound. The current requirements would not allow the lower bound an increase of lateral
load greater that 40%, and in such a case the structure must be re-designed.
In CSA.S16.1-M78 there are two basic types of construction and corresponding design
assumptions. The construction type can either be continuous or simple. The continuous
construction type was selected in this study. Therefore, connections were designed to resist the
maximum moments and internal forces, based on the standards at the time. In addition, the type
of analysis can either be elastic or plastic. According to Gilmor, engineers would rather design
using an elastic analysis than a plastic analysis. Plastic design requires that elements be Class 1
in order to attain the plastic moment and redistribution of the bending moments. Because elastic
design was selected for this study the sections must be Class 2 (compact sections), meaning they
will attain the plastic moment but not necessarily allow subsequent moment redistribution.
Starting with the previous sections from the PD, the lateral loads 𝐻 ′ are computed for a P-Delta
analysis. The maximum internal forces of all the load combinations are determined and used as
the design loads. Each member might have a different governing load combination. The sections
for the beams must meet the requirements of web and flange slenderness limits for Class 2. (See
Appendix D for further details in the beam design procedure).
The columns sizes were selected to be W310 for the exterior and W360 for the interior, both
Class 2. Strength and stability requirements must be verified as presented in Appendix D.The
stability governed the design of the lower-design-structure. However, while the strength and the
stability did not govern the design for the upper-design-structure, the inter-storey drift limit did.
(See Appendix D for further details in the beam design procedure).
Once the selection of the member sizes is completed then the design of the connections proceeds.
The yield strength of the steel material of the connection is 300MPa, compared to 345MPa for
the rest of the members. The selection of the type of connection was based on the Handbook of
Steel Construction (CISC 1980). The connections are conformed of welded plate flanges and a
side tab shear plate and as a result the web connection, flange connection, column shear capacity,
column web stiffeners, and stiffener welds must be verified. (See Appendix D.2 for further
details in the beam design procedure).
46
The final design sections of the two structures are presented in this section (for the lower bound
and the upper bound steel MRF). Their classification is dependent on the fulfilment or not of the
drift limit. The lower bound design is described in Table 3-10 and Figure 3-14. The upper bound
design is described in Table 3-11 and Figure 3-15. It is noteworthy that satisfying 0.02% of inter-
storey drift requires approximately 1.5 times the weight of the lower bound and the moment of
inertia of the member sections increased two times on average for the lower bound.
Table 3-10: Final Member Sizes for Six-Storey Steel MRF NBCC 1980, Lower Bound.
Column Sections
Beam
Level
Interior Exterior Sections
6 W360x45 W310x45 W360x39

5 W360x45 W310x45 W410x46
4 W360x72 W310x60 W460x60
3 W360x72 W310x60 W460x60
2 W360x122 W310x74 W530x74
1 W360x122 W310x74 W530x74
Figure 3-14: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF 1980, lower bound.
47
Table 3-11: Final Member Sizes for the Six-Storey Steel MRF 1980, Upper Bound
Column Sections
Beam
Level
6 W360x51 W310x52 W360x51

5 W360x51 W310x52 W410x67
4 W360x91 W310x79 W610x92
3 W360x147 W310x97 W610x125
2 W360x147 W310x97 W610x125
1 W360x162 W310x118 W690x140
Figure 3-15: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF 1980. upper bound
The final design sections of the 1980s steel MRFs for Vancouver are presented in Appendix G.
Their classification is dependent on the fulfilment of the drift limit. The lower bound member
sizes are described in Figure G-3 and the upper bound design is described in Figure G-2. It is
noteworthy that satisfying 0.02% of inter-storey drift requires sections even greater than the 2010
steel MRF.
48
3.4. Design Process in the 1960s
3.4.1. Gravity Loads
The dead and live loads are assumed to be the same for the three periods. See Table 3-1 for these
loads. The snow loads for NBCC 1960 are described as follows:
𝑆 = 𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝑆 (3-5)
where 𝑆𝑆 is the ground snow load with a probability of exceedance of 1% in 50 years (see Table
3-12), and 𝐶𝑆 is the slope factor (𝐶𝑆 =0.8).
Table 3-12: Ground Snow Load for Different Cities for NBCC 1960.
Load
(psf)
Ss 54 34 40
Table 3-13: Snow Loads for Different Cities for NBCC 1960.
Load
(kPa)
S 2.16 1.52 1.44
3.4.2. Materials, Storey Drift Limit, Type of Diaphragms and Connections

Rolled W shapes were used with ASTM 36 (𝐹𝑦 =36 ksi=248 MPa). The storey drift limits are
1/480 for partitions, walls, and other non-structural elements of a building that are susceptible to
cracking and 1/300 for buildings in which the non-structural elements are not affected by such
displacements. These drift limits are computed when the structure is subjected to wind and
gravity loads. For this study, it was assumed that the non-structural elements will not be affected
by the displacements. The composite slabs are assumed to act as rigid diaphragms and transfer
the lateral loads to the MRFs. WFP connections where used; a typical detail is illustrated in
Figure 3-11. The same connection from 1980 was used for 1960. However, the demand for the
1960s design is due only to wind load and not to the most critical load combination. The
allowable stress design (ASD) is characteristic of this period, as is the use of imperial units. The
design process is based on NBCC 1965, CISC 1973, and CAN/CSA.S16-1969
49
As mentioned in Section 3.3.3, previous to 1989 there were no seismic load provisions in
CSA.S16, and engineers preferred to design for wind load. This was because the base shear due
to wind load is typically greater than the base shear due to seismic load, independently of the
force distribution. (See Appendix E for further details of the assumptions and quantification in
wind loads).
The wind pressure is defined in NBCC1960 as follows:
𝑝 = 𝑞𝐶ℎ 𝐶𝑝 (3-6)
where 𝑞 is the velocity pressure depending on the location of the structure, 𝐶ℎ is the height
factor, and 𝐶𝑝 is the external pressure coefficient, averaged over the area of the surface.
The reference velocity pressure used for design in NBCC 1960 is once in 30 years, compared
with NBCC2010 which is 1%/50 years. The velocity pressure, q, in the 1960s includes the gust
coefficient. The base shear obtained from the wind load is 679kN, which is 3.1% of the seismic
weight. The seismic weight is obtained in Table 3-5.The force distribution of the wind load in kN
is described in Figure 3-16.
Figure 3-16: Force distribution of wind load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1960s.
50
The seismic loads computations are based on the NBCC 1960 in Section 2.1. The base shear
obtained is 433 kN, which is 64% of the base shear due to wind load. Even though the base shear
due to wind load is greater than the seismic loads, the force distribution is different (see Figure
3-17), and verifications for both cases should be conducted. However, because our goal is to
reproduce design at that time, the verification is unfeasible because the engineers would not have
done it.
Figure 3-17: Force distribution of seismic load in kN for the six-storey steel MRF 1960s.
The ASD was implemented until 1974. The stresses due to the loads must be less than the
permitted stresses, and for the ASD, the load combinations are accompanied only by probability
factors, as shown in Table E-2.
Stability effects are taken into account in the 1980s and 2010. However, these effects are not
considered in the 1960s standards. Nevertheless, the concept was under study at that time in
Canada (Nixon et al. 1975) and the United States (Goto & Chen 1987). The beam sections can be
identified at the preliminary design, as Type 2 construction beams are designed as simply
supported under gravity loads because the gravity loads keep constant throughout the design
process. The beam webs and flanges must meet the requirements of width thickness ratios for
bending elements. As in the 1980s, the beam sections should be verified to yield due to the
bending moment first rather than reach the shear capacity. The column stresses are checked with
the allowable stresses. In addition, the column sections must meet the slenderness ratios of the
51
web and the flanges. The connections are designed when the beam and column sections are
selected.
Type 2 construction connections are designed to only withstand wind load and as a result the
connections are designed for much less demand than the 1980s were, even though they have the
same concept of WFP and a single side shear tab. The design requirements for these moment
connections are very similar to the requirements from the 1980s. The yield strength of the steel
material of the connection is ASTM A36 (36ksi = 248MPa), compared to 300MPa for the other
connections from the 1980s and 2010. Therefore, the corresponding electrode used for the welds
was E60XX, compared to E70XX which was used for the following periods. As in the 1980s,
the web connection, the flange connection, the column shear capacity, the column web stiffeners,
and the stiffener welds must be checked.
The final sections for the 1960 steel MRF in Montreal are described in Table 3-14 and Figure
3-18. Vancouver 1960 steel MRF member sizes are described in Figure G-4. The sections for
Vancouver’s 1960 steel MRF are larger than the corresponding ones for Montreal.
Table 3-14: Final Member Sizes for Six-Storey Steel MRF 1960.
Column Sections
Beam
Level
6 W12x45 W10x33 W18x40

5 W12x45 W10x33 W18x50
4 W14x82 W12x45 W18x50
3 W14x82 W12x45 W18x50
2 W14x159 W14x159 W18x50
1 W14x159 W14x159 W18x50
52
Figure 3-18: Final design of six-storey steel MRF 1960.
3.5. Comparison of the Design Process in the 1960s, 1980s and

2010 of Montreal and Vancouver
This section will discuss the main differences between the design processes, final sections, and
demand for the three different structures. The first difference between the periods is the design
philosophy: LSD was used in the 1980s and 2010, and ASD was used in the 1960s. However, the
concept of capacity design was only implemented in 2010. Even though all are MRFs, the 1960s
had the peculiarity of Type 2 construction, i.e., moment connections that are only designed for
lateral loads, specifically wind loads. The SCWB approach is characteristic of 2010, as this
concept was entirely or largely unknown in the previous edition.
The material selection has evolved over time. A yielding stress of 36 ksi (248 MPa) was
commonly used in the 1960s. However, for the 2010 and the 1980s the yielding stress used was
of 345 MPa. It implies an increase of approximately 40% of the Fy used in the 1960s.
The base shear coefficient is a good indicator for comparing the demand for the different periods
under different load patterns of lateral load. Table 3-15 shows the base shear coefficients due to
earthquake and wind loads of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 for a six-storey steel MRF. The
allowable stress design was the approach used previous to 1975, and so the 1960s’ base shear
coefficients should be multiplied by 2 to compare with the others (Mitchell et al. 2010). The
53
wind base shear coefficient (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑊 governed over the earthquake base shear coefficient
(𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝐸 of all the steel MRFs. However, it was demonstrated that NBCC 2010 and CSA.S16-
09 requirements for the design of ductile structures with equivalent static analysis are so strict
that in the end the final design can elastically sustain the wind forces. The greatest design base
shear coefficient is attributed to the 1960s, followed by the 1980s, and finally 2010. (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑊
for all provisions is about 1.6 times (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝐸 . However, for 2010 the base shear coefficient due
to the torsional moments, notional loads, and P-Delta effects (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝐸(𝑇+𝑁+𝑃−𝛥) is 1.08 times
the (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑊 .
Table 3-15: Base Shear Coefficients for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 Steel MRFs for
Earthquake and Wind Load for Montreal.
Base Shear Coefficients (Vb/W)

Load Pattern 1960s 1980s 2010
0.0154=> 1.5T=1.32 sec, strength
0.020
Earthquake 0.018 0.00752=> T=2.0 sec, drift
(x2=0.04)*
0.026=> beam design (T+N+P-Δ)
0.031
Wind 0.029 0.024
(x2=0.062)*
* In order to compare the Vb/W for ASD with LSD the 1960s Vb/W should be multiplied by 2.
Table 3-16: Base Shear Coefficients for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 Steel MRFs for
Earthquake and Wind Load for Vancouver.
Base Shear Coefficients (Vb/W)

Load Pattern 1960s 1980s 2010
0.038=> 1.5T=1.32 sec, strength
0.020
Earthquake 0.036 0.024=> T=2.0 sec, drift
(x2=0.04)*
0.054=> beam design (T+N+P-Δ)
0.046
Wind 0.044 0.025
(x2=0.096)*
* In order to compare the Vb/W for ASD with LSD the 1960s Vb/W should be multiplied by 2.
Another difference in the design of the three periods is the drift limit. These used to be stricter in
the past. For example the 1960s steel MRFs were designed with a drift limit of 0.25% compared
to the 2010 steel MRFs which were limited to 2.5%. However, for the 1980s the drift limit was
0.20% but was not mandatory. Therefore, two steel MRFs were designed: an upper bound, which
met the requirement; and a lower bound, which did not meet the requirement.
54
The connection selection has evolved over time. RBS connections were used for 2010 steel
MRFs, which allow for hinging at the beam ends by reducing the beam flanges and concentrating
the stresses in this region. WFP and a side shear tab were used for the 1980s and 1960s steel
MRFs, though they differ in their design demand. The 1980s connections were designed to
withstand the most critical combination of gravity and lateral loads. The 1960s connections were
only designed for wind loads.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the seismic design practice for steel MRFs in the United
States evolved to include increased use of welding, because welding became increasingly
economical and practical (Roeder 2000). The practice evolved to a welded-flange-bolted-
web moment resisting connection which consists of complete joint penetration (CJP) welds
connecting the beam flange to the column and an erection plate bolted to the web for
transferring the shear force. The increased use was supported by the good performance
observed in the available literature, such as Popov & Pinkney (1969), Bertero et al. (1973),
and Krawinkler et al. (1971). This connection was considered as almost ideal for inelastic
seismic performance. It even became a seismic prequalified connection of the building code
in 1988 (ICBO 1988).
However, when the Northridge earthquake hit, it exposed the opposite, weakness of design
and construction procedures. Therefore the SAC project, a joint research program funded
by FEMA, was created to carry out an extensive research to solve the problem of, and give
answers to, the brittle behaviour of these welded steel frame structures. Additionally, the
SAC project had the responsibility to propose new prequalified connections. These pre-
qualified connections included welded-flange-plates (WFP) and reduced beam sections
(RBS) connections, which in both cases try to displace the plastic hinges away from the
column face to within the beam.
Canada’s frames used to be more conservative than the USA, as Canadians preferred to
design braced frames rather than moment frames. When Canadians chose to use steel
frames they did not rely on welding as much as the USA did, based on an interview with a
senior engineer. The handbooks of steel construction suggested for the 1980s the welded
55
flange plate and its variation, and as a third option the pre-Northridge connection.
Therefore this study only covers the steel frames with this type of connection.
Table 3-17: Summary of Main Differences for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 Steel MRFs.
Concept 1960s 1980s 2010
Design Method ASD LSD LSD
Type 2 MRF
Design Philosophy Capacity Design
Construction (no special requirements)
WFP WFP
Connection Type RBS
(Wind Load) (Gravity and Lateral Loads)
Material 248MPa 345 MPa 345 MPa
Drift Limit 0.25% 0.2% (Not Mandatory) 2.5%
P-Delta Effects No Yes Yes
Notional Loads,
Control of
No No Yes
Irregularities, and
Torsional Moments
A summary of the member sizes of all the steel MRFs, for the different provisions and the
different cities, is presented in Table 3-18 for simplicity in construction practice a general pattern
was followed for all the frame cases. Each storey has the same beam sections. The column
sections were used in at least two floors, and are different between interior and exterior columns.
As mentioned before two frames were designed for the 1980s because the drift limit was not
mandatory. It can be seen that this restriction produces two very different member selections.
The 1960s present a particular selection for the beams, since they are only designed for gravity
loads. Therefore only two member sections were selected, one for the roof and another for the
floors.
56
Table 3-18: Summary of the Member Sizes for Montreal and Vancouver Steel MRFs.
City Montreal Vancouver
2010
Column Column
Storey Exterior Interior Beams Exterior Interior Beams
6 W360x147 W360x196 W530x66 W360x162 W360x216 W530x74
5 W360x147 W360x196 W530x74 W360x162 W360x216 W610x82
4 W360x162 W360x216 W530x74 W360x179 W360x216 W610x82
3 W360x162 W360x216 W610x82 W360x179 W360x216 W610x92
2 W360x179 W360x237 W610x82 W360x196 W360x287 W610x92
1 W360x179 W360x237 W610x92 W360x196 W360x287 W610x101
1980 Upper
6 W310x52 W360x51 W360x51 W360x91 W360x91 W460x52
5 W310x52 W360x51 W410x67 W360x91 W360x91 W530x74
4 W310x79 W360x91 W610x92 W360x162 W360x162 W530x74
3 W310x97 W360x147 W610x125 W360x162 W360x162 W610x140
2 W310x97 W360x147 W610x125 W360x216 W360x216 W690x152
1 W310x118 W360x162 W690x140 W360x216 W360x216 W690x152
1980 Lower
6 W310x45 W360x45 W360x39 W310x60 W310x60 W360x39
5 W310x45 W360x45 W410x46 W310x60 W310x60 W410x54
4 W310x60 W360x72 W460x60 W310x60 W310x97 W410x74
3 W310x60 W360x72 W460x60 W310x60 W310x97 W410x85
2 W310x74 W360x122 W530x74 W360x79 W360x147 W460x97
1 W310x74 W360x122 W530x74 W360x79 W360x147 W460x97
1960 (Imperial Units)
6 W10x33 W12x45 W18x40 W12x45 W12x45 W18x40
5 W10x33 W12x45 W18x50 W12x45 W12x45 W21x50
4 W12x45 W14x82 W18x50 W14x109 W14x109 W21x50
3 W12x45 W14x82 W18x50 W14x109 W14x109 W21x50
2 W14x61 W14x159 W18x50 W14x193 W14x193 W21x50
1 W14x61 W14x159 W18x50 W14x193 W14x193 W21x50
57
Chapter 4
Numerical Model in OpenSees
4.1. Overview of the Inelastic Model
The numerical model was developed using OpenSees, the Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (Mazzoni et al. 2007). Several assumptions were made for the numerical
model as follows:
 The columns are assumed fully fixed at the base.
 Contributions of non-structural components such as external walls, internal partitions,
ceilings, and exterior stairs were neglected, but were considered to be part of the loads
and the mass.
 Slabs were modelled as rigid diaphragms.
 The beams were considered as composite beams. The contribution of concrete slab in
stiffness and strength is taken into account.
 The panel zones were designed to remain in the elastic range to avoid shear failure or
fracture in this location; therefore they are not explicitly modelled in the numerical
model.
 Each frame case’s connection-beam behaviour was represented following the cyclic
behaviour obtained from its corresponding available experimental data.
 The P-Delta effect was taken into account by using leaning columns linked to the
structures and carrying the corresponding gravity loads.
 Force-based beam-column elements were used to model column behaviour. Each
structural element was modelled with one force-based beam-column element with at least
5 integration points.
 As shown in Figure 4-1, the uniaxial material Steel02 in OpenSees with a transition curve
to connect linear-elastic and linear-hardening branches was used for fibre section
elements. The stress hardening ratio was assumed to be 0.01.
58
E
fy
Ep
Stress
Strain
Figure 4-1: Uniaxial material Steel 02 of OpenSees (Berkeley, 2009).
Each steel MRF case has its own design and therefore its own numerical model representation.
The 1960s’ and the 1980s’ frames share the general numerical model concept, but the 2010
frame is different from the other frames due to the RBS connections within the beams. The
schematic representations of the numerical models are shown in Figure 4-3 for 2010 and in
Figure 4-4 for the 1980s and 1960s.
All the frame cases’ numerical models have the leaning column modelling representation in
common. Leaning columns were considered to account for the P-Delta effect due to the gravity
loads and excessive displacements. These are represented with beam with hinges elements. In
OpenSees, these elements are built with elastic elements in the middle and spread plasticity at the
ends. The leaning columns are connected to the structure with truss elements, which have large
axial stiffness. These links transfer the P-Delta effects from the leaning columns to the structure.
P-Delta effects are of considerable importance in the global behaviour of the structure and it is
shown in the pushover curves.
Figure 4-3 shows the schematic numerical model of the 2010 steel MRF. The beams of the 2010
model are conformed of elastic elements in the middle, IK-springs (Lignos and Krawinkler 2011)
for the RBS connections and nonlinear beam column elements at the ends. Composite sections
were assigned to the elastic portions of the beams to account for the concrete contribution (see
Figure 4-2 for schematic representation). The effective width of the concrete slab was estimated
using the LRFD (AISC 1994). The IK-spring model employed in the RBS connections is defined
in detail in Section 4.2.2. The nonlinear beam-column elements used at the ends of the beams
were represented by the fibre sections of the corresponding I-shapes. These sections were
anticipated to remain in the elastic range and this was confirmed through analysis. The yielding
of the beams is only expected in the IK-springs as they are the weakest section due to the RBS.
The columns were defined with nonlinear beam-column elements. Each element has 5
59
integration points. These types of models are defined with more details in Section 4.2.1. A
bilinear material with a hardening ratio was assigned to these sections. The Steel02 material,
which was defined previously, was assigned in all the nonlinear beam-column elements.
Figure 4-2: Schematic representation of typical composite section.
Figure 4-3: Schematic representation of the numerical models for 2010.
60
The general schema for the 1960s and 1980s models are the same, and this schema is illustrated
in Figure 4-4. However, the expected behaviour is different because of differences in the design
philosophies and connections. The 1980s beams are supposed to yield before the connections,
and in the 1960s the connections are weaker than the beams. Therefore, the IK-springs were
defined based on the expected beam-column connection behaviour. These connection models
and the experimental behaviour are explained in detail in Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Beams with
hinges elements were assigned to the beams with the IK-springs at the ends. The rest of the
members kept the same schematic concept from 2010.
Figure 4-4: Schematic representation of the numerical models for the 1980s and 1960s.
61
4.2. Numerical Model for Main Elements
The modelling methods that can be used in an inelastic analysis are spread or distributed
inelasticity models, and lumped or concentrated inelasticity models. These are differentiated by
the distribution of plasticity (Deierlein et al. 2010). Both modelling methods were combined in
this study. The beam-column connections are modelled with concentrated plasticity with
nonlinear springs, and the columns with distributed inelasticity with fibre section elements.
Figure 4-5: Idealized models of beam column elements (Deierlein et al. 2010).
The inelastic model representations in Figure 4-5 from (a) to (d) are organized in order of
complexity and accuracy, i.e., the most complex and accurate model is (d). The simplest model
focuses the inelastic deformations at the ends of the element. This model can concentrate the
plasticity as a plastic hinge or as a nonlinear spring with hysteretic behaviour. The simplicity of
these models comes from the condensed numerical formulation within the zero-length elements
by moment-rotation representation. The distributed plasticity element models differ in that they
can contain either finite-length hinge zones, fibre sections, or finite elements. Finite-length hinge
zones distribute the plasticity with an efficient formulation in strategic regions at the element
ends. In turn, the element ends can be described by moment-curvature relationships or fibre
sections (see Figure 4-5 (c)). Figure 4-5 (d) represents the fibre section model. The plasticity
distribution in this type of model is along the element length at the integration points through the
cross sections (more details in Section 4.2.1). Finally, the finite element model, which is the most
complex, discretizes the element through the cross sections along the member length (Deierlein
et al. 2010).
62
4.2.1. Fibre Section Element
Distributed inelasticity models provide a more accurate description of inelastic behaviour.
Contrary to lumped models, material nonlinearity can take place at any element section and the
element response is estimated by weighted integrations of the sectional stiffness. One
disadvantage of this type of model is the high computational demand compared to that of the
lumped spring models. The flexibility-based fibre elements are now the most promising models
for the nonlinear analysis. The elements of these models are subdivided into longitudinal fibres
as shown in Figure 4-6. The fibre area and the location are these elements’ geometric
characteristics. Instead of explicitly specifying the constitutive relation of the section, the
response of the section is derived by integrating each fibre’s response, which follows the uniaxial
stress-strain relation of the specific material (Taucer et al. 1991). The number of fibres is
dependent on the type of section, the target of the analysis, and the degree of accuracy sought.
Figure 4-6: Schematic fibre section element and stress-strain relationship.
Huang (2012) conducted a study that compared different model types of a single reinforced
concrete column. The fibre section model results were very satisfactory when failure is governed
by flexure. However, when failure is governed by shear then the fibre section model tends to
over-estimate the peak strength, which is not conservative, with high uncertainty. The same
occurs with the prediction of energy dissipation. When shear governs the failure then the energy
63
dissipation is overestimated. Even though they present overestimation for concrete columns
when shear failure governs, for our study these sections are still adequate in estimating the
response of steel columns subjected to earthquake and gravity loads.
The columns are modelled with nonlinearBeamColumn elements with the Steel02 – Gieuffre
Menegotto-Pinto material in OpenSees. To account for strain hardening, the post-yield stiffness
was assumed to be equal to 1% of the initial stiffness. Five integration points were assumed for
the nonlinearBeamColumn elements. The leaning columns and the beams in the 1980s and 1960s
were modelled with beamWithHinges elements. The elements’ ends were also assigned fibre
sections, with the same considerations explained before, except for the number of integrations,
which for this case is two.
4.2.2. Lumped Spring

A lumped spring model concentrates the inelastic deformations of the member in strategic
locations with zero length elements. This model is versatile as it can describe complex hysteretic
behaviour by selection of appropriate moment-rotation relations. These types of models are very
attractive to a phenomenological representation of behaviours. A phenomenological model was
used for the beam-column connection behaviour. Phenomenological models are based on the
observation of previous experiments and representations of the behaviour characteristics, such as
strength and stiffness degradation, and pinching behaviour, and reliable databases of
experimental data are necessary to conduct this type of modelling. There are available databases
of experimental data of reinforced concrete components (PEER 2011) and steel components
(FEMA 2000a).
Because the SAC database does not include cyclic hysteresis behaviour of moment-rotation of
the steel components, Lignos and Krawinkler (2007) developed a database of more than 300
experiments on steel wide flange beams. Based on this database they proposed calibrated
deterioration parameters for their phenomenological deterioration model and developed
relationships that associate these parameters with the geometrical and material properties of the
steel components. The first deterioration model was developed by Ibarra and Krawinkler (2005)
and is called the IK model. Afterwards, Lignos and Krawinkler improved it in Lignos and
Krawinkler (2009).
64
Figure 4-7: Modified IK deterioration model: (a) monotonic curve; (b) basic modes of
cyclic deterioration and associated definitions (Lignos & Krawinkler 2011).
Figure 4-7(a) shows a monotonic backbone curve, which is described by three strength
parameters and four deformation parameters. The three strength parameters are: effective yield
moment (𝑀𝑦 ), capping moment strength (𝑀𝑐 ) or post-yield strength ratio (𝑀𝑐 /𝑀𝑦 ), and residual
moment (𝑀𝑟 =𝜅𝑀𝑦 ). The four deformation parameters are yield rotation (𝜃𝑦 ), pre-capping plastic
rotation (𝜃𝑝 = 𝜃𝑐 − 𝜃𝑦 ), post-capping plastic rotation (𝜃𝑝 = 𝜃𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑡 − 𝜃𝑦 ), and
ultimate rotation capacity (𝜃𝑦 ). Figure 4-7(b) indicates the different basic modes of cyclic
deterioration, namely, basic strength, post-capping strength, and unloading and reloading
stiffness deterioration.
Modified IK-spring models were used with their respective parameters for all the structures
(2010, 1980s, and 1960s) in this study to account for their appropriate strength and stiffness
degradation. Modified IK deformation modelling parameters are divided into two sets: other-
than-RBS connections and RBS connections. Each set has its own parameter equations through
statistical regression. The parameters are: pre-capping plastic rotation (𝜃𝑝 ), post-capping plastic
rotation (𝜃𝑝𝑐 ), and reference cumulative plastic rotation (Λ). The expressions are presented
below. The pre-capping plastic rotation is calculated depending on the set as follows:
−0.721 −0.23
h −0.365 b −0.14 L 0.34 cunit
1
d 2
cunit Fy
θp = 0.0865 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
w 2t d 533 355 (4-1)
(for other-than-RBS connections)

65
−0.185 −0.76 2 −0.07
h −0.314 b −0.10 Lb L 0.113 c1unit d c Fy
θp = 0.19 (w) (2t) (r ) (d) ( 533 ) ( unit )
y 355
(4-2)
(for RBS connections)
where 𝐿 is the span length of the beam, 𝐿𝑏 is the distance from the column face to the nearest
1 2
lateral brace, 𝑟𝑦 is the radius of gyration about the y-axis, and 𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 and 𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 are conversion
1 2
factors. When using d in inches and Fy in ksi, 𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 and 𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 are equal to 25.4 and 6.895,
respectively, and they are both equal to 1 when using millimetres and mega Pascals. The post-
capping plastic rotation is calculated depending on the set as follows:
−0.28 −0.43
ℎ −0.565 𝑏 −0.8 𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡
1
𝑑 2
𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝐹𝑦
𝜃𝑝𝑐 = 5.63 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
𝑤 2𝑡 533 355 (4-3)
(for other-than RBS connections)
−0.108 −0.36
ℎ −0.513 𝑏 −0.863 𝐿𝑏 2
𝜃𝑝𝑐 = 9.52 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
𝑤 2𝑡 𝑟𝑦 355
(4-4)
The reference cumulative plastic rotation is calculated depending on the set as follows:
−0.36
ℎ −1.34 𝑏 −0.595 𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡
2
𝐹𝑦
Λ = 495 ( ) ( ) ( )
𝑤 2𝑡 355 (4-5)
(for other-than RBS connections)
−0.205 −0.391
ℎ −1.14 𝑏 −0.632 𝐿𝑏 2
Λ = 585 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
𝑤 2𝑡 𝑟𝑦 355
(4-6)
66
As the parameters were calibrated against experimental results, the model is expected to be
accurate. However, the parameters can be further calibrated against the experimental results of
the corresponding beam-column connection type of study. Other parameters, such as 𝜅, which is
the residual strength ration and 𝜃𝑢 , which is the ultimate rotation capacity, define the moment-
rotation behaviour. Lignos et al. (2011) suggest values of 𝜅 and 𝜃𝑢 equal to 0.4 and 0.06,
respectively. The following sections show the experimental results available in the literature for
the cyclic loading test for connections representative of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010. Additionally,
the validation of the numerical models of each connection is presented.
4.3. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 2010

4.3.1. Experimental Results Available in Literature
The SAC Project was funded by FEMA to solve the problem of, and give answers to, the brittle
behaviour of welded steel frame structures damaged in the January 17th, 1994 Northridge,
California earthquake (FEMA 2000). This project also included building a database of the
experimental results of tested connections. Both pre-Northridge and post-Northridge connections
were evaluated, with the latter becoming the new pre-qualified connections. These connections
include RBS. The SAC database includes a compilation of 95 experimental results of RBS
specimens. These experiments can be filtered by beam and column sizes, and some provide the
moment-curvature hysterical behaviour resulting from a cyclic loading test.
In addition, Lignos and Krawinkler (2007) prepared a database with a digitalized plot of the
hysteretic behaviour of different connections. These plots were statistically analysed to provide
calibrated parameters for each connection type. These parameters are based on 61 RBS
connection specimens. The procedure to be followed to obtain these parameters is explained in
Section 0.
The Uang et al. (2000) and Engelhardt et al. (2000) experiments are distinguished from the SAC
project because they provide the cyclic hysteretic behaviour. The majority of the experiments
share the following characteristics: radius cut RBS, bolted shear tab, welded beam flanges to the
column, and W-shape columns. Uang et al. (2000) was used in this study to calibrate the
parameters proposed by Lignos and Krawinkler (2011).
67
4.3.2. Validation of Numerical Model Against the Experimental Results
The experimental results used to calibrate the parameters of the RBS for the 2010 model were
investigated by Uang et al. (2000). Four nominally identical specimens, designated LS-1 through
LS-4, were designed, constructed, and tested using the setup shown in Figure 4-8. The selection
of the member sizes of the specimens was based on AISC (2005), which is very similar to what
is proposed by CISC (2004). LS-4 was selected for validation in this study. The specimen’s
connection detail is shown in Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-8: Test setup (Uang et al. 2000).
The test setup shown in Figure 4-8 is composed of fixed columns at both ends. The beam is
connected to the columns with an RBS connection in cantilever. The purpose of the
concrete column is to restrain the lateral displacements of the beam. An additional lateral
bracing is located at 33” from the column face. The hydraulic actuator is located at the free
end of the beam. The beam section for all the specimens was W30x99 and the column
sections were W14x176. The specimens were made of steel A992 Grade 50. Tensile coupon
results and certified mill test reports are shown in Table 4-1.
68
Table 4-1: Mechanical Properties of LS-4 (Uang et al. 2000).
Specimen Member Coupon Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi) Elongation (%)
Flange 55 72 28
Beam
All Web 58 75 26
W30x99
(Mill Cert) (56) (74) (26)
Flange 55 74 31
Column
LS-4 Web 54 73 28
W14x176
(Mill Cert) (64) (84) (26)
Figure 4-9: Connection detail (Uang et al. 2000).
Two loading histories were used in these experiments, but only the standard SAC loading history
is within the scope of this study, as it was assumed that the structures will be subjected to far-
fault ground motions. The other loading history is for near-fault ground motion. The standard
SAC loading protocol was proposed by SAC Joint Venture (1997). The loading sequence is
controlled by the inter-storey drift angle. It is composed of three sets of six cycles of 0.375%,
0.5%, and 0.75%, followed by one set of four cycles of 1%, and finally five sets of two cycles
that increase by 1% per set (i.e., cycles of 2%, 3%, 4%) until failure (see Figure 4-10).
69
Figure 4-10: Standard loading history.
The RBS connection of specimen LS-4 presented a desirable performance as it had ductile
behaviour. It remained elastic through the cycles of 0.75% of inter-storey drift. Yielding in the
panel zone started at 1% drift. Minor local buckling was observed in the RBS at early 1.5% drift.
Considerable buckling of the RBS appeared at 3% drift. In the first cycle of 6% of drift, the test
was stopped because the brace failed. The hysteretic behaviour is shown in Figure 4-11 (a).
Figure 4-11: Cyclic hysteretic moment-rotation of an RBS connection from a) experimental

model (Uang et al. 2000) and b) IK spring numerical model.
Figure 4-11 (b) shows the numerical model using the modified IK-spring models of Lignos and
Krawinkler (2011). The numerical model and the experimental cyclic moment-curvature
behaviour were overlapped to compare the results. The numerical model predicts the yielding
moment and the capping moment very well. In addition, the strength and stiffness degradation is
well captured. The behaviour of all the 2010 connections are calibrated and based on this model.
70
Figure 4-12: Overlap of numerical model and experimental results (Uang et al. 2000).
4.4. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 1980s

The main purpose of the SAC project was to understand the cause of failure in the steel MRFs
when they were subjected to the Northridge earthquake (FEMA 2000b), and several experiments
of pre-Northridge connections were compiled and analysed. The main concern of the SAC
project was the very well-known pre-Northridge connections illustrated in Figure 4-13.
However, these connections were not used in the design of the 1980s structure in Canada as the
steel handbook suggested the use of WFP rather than directly welding the beam flanges. There
are 17 experiments of WFP connections available in the SAC database. The studies available in
the literature are Popov and Jokerst (1995), Whittaker and Gilani (1996), and Noel and Uang
(1996).
The moment connection suggestions by the CISC (1980) includes the WFP and the typical pre-
Northridge connection. According to an interview with, Michael Gilmor, a senior designer in
Canada, designers would avoid MRFs due to the responsibility of the connections to withstand
the structure. In addition, the prevalent preference was to use the minimum amount of welding.
Even though in the USA the pre-Northridge connections were very common at that time (Lee &
Foutch 2002), CISC (1970 and 1980) shows that WFP connections were more frequently used in
Canada. A comprehensive study of Kim et al. (2000) was conducted to support the SAC project
phase II. This study synthesized the welded cover plates and flange plates moment connections
71
studies available in the literature and provided guidelines to design pre-qualified reinforced
connections.
Figure 4-13: Typical pre-Northridge connection (Naimi et al. 2013).
The WFP connections differ from the cover plate connections (CP) because the beam flanges are
not directly welded to the column face (see Figure 4-14). The specimens of both types of
connection present either rectangular or trapezoidal flange plates. The validation of the
numerical model adopted in this study will be based on WFP connections with rectangular flange
plates.
Figure 4-14: Typical cover plate and welded flange plate connections (Kim et al. 2002).
Kim et al. (2000) summarized 13 WFP connection experiments (a partial summary is shown in
Table 4-2). They included the beam and column sizes, the type of flange plate, the weld
geometry, the web connection, and the maximum plastic rotation. In general all the specimens
72
exceed the 0.03 rad of plastic rotation, which represents a good performance for seismic
connections.
Table 4-2: Summary of Flange Plate Connection Experiments (Kim et al. 2002).
Web Connection 3
Maximum Plastic
Weld Geometry 2
Top and Bottom
Top and Bottom
Rotation (rad)
Flange Plate 1
Researcher
Column
Beam
W30x99 W14x283 T FW-T W 0.034

Popov
W30x99 W14x283 T FW-T W 0.034
W21x50 W12x111 R FW-L W 0.028
Whittaker and
W24x62 W21x111 R FW-L W 0.045
Gilani
W24x76 W21x101 R FW-L W 0.030
Lee, Goel and
W21x50 W12x152 R FW-L None 0.045
Stojadinovic
W24x94 W24x279 T FW-T W 0.034
W24x94 W24x279 T FW-T W 0.046
W24x94 B20x20x2 T FW-T W 0.022
Noel and
W16x89 W24x279 R FW-L B 0.030
Uang
W18x86 W24x279 R FW-L B 0.013
W24x94 W24x279 T FW-T B 0.030
W24x94 W24x279 T FW-T B 0.030
1. T=trapezoidal; R= rectangular;
2. FW-T= fillet weld on tapered edges; FW-L= fillet weld on longitudinal edges
3. W= welded; B-bolted

The spring model of these connections is defined with the mechanical properties of the beam
sections as they are weaker than the connections. The connections are designed to withstand the
moments imposed by the combination of the factored lateral loads and gravity loads. In this case,
yielding is expected in the beam sections as happened in the experiments.
The cyclic behaviour of a beam-column connection tested by Whittaker is shown in Figure 4-16.
The configuration of the test frame was identical to that used for testing steel beam-to-column
connections for the SAC Joint Venture program (Kim et al. 2002).
73
Figure 4-15: SAC phase II test setup (Kim et al. 2002).
Figure 4-16: Overlap of moment vs. plastic rotation of experiment RC08 (Kim et al.
2002)and numerical model with modified IK-spring.
Figure 4-16 shows that the numerical model provides a similar behaviour as the experimental
results. However, it does not represent the initial stiffness well. The yielding and capping
moments are in reasonable agreement with the experimental results, within 4% and 7% of
discrepancy, respectively. However the rates of post-capping strength and stiffness degradation
are not adequately captured by the numerical model. The other models are better calibrated
because calibration factors were obtained in the available literature, though the 1980s model was
based only on Lignos and Krawinkler (2011).
74
4.5. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 1960s
In the 1960s, the steel MRF was designed with the Type 2 construction philosophy, which was
prevalent at that time. This design philosophy was introduced in the NRCC (1965). The Type 2
construction connections are designed to withstand the lateral load only without contribution
from the gravity load. Therefore, it is to be expected that these connections may yield earlier than
the beams. The numerical model used was based on the parameters in Lignos and Krawinkler
(2011) for other-than-RBS connections, and finally calibrated with the experimental results
obtained by Kyriakopoulos (2012).
Kyriakopoulos (2012) studied the behaviour of a steel MRF building designed in the 1960s
according to the Type 2 construction philosophy. The structure is a nine-storey hospital building,
the CSRN Benchmark Hospital, located near Quebec City. An experiment was carried out to
understand the cyclic behaviour of the connections. The purpose of Kyriakopoulos (2012) was
to provide seismic solutions by using passive supplemental damping to upgrade the deficiencies
of the structure. Kyriakopoulos (2012) provides a reliable procedure to build an accurate
numerical model for Type 2 construction frames. This procedure was followed in this thesis.
Additionally, the calibration parameters developed by Kyriakopoulos (2012) were used to
calibrate the 1960s IK-spring models.

The nine-storey hospital structure consists of steel MRFs in both directions. The N-S direction
frame is named F and the other frame is named 6. Two single-storey frames with member sizes
close to full-scale dimensions were built in the Structures Testing Facility at the University of
Toronto. Frame F was selected to validate the connection behaviour of the 1960s structure of this
thesis. The F frame’s representation is an H-shaped specimen. It is composed of a beam with a
W18x50 (W460x74) section, two columns with W14x176 (W360x262) sections, and a
connection with half-inch flange plates. The details of connections and test specimen are shown
in Figure 4-17.
In contrast to the previous tests, the connections are tested within a single frame instead of a
beam in cantilever. This allows for the testing of two connections simultaneously. This type of
75
representation is more realistic. However, this test could not be carried out with a full-scale
specimen due to physical constraints in the laboratory. The column height and the beam length
were 60% and 90%, respectively, of the actual dimensions of the structure. The results were
conservative as it underestimates the actual rotations of the bay in the building.
Figure 4-17: Frame F test specimen (Kyriakopoulos 2012).
The test setup is shown in Figure 4-18. . The cyclic loading is applied in the direction of the
beams. As mentioned above, the cyclic loading history applied in this experiment was the same
as that proposed by the SAC Joint Venture (1997). The test is completed either by the failure of
an element or the degradation of strength to 60%.
Figure 4-18: Frame F test setup (Kyriakopoulos 2012).

76
Of the two connections tested in the single frame, the North connection was selected to validate
the numerical mode. The behaviour of the North connection of frame F is illustrated in Figure
4-19. The connection remained elastic through the 0.5% column drift cycles. The average
experimental rotational stiffness was 181.7x103 kNm/rad. Yielding starts within the 0.75%
cycles in the top flanges with buckling in compression and yielding in tension. The average
experimentally observed yielding moment 𝑀𝑦 was 483 kNm.
Figure 4-19: Hysteresis of North connection of frame F with a backbone curve

(Kyriakopoulos 2012).
The behaviour exhibited in this experimental test is very particular, because the un-welded free-
length of the flange plates is not stated as a requirement in the codes. This distance can allow
more or less ductility in the behaviour. The distance used in the connections of the hospital and
therefore in the experiments, allowed greater plastic rotations than in the case of using less free-
length.
The numerical model of this connection was developed in OpenSees following the procedure in
Kyriakopoulos (2012). Figure 4-20 shows the moment vs. rotations plot of the numerical model.
The initial rotational stiffness was predicted using:
𝐸𝐼
𝐾𝜃 = (4-7)
𝐿
77
where 𝐸 is the Young’s modulus of steel, 𝐼 is the moment of inertia of the connections, flange
plates and shear tab, and 𝐿 is the length of the connection. At the beginning this length was taken
as the gap distance between the column face and the beam (1 in) but it was later verified that the
actual length is from the column face until the plate is truly fastened to the beam (12 in). Based
on Eq. (4-7) and a 12-inch connection length, the estimated rotational stiffness is 207.1x103
kNm/rad; 14% larger than the average. The yielding moment was predicted with the section
modulus of the connection (𝑆𝑥,𝑐𝑜𝑛 ) times the yielding stress (𝐹𝑦 ). The 𝑀𝑦 predicted after the
coupon test, assuming 450.5 MPa of 𝐹𝑦 , was 512 kNm, which is 6% higher than the average.
Figure 4-20: Moment vs rotation of numerical model of frame F’s connection.
The numerical model parameters in Lignos and Krawinkler (2011) were calibrated to obtain a
better prediction of the connection behaviour. Table 4-3 shows a comparison of both parameters.
The parameters obtained from Lignos and Krawinkler (2011) were used as a starting point as
they were obtained with the experimental results of connections where the yielding occurred in
the beams. However, in this type of connections the yielding and failure occurred in the elements
of the connections. The calibrated values of 𝜃𝑝 , 𝜃𝑝𝑐 , and 𝜃𝑢 are smaller than in Lignos and
Krawinkler (2011), which suggests that the actual performance is poorer than the one that would
be obtained using the Lignos and Krawinkler (2011) parameters. The numerical modelling
procedure proposed by Kyriakopoulos satisfactorily represents the behaviour of the Type 2
construction connection, as the yielding and the capping moments, and the rates of strength and
stiffness degradation, are well captured (see Figure 4-19 and Figure 4-20).
78
Table 4-3: Comparison of Lignos and Krawinkler Parameters and Kyriakopoulos’
Calibrated Parameters.
Post-Yield Post-Capping Ultimate Residual
Research Study Rotation Rotation Rotation Moment Factor
(θp) (θpc) (θu) (κ)
Lignos and Krawinkler 0.051 0.177 0.06 0.4
Kyriakopoulos
0.0216 0.0145 0.0475 0.2
(Calibrated from experiment)
4.6. Eigenvalue and Pushover Analysis

4.6.1. Eigenvalue Analysis
An eigenvalue analysis should be conducted prior to performing a dynamic analysis. This
process consists of determining the natural frequencies and their corresponding mode shapes of
the structure. The structure’s basic dynamic behaviour can be characterized with these
parameters. The mode shapes help to describe the response of the structure subjected to dynamic
loading.
The fundamental period was 1.70 sec for the 2010 steel MRF, 2.04 sec for the 1980 steel MRF
(upper), 2.67 sec for the 1980 steel MRF (lower), and 2.35 sec for the 1960 steel MRF. The
subsequent periods are in Table 4-4. The mode shapes of the first three periods of the different
steel MRFs are shown in Figure 4-21. The stiffest model, based on the fundamental period, is the
2010 steel MRF, followed by the upper bound of the 1980s steel MRF, the 1960s steel MRF, and
finally the lower bound of the 1980s steel MRF. Similar pattern presented the Vancouver’s steel
MRFs except that the 1980s steel MRF upper bound is stiffer than the 2010 steel MRF and
therefore a smaller period (see Table H- 3).The natural period is an indicator of the overall
stiffness of the structures. The eigenvalue analysis is also useful in running a pushover analysis
because it is necessary to define the static lateral load based on the first mode shape.
79
Table 4-4: Comparison of the Periods of 2010, 1980s and 1960s Steel MRFs.
Periods (sec)
1980 Steel MRF 1980 Steel MRF
2010 Steel MRF 1960 Steel MRF
(Upper) (Lower)
T1 1.70 2.04 2.67 2.62
T2 0.58 0.78 0.94 0.90
T3 0.32 0.44 0.52 0.49
T4 0.21 0.29 0.33 0.33
T5 0.15 0.21 0.23 0.23
T6 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.16
Figure 4-21: Mode shapes of the steel MRFs.
4.6.2. Pushover Analysis

The pushover analysis is based on the assumption that the structure’s response can be related to a
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, i.e., the structure is controlled by a single mode and
remains constant throughout the analysis. Evidently both assumptions are incorrect. Nevertheless
several studies indicate that these assumptions lead to rather good predictions (Krawinkler &
Seneviratna 1998). The pushover analysis consists of applying a pattern of forces with the first
mode shape. In this section, the pushover curves of the different steel MRF cases will be
analysed and compared. In addition, the pushover analysis was used to identify the location of
the plastic hinges to the extent that they appear. This information suggests the type of failure
mechanism. The failure mechanisms will be discussed for each frame case in the following
sections.
80
4.6.2.1. Pushover Analysis of 2010 Steel MRF
The pushover curve for the six-storey steel MRF 2010 is shown in Figure 4-22. The elastic range
of the structure is developed within a drift of 0.37% (𝛥𝑦 ) of the building height and a base shear
coefficient of 7.61% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑦 of the building weight, resulting in a stiffness ratio of 8688 kN/m.
The yielding point is obtained graphically by extending the line with the slope of the initial
stiffness and taking the last common point between this line and the pushover curve. The
maximum base shear, which is 13.4% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 of the building weight, is reached at a drift of
1.96% (𝛥𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the building height. The pushover curve includes the P-Delta effects through
the use of leaning columns. Due to the P-Delta effects and the considerations of the stiffness and
strength degradation of the connections, the maximum base shear is reduced to 11.3% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑢
of the building weight, i.e., a reduction of 16%. At a roof drift of 3.75% (𝛥𝑢 ), the structure
experiences an abrupt drop due to the failure of the connections, and this can be considered the
maximum drift of the structure. The ductility (𝜇), which is obtained as the ratio of the ultimate
drift to the yielding drift (𝛥𝑢 /𝛥𝑦 ), is 10.14.
Figure 4-22: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 2010.
4.6.2.2. Pushover Analysis of the 1980s Steel MRFs

Figure 4-23 shows the pushover curve for the six-storey steel MRF 1980 (lower bound). The
elastic range of the structure is developed within a drift of 0.65% (𝛥𝑦 ) of the building height and
a base shear coefficient of 5.08% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑦 of the building weight resulting in a stiffness ratio of
81
3251 kN/m. The maximum base shear, which is 7.33% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 of the building weight, is
reached at a drift of 1.13% (𝛥𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the building height. At 2.5% of roof drift, the building
decreases its strength by 33% of the maximum capacity. The maximum drift of the building can
be defined at a reduction of the maximum strength of 25%, i.e., 2.27% (𝛥𝑢 ) of the building
height. The ductility of the structure based on the above information is 3.49.
Figure 4-23: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 1980, lower bound.
Figure 4-24 presents the pushover curve for the six-storey steel MRF-1980 (upper bound). The
elastic range of the structure is delimited by a drift of 0.30% (𝛥𝑦 ) of the building height and a
base shear coefficient of 3.91% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑦 of the building weight, resulting in a stiffness ratio of
5505 kN/m. The maximum base shear, which is 10.54% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 of the building weight, is
reached at a drift of 1.42% (𝛥𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the building height. At 2.5% of roof drift, the building
decreases its strength 35% of the maximum capacity. The maximum drift of the building can be
defined at a reduction of the maximum strength of 25%, i.e., 2.31% (𝛥𝑢 ) of the building height.
The ductility of the structure based on the above information is 7.70.
82
Figure 4-24: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 1980, upper bound.
4.6.2.3. Pushover Analysis of the 1960s Steel MRF

Figure 4-25 presents the pushover curve for the six-storey steel MRF-1960. The elastic range of
the structure is delimited by a drift of 0.59% (𝛥𝑦 ) of the building height and a base shear
coefficient of 4.61% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑦 of the building weight, resulting in a stiffness ratio of 4135 kN/m.
The maximum base shear, which is 5.18% (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 of the building weight, is reached at a
drift of 0.90% (𝛥𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the building height. The ultimate drift is defined by the sudden drop of
strength at a drift of 2.30% of the building height, with an ultimate base shear coefficient of 4%.
The computed ductility is of 3.90.
83
Figure 4-25: Pushover curve of the six-storey steel MRF 1960.
4.6.2.4. Comparison of Pushover Analyses

Based on Figure 4-26 and Table 4-5, some predictions can be made regarding the performance of
the different steel MRFs. The highest initial stiffness corresponds to the 2010 steel MRF,
followed by the 1980s steel MRF upper bound, 1960s steel MRF, and finally by the 1980s steel
MRF lower bound. This order corresponds to the order of the fundamental period from the
smallest to the longest, indicating the highest stiffness to the lowest stiffness. As expected, the
2010 steel MRF has the largest value of ductility. The 2010 and the 1960s steel MRF present
similar drops at the point considered the ultimate drift. The behaviour of the Type 2 construction
connections and the RBS connections was similar. Both connections provide great ductility and
are the point of failure, guaranteeing that columns do not develop plastic hinges and then
posterior storey-failure mechanisms. The highest capacity corresponds to the 2010 steel MRF,
followed by the 1980s steel MRF upper bound, the 1980s steel MRF lower bound, and finally by
the 1960 steel MRF. The table and pushover curves show that the poorest performance
corresponds to the 1980s steel MRF lower bound based on the ductility value.
Pushover curves were also developed for the Vancouver steel MRFs (see Figure H-1). They
exhibit the same pattern as Montreal’s, except that the 1980s steel MRF upper bound exhibits
greater strength than the 2010 steel MRF. As mentioned above, the sections used for the 1980s
steel MRF upper bound were the largest. This is because the drift limit was even stricter than the
design limits for the 2010 steel MRF. However, the 1980s steel MRF upper bound’s performance
84
does not follow a ductile behaviour like the corresponding one in Montreal does. More details
regarding failure mechanisms are discussed in the following sections.
Table 4-5: Comparison of the Pushover Analysis of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 Steel MRF.
1980 1980
Parameters 2010 1960
(Upper Bound) (Lower Bound)
Drift at Yielding (𝛥𝑦 )
0.37 0.30 0.65 0.59
(% of Building Height)
Base Shear Coefficient at
Yielding (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑦 7.61 3.91 5.08 4.61
(% of the Building Weight)
Initial Stiffness
8687 5505 3251 4135
(kN m)
Drift at (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝛥𝑚𝑎𝑥 )
1.96 1.42 1.13 0.90
(% of Building Weight)
Maximum Base Shear
Coefficient (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 13.40 10.54 7.33 5.18
Ratio of Post-yielding Stiffness
0.18 0.45 0.60 0.23
to Initial Stiffness
Ultimate Drift (𝛥𝑢 )
3.75 2.31 2.27 2.30
Ductility (𝜇) 10.14 7.70 3.49 3.90
1400
1200 2010
1000 1980 (Upper Bound)

1980 (Lower Bound)
Vb (kN)
800
1960
600
400
200
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Roof Drift
Figure 4-26: Comparison of the pushover curves of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 steel MRF.
85
4.6.2.5. Failure Mechanism Based on Pushover Analysis of 2010 Steel MRF
Figure 4-27 shows the pushover curve of the 2010 steel MRF divided into 7 sections (A to G).
Two plots describe each section; one plot shows the formed plastic hinges and the other shows
the deformed shape. Zones A and B are characterized by the development of plastic hinges in the
RBS connections. The first zone is delimited by the roof drift of 0.0037. At this stage, the
structure has passed the elastic range and has developed the first plastic hinges in the RBS
connections in the second storey. Zone B is delimited by 0.01 roof drift and is divided into three
parts in order to further observe the development of the plastic hinges in the RBS connections.
At a roof drift of 0.005, all of the first two storeys’ RBS connections started yielding. Then,
when the roof drift increases to 0.0075, all the third-storey RBS connections started yielding.
Zone B ends with the yielding of all the fourth floor’s RBS connections. After exceeding the 1%
of roof drift, one more plastic hinge is developed in the fifth storey previous to the development
of the first plastic hinges of the bottom of one of the columns in the first floor (see Figure 4-27
C). At a roof drift of 1.5%, all the plastic hinges in the beams of the fifth storey are formed in the
RBS connections. Then in zone D, all the bottom-column plastic hinges are formed in the first
floor. This was considered in the design process. The columns of the first floor were designed to
withstand the lateral loads in the nonlinear range without brittle failure. At a roof drift of 3.67%,
the structure is considered to collapse as a significant number of the RBS connections start
failing.
86
2010.
87
4.6.2.6. Failure Mechanism Based on Pushover Analysis of the 1980s Steel MRFs
Contrary to the 2010 steel MRF’s performance in which the reduced beam sections failed before
the columns, the lower and upper bound 1980s steel MRFs’ performances showed that the
columns are weaker than the beams. The lower bound steel MRF is shown in Figure 4-28. In this
case, the pushover curve is divided into six sections (A to F). The elastic range is within section
A and delimited by a roof drift of 0.0078. The first yielding points were developed at the top of
the columns of the third and fourth floor. In section B, more plastic hinges were formed in the
columns and two new plastic hinges were formed in the beams. At this stage, the plastic hinges’
locations suggest a WCSB behaviour. At a roof drift of 0.125%, fourteen plastic hinges are
formed in the structure and are mainly located in the columns ends. At this point, the first floor
requires the formation of two more plastic hinges in the columns to produce a first-floor failure
mechanism of the structure. Prior to the end of section D, the first floor failure mechanism
anticipated in section C is completed. Therefore, this must be considered the ultimate drift when
imminent collapse is prone to occur. Consequently, the assumption of considering the ultimate
drift based on an assumed reduction of strength is no longer valid. Table 4-5 is updated with the
data obtained in the following sections. The deformed shape shown in section F clearly describes
the first-storey failure.
The performance of the upper bound 1980s steel MRF is not very different from the lower bound
as it is also characterized by the WCSB behaviour but in an even more dominant way. However,
the stiffness of the upper bound steel MFR is almost double the lower bound and the strength is
around 40% greater.
Figure 4-29 shows the pushover curve discretized into four sections (A to D) that can easily
describe the failure mechanism of the 1980s steel MRF upper bound. The first plastic hinge in
the upper bound model developed at a roof drift of 0.0078, which is similar to the roof drift at the
first plastic hinge formation for the lower bound model. However, the strength reached by the
upper bound model at this roof drift was 8.5% of the building weight compared to 6.5% of the
building weight for the lower bound steel MRF. In section B, more plastic hinges are formed in
the column ends. The failure mechanism of the first floor is reached at a drift of 1.45%. Both
steel MRFs present the same type of collapse but with a slight difference in drift and a major
difference in strength.
88
1980s, lower bound.
89
1980s, upper bound.
4.6.2.7. Failure Mechanism Based on Pushover Analysis of the 1960 Steel MRF
The 1960s steel MRF performance is described in Figure 4-30. The pushover curve is discretised
into six sections (A to F). Similar to the 2010 steel MRF, the 1960s steel MRF exhibits a SCWB
behaviour. In this case, the yielding does not occur in the beam itself but in the connections.
90
1960s.
The elastic range is located within section A, delimited by a roof drift of 0.0057. At this point,
the strength reached is of 4.5% of the building weight. The nonlinear range starts due to the
formation of plastic hinges in the connections in the beam of the middle span of the first storey.
91
Prior to 0.83% of roof drift, more plastic hinges in the connections of the first three storeys are
formed. At this point, two plastic hinges are formed at the top end of two columns of the third
floor. These hinges suggest a failure mechanism in the third floor. In section C, at 1% of roof
drift, all the connections up to the third storey are yielding; two more plastic hinges are formed in
the top ends of two columns, and the first plastic hinge is developed in the first floor at the
bottom end of a column. At a roof drift of 1.32%, the bottom ends of the columns in the first
floor are yielding. However, there is no indication of first-storey failure mechanism. The ultimate
drift is considered to happen at a roof drift of 2.32%, when all the connections until the third
level exceed the maximum plastic rotation capacity of 0.0475 rad.
4.6.2.8. Comparison of the 2010, 1980s, and 1960s Steel MRF Failure Mechanism
The 2010 steel MRF and the 1960 steel MRF performed similarly with very different strength
and drift values. However, the failure mechanism in both frames show SCWB behaviour. The
plastic hinges in both frames were dominantly located in the connections, specifically in the RBS
for the 2010 steel MRF and in the welded flange plates for the 1960 steel MRF. The failure
mechanism in these frames was due to the fracture or buckling of connections because their
plastic rotations went beyond their ultimate plastic rotation.
The upper and lower bound 1980s steel MRFs performed similarly. Both frames had a WCSB
behaviour and in both cases the failure mechanism was in the first floor. This undesirable failure
mechanism essentially leaves the upper part of the structure relatively intact while the first floor
collapses. The ductility in these frames is very poor and the collapse can be considered a brittle
failure.
After analysing the failure mechanism with the pushover curve and the development of plastic
hinges, Table 4-5 was updated in Table 4-6. The 2010 steel MRF kept the same parameters and
continues showing the best performance, the highest stiffness, and the highest ductility. The
1980s steel MRF (upper and lower bound) did not present much change in the initial stiffness.
However, the ultimate drift and the ductility changed dramatically as the first-storey failure
mechanism occurred at a much smaller drift than previously assumed. Finally, the 1960 steel
MRF parameters remained constant, with slight differences in the yielding drift and,
consequently, in the ductility.
92
Table 4-6: Comparison of the Updated Data from the Pushover Analysis of the 1960s,
1980s and 2010 Steel MRF.
1980s 1980s
Parameters 2010 1960s
Upper Bound Lower Bound
Drift at Yielding (𝛥𝑦 )
0.37 0.52 0.79 0.57
Yielding (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑦 7.61 6.30 6.10 4.50
Initial Stiffness
8687 5083 3212 4178
(kN m)
Drift at (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝛥𝑚𝑎𝑥 )
1.96 1.42 1.13 0.90
(% of Building Weight)
Maximum Base Shear
Coefficient (𝑉𝑏 ⁄𝑊 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 13.40 10.54 7.33 5.18
0.18 0.39 0.47 0.26
to Initial Stiffness
Ultimate Drift (𝛥𝑢 )
3.75 1.23 1.45 2.30
Ductility (𝜇) 10.14 2.37 1.84 4.04
93
Chapter 5
Fragility Analysis through Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA)
5.1. Selection of Ground Motions
A suite of ground motions was selected based on certain criteria that will be discussed in this
section. These records are the input ground motion to carry out the dynamic analyses for the
generation of fragility curves.
Records are classified in two categories based on the distance from the fault rupture: near-fault,
or less than 10 km; and far fault, or more than 10 km (FEMA P265 2009). A set of 34 far-fault
records were selected as the input ground motion.
The NGA Project conducted an extensive update and expansion of the PEER strong motion
database (Chiou et al. 2008). This project brought together a database of 3,551 records from 173
earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 4.2 to 7.9, including aftershocks. These records were
compiled and made more readable in a flat file in which each record comprehends the two
horizontal components and the single vertical component. The assumptions made in the selection
of ground motion records are:
 The spectral acceleration near the fundamental period of the structure 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) with 5% of
damping ratio was selected as the intensity measure for ground motion. The primary
reason for this selection is the convenience of either finding the 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) in the available
seismic hazard curves or, alternatively, its straightforward computation. In addition,
𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) is a characteristic parameter of the structure (Katsanos et al. 2010).
 The database was filtered for far-field records.
 The maximum credible earthquake (MCE) delimited the top 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) to define the range
and the number of bins. 𝑇1 is the fundamental period of the structure obtained from the
eigenvalue analysis.
 In order to have a good distribution of 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ), twelve bins were defined and the 34
records were allotted uniformly.
94
Table 5-1 shows the 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) for each steel MRF for different hazard levels. These hazard levels
are the frequent earthquake (FE), design base earthquake (DBE), and the maximum credible
earthquake (MCE). The probability of occurrence for each hazard level is 40% in 50 years, 10%
in 50 years, and 2% in 50 years, respectively. Because the fundamental periods are greater than
1.50 sec and Montreal’s spectral accelerations for those periods are very low, the MCE for all the
steel MRF ranges between 0.0391 g and 0.074 g. Figure 5-1 shows the different response spectra
for each hazard level with a vertical line for each frame case located at its fundamental period.
In order to have a uniform distribution of the 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) and to cover the different hazard levels
several spectral acceleration bins are grouped to allocate the selected records. The bin number,
range, and number of records allocated to each group are shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-3 lists the 34 selected ground motion records and provides the record sequence number,
the earthquake name, the year of occurrence, the station name, the magnitude, and the peak
ground acceleration (PGA). The 34 far-field ground motions have magnitudes from 5.33 to 7.36,
and PGAs from 0.0177g to 0.3238g. Table 5-4 shows the 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) of each steel MRF for each
record. The 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) distribution for each steel MRF designed in Montreal is illustrated in Figure
5-2.
After running the 34 ground motions for each frame case, it was observed that the structures did
not exhibit collapse, as evidenced by the lack of large inter-storey drift values. Therefore, the last
five selected ground motion records were amplified by factors ranging from 1.5 to 5 with
increments of 0.5 in order to observe the structures collapse.
Table 5-1: Spectral Acceleration for the Fundamental Period of the Steel MRFs for FE,
DBE, and MCE of NBCC 2010 Montreal.
1980s 1980s
Sa(T1) (g) 2010 1960s
Upper Bound Lower Bound
FE 0.0096 0.0059 0.0050 0.0051
DBE 0.0304 0.0188 0.0158 0.0161
MCE 0.0740 0.0465 0.0391 0.0397
95
0.7
0.6
1980 (Lower Bound)

1980(Upper Bound)
MCE
0.5
DBE
0.4 FE
1960
Sa (g)
2010
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T1 (sec)
Figure 5-1: Design response spectrum for different hazard levels in Montreal (NBCC
2010).
Table 5-2: Spectral Acceleration Bins.

Bin Number of
Range
Number Records
1 0 0.0075 2
2 0.0075 0.015 3
3 0.015 0.0225 2
4 0.0225 0.03 2
5 0.03 0.0375 2
6 0.0375 0.045 3
7 0.045 0.0525 3
8 0.0525 0.06 3
9 0.06 0.0675 4
10 0.0675 0.075 4
11 0.075 0.0825 3
12 0.0825 -- 3
96
Table 5-3: Selected Ground Motion Records.
Record
GM Earthquake PGA
Seq. Earthquake Name Year Station Name
No. Magnitude (g)
No.
1 18 Imperial Valley-04 1953 El Centro Array #9 5.50 0.029
2 44 Lytle Creek 1970 Colton - So Cal Edison 5.33 0.036
3 59 San Fernando 1971 Cedar Springs, Allen Ranch 6.61 0.018
4 3 Humbolt Bay 1937 Ferndale City Hall 5.80 0.042
5 5 Northwest Calif-01 1938 Ferndale City Hall 5.50 0.108
7 123 Friuli, Italy-01 1976 Conegliano 6.50 0.059
8 127 Fruili, Italy-03 1976 Buia 5.50 0.046
10 16 Northern Calif-02 1952 Ferndale City Hall 5.20 0.073
11 26 Hollister-01 1961 Hollister City Hall 5.60 0.121
12 237 Mammoth Lakes-03 1980 Long Valley Dam (Downst) 5.91 0.087
13 33 Parkfield 1966 Temblor pre-1969 6.19 0.293
14 239 Mammoth Lakes-03 1980 Long Valley Dam (Upr L Abut) 5.91 0.329
15 13 Kern County 1952 Pasadena - CIT Athenaeum 7.36 0.050
16 132 Friuli, Italy-02 1976 Forgaria Cornino 5.91 0.229
17 186 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Niland Fire Station 6.53 0.086
18 12 Kern County 1952 LA - Hollywood Stor FF 7.36 0.054
19 22 El Alamo 1956 El Centro Array #9 6.80 0.046
20 28 Parkfield 1966 Cholame - Shandon Array #12 6.19 0.060
21 498 Hollister-04 1986 Hollister Diff Array #1 5.45 0.105
22 362 Coalinga-01 1983 Parkfield - Vineyard Cany 2W 6.36 0.088
23 328 Coalinga-01 1983 Parkfield - Cholame 3W 6.36 0.092
24 163 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Calipatria Fire Station 6.53 0.103
25 288 Irpinia, Italy-01 1980 Brienza 6.90 0.214
26 735 Loma Prieta 1989 APEEL 7 - Pulgas 6.93 0.119
27 141 Tabas, Iran 1978 Kashmar 7.35 0.036
28 411 Coalinga-05 1983 Pleasant Valley P.P. - FF 5.77 0.274
29 164 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Cerro Prieto 6.53 0.176
30 343 Coalinga-01 1983 Parkfield - Fault Zone 4 6.36 0.094
31 324 Coalinga-01 1983 Parkfield - Cholame 1E 6.36 0.095
32 162 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Calexico Fire Station 6.53 0.233
33 138 Tabas, Iran 1978 Boshrooyeh 7.35 0.109
34 15 Kern County 1952 Taft Lincoln School 7.36 0.173
97
Table 5-4: Spectral Acceleration for the Fundamental Period of the 2010, 1980s, and 1960s
Steel MRFs of the Selected Ground Motion Records.
Steel 1980s 1980s
2010 1960s
MRF Upper Bound Lower Bound
GM
Sa(T1) Sa(T1) Sa(T1) Sa(T1)
No.
1 0.0021 0.0019 0.00076 0.00085
2 0.0056 0.0042 0.0017 0.0018
3 0.0079 0.0058 0.0051 0.0051
4 0.0103 0.0046 0.0021 0.0022
5 0.0144 0.0082 0.0042 0.0043
6 0.0176 0.0120 0.0066 0.007
7 0.0224 0.0169 0.0085 0.0085
8 0.0246 0.0245 0.014 0.0128
9 0.0284 0.0126 0.0051 0.0054
10 0.0313 0.0191 0.0151 0.015
11 0.0373 0.0328 0.0293 0.0316
12 0.0382 0.0229 0.0125 0.0131
13 0.0428 0.0379 0.0238 0.0256
14 0.043 0.0318 0.0207 0.0217
15 0.0452 0.0411 0.0263 0.0263
16 0.0465 0.0234 0.0123 0.0146
17 0.0508 0.0389 0.0434 0.0438
18 0.0537 0.0429 0.0422 0.0434
19 0.0563 0.0286 0.0202 0.0198
20 0.0597 0.0375 0.0253 0.0267
21 0.0603 0.0607 0.028 0.0295
22 0.0633 0.0487 0.0265 0.026
23 0.0641 0.0326 0.0291 0.03
24 0.0652 0.0568 0.05 0.0461
25 0.0687 0.0367 0.0433 0.0435
26 0.0696 0.0475 0.0724 0.0683
27 0.0719 0.0759 0.036 0.0365
28 0.0749 0.0689 0.0529 0.0546
29 0.0757 0.0570 0.0389 0.0403
30 0.0764 0.0719 0.035 0.0351
31 0.0824 0.0503 0.026 0.0264
32 0.0889 0.0570 0.0513 0.0482
33 0.092 0.0761 0.0493 0.0492
34 0.0945 0.0622 0.0491 0.0484
98
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
Sa (g)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9
T1 (sec)
2010 1980 (Upper) 1980 (Lower) 1960 MCE DBE FE
Figure 5-2: Spectral acceleration distribution of the selected ground motion records.
The same procedure was followed to select ground motions for the analyses of the frames
designed for Vancouver. It was necessary to carry out another selection process as Vancouver’s
hazard is about three times Montreal’s hazard. See Appendix I for further details on the selection
of ground motions for Vancouver.
5.2. Seismic Fragility Analysis Procedure

The procedure used for this project was the SAC-FEMA method (Cornell et al. 2002). After the
selection of 34 ground motions, 34 nonlinear time history analyses were conducted to obtain the
𝐼𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 of each ground motion (GM). Three different performance levels were defined in this
project based on ASCE-41 (ASCE 2007).
There are three random variables involved in the fragility analysis: the ground motion intensity,
the displacement demand 𝐷, and the displacement capacity 𝐶 (Cornell et al. 2002). The drift
seismic hazard is obtained by combining the seismic hazard with the drift demand:
𝐻𝐷 (𝑑) = ∫ 𝑃[𝐷 ≥ 𝑑|𝑆𝑎 = 𝑥] = |𝑑𝐻(𝑥)| (5-1)
99
where |𝑑𝐻(𝑥)| is the absolute value of the derivative of the site’s spectra acceleration hazard
curve times 𝑑𝑥. The seismic demand is defined as:
̂ = 𝑎𝑆𝑎 𝑏
𝐷 (5-2)
̂ is the median value of demand 𝐷. The constants 𝑎 and 𝑏 were obtained by the
where 𝐷
regression of the plot of ln(𝐷) and ln(𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 )). 𝐷 is the different 𝐼𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 obtained from time
history analyses of the 34 ground motions and the amplified ground motions. The standard
deviation of this linear regression becomes 𝛽𝐷 . To account for the dispersion, Eq. (5-2) becomes:
𝐷 = 𝑎𝑆𝑎 𝑏 ∈ (5-3)
However, only one demand value will be used for a given spectral acceleration with one
dispersion value for the whole analysis. The probability of exceeding a structural demand (𝑑)
for a given intensity level can be defined as the cumulative distribution function of the log-
normal distribution:
𝑑
ln [ 𝑏 ]
𝑃[𝐷 ≥ 𝑑|𝑆𝑎 = 𝑥] = 1 − 𝛷 ( 𝑎𝑥 ) (5-4)
𝛽𝐷|𝑆𝑎
The closed form can be obtained from Eq. (5-1) and Eq. (5-5) as:
1 𝑘2 2
𝐻𝐷 (𝑑) = 𝑃[𝐷 ≥ 𝑑] = 𝐻(𝑠𝑎 𝑑 )exp [ 𝛽 ] (5-5)
2 𝑏 2 𝐷|𝑆𝑎
By combining the drift hazard with the drift capacity 𝐶, the annual probability of the
performance level not being met, 𝑃𝑃𝐿 , is:
𝑃𝑃𝐿 = ∫ 𝑃[𝐶 ≤ 𝑑] = |𝑑𝐻𝐷 (𝑥)| (5-6)
Similar to demand 𝐷, the drift capacity C also follows a log-normal distribution with a median
value 𝐶̂ and dispersion 𝛽𝐶 , which can be found in the literature (Yun, 2002).
ln [𝑑⁄ ̂ ]
𝑃[𝐶 ≤ 𝑑] = 𝛷 ( 𝐶 ) (5-7)
𝛽𝐶
100
Then, the annual probability of failure can be obtained by substituting (5-5), (5-6), and (5-7):
𝐶̂
1 𝑘2
𝑃𝑃𝐿 = 𝐻(𝑠𝑎 )𝑒𝑥𝑝 [ 2 (𝛽𝐷|𝑆𝑎 2 + 𝛽𝐶 2 )] (5-8)
2𝑏
In the previous equations, the hazard, demand, and capacity are coupled, but Nielson (2005)
derived fragility curves combining only the demand and capacity as follows:
̂
ln [𝐷⁄ ̂ ]
𝐶
𝑃[𝐷 ≥ 𝑑|𝑆𝑎 = 𝑥] = 𝛷 (5-9)
2 2
√𝛽𝐷|𝑆𝑎 + 𝛽𝐶
( )
In order to generate the fragility curves, the capacity needs to be defined based on
experimentation. However, the capacity can be assumed to be equal to specific performance
levels, and the probability of exceeding a specific performance level is described in these
fragility curves. The performance levels used in this research are immediate occupancy (IO), life
safety (LS), and collapse prevention (CP), based on ASCE-41 (ASCE 2007). The structural
performance levels and damages for steel MRF are described and listed in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Structural Performance Levels and Damage for Steel MRF (ASCE 2007).
Collapse Prevention Life Safety Immediate Occupancy
Extensive distortion of Hinges form. Local buckling of

beams and column some beam elements. Severe Minor local yielding in a
panels. Many fractures joint distortion; isolated few places. No fractures.
Primary at moment moment connection fractures, Minor moment buckling
connections, but shear but shear connections remain or observable permanent
connections remain intact. A few elements may distortions of members.
intact. experience partial fracture.
Extensive distortion of beams
and column panels. Many
Same as primary. Same as primary.
Secondary fractures at moment
connections, but shear
connections remain intact.
Drift 5% transient 2.5% transient; 0.7% transient;
or permanent. 1% permanent. negligible permanent.
The values of 𝐼𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 vs. the 𝑆(𝑇1 ) obtained from the 74 time history analyses are presented for
the 2010, the 1980s upper bound, the 1980s lower bound, and the 1960s steel MRFs in Figure
101
5-3, Figure 5-4, Figure 5-5, and Figure 5-6, respectively. In addition, these figures show the
seismic demand defined in Eq. (5-2). The values of the constants 𝑎 and 𝑏, as well as the standard
deviation (𝛽𝐷 ) for all the steel MRFs, are listed in Table 5-6. This seismic demand fitting curves
were used to develop the fragility curves. These parameters are shown in Table J-1 for
Vancouver’s frames.
Table 5-6: Parameters for Fitting Demand Curves.
Steel MRF a b βD
2010 0.0515 0.8611 0.1570
1980s Upper Bound 0.06836 0.7936 0.2403
1980s Lower Bound 0.1952 0.8935 0.6234
1960s 0.1185 0.7691 0.2598
Figure 5-3, Figure 5-4, Figure 5-5, and Figure 5-6 provide the results for the 74 time history
analyses. These are divided into 34 records that span up to the MCE level, and the remaining 40
that represent the amplified ground motions up to eight times the MCE level. The rest of the
records represent up to six to eight times the MCE level. Several facts can be noted from these
figures. First, for the MCE, all the steel MRFs presented an 𝐼𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 below the life safety level,
with the 2010 steel MRF below even the immediate occupancy performance level. The 2010
steel MRF exceeds the life safety performance level with records with 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇1 ) equal to 5.4 times
its MCE level. The 1980s steel MRF upper bound exceeds the life safety level after reaching 5.3
times its MCE level. The same phenomenon occurs in the lower bound, with the steel MRF
exceeding the 2.5% of LS level at 3.13 times its MCE level. The 1960 steel MRF exceeds this
level at 2.4 times its MCE level. The 1980s steel MRF lower bound and the 1960s steel MRF are
the only ones that exceed 5% of 𝐼𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 within the 74 records. Both frames exceed the 5% at
around 5 times their MCE. It can be concluded that all the steel MRFs at their MCE level
perform under the life safety level and slightly above the immediate occupancy level.
102
Figure 5-3: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 2010 steel MRF.
Figure 5-4: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 1980s steel MRF
upper bound.
103
Figure 5-5: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 1980s steel MRF
lower.
Figure 5-6: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum inter-storey drift for 1960s steel MRF.
The previous graphs were also plotted for the Vancouver frames in Appendix J. They also show
that for the MCE level all the frames perform under the life safety performance level. However,
when the ground motion records are amplified by a factor of 5 then the 𝐼𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 computed
exceeds the collapse prevention performance level.
104
A building is conformed of structural and non-structural components. For some structures, the
non-structural components contribute to the highest portion of the cost and their damage could be
more significant to the owners in some cases. These non-structural components are listed in
Table 5-7. They are not only sensitive to displacement but to acceleration as well. Some of them
are sensitive to damage from both inertial loading and drifts, and therefore the maximum nodal
acceleration vs. spectral acceleration is also provided in Figure 5-7, Figure 5-8, Figure 5-9, and
Figure 5-10 for the 2010 steel MRF, the 1980s steel MRF upper bound, the 1980s steel MRF
lower bound, and the 1960s steel MRF, respectively.
The maximum nodal accelerations of the 2010 steel MRF for the MCE level reaches 0.5g. The
1980s steel MRF upper bound at its MCE level reaches 0.6g and the rest of the steel MRFs do
not exceed 0.4g. Within the amplified records, the highest accelerations corresponds to the stiffer
structure, the 2010 steel MRF.
Table 5-7: Non-structural Components: Response Sensitivity (ASCE 2007).

Sensitivity
Component Acceleration Deformation
Architectural
1. Exterior Skin S P
2. Partitions S P
3. Interior Veneers S P
4. Ceilings
 Directly applied to structure P
 Dropped furred gypsum board P
 Suspended lath and plaster S P
 Suspended integrated ceiling S P
5. Parapets and Appendages P
6. Canopies and Marquees P
7. Chimneys and Stacks P
8. Stairs P S
Mechanical Equipment
1. Mechanical Equipment P
2. Storage Vessels and Water Heaters P
3. Pressure Piping P S
4. Fire Suppression Piping P S
5. Fluid Piping P S
6. Ductwork P S
105
Figure 5-7: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 2010 steel MRF.
Figure 5-8: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 1980s steel MRF,
upper bound.
106
Figure 5-9: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 1980s steel MRF,
lower bound.
Figure 5-10: Spectral acceleration vs. maximum nodal acceleration for 1960s steel MRF.
The maximum nodal accelerations for the Vancouver frames are presented in Appendix J. They
show greater values compared to the Montreal frames because they are stiffer. For example, all
the Vancouver steel MRFs reach 1.0 g at the MCE level, compared to 0.5g (average) for the
Montreal steel MRFs.
107
A fragility analysis is concluded with the generation of fragility curves based on the maximum
inter-storey drift obtained from the 74 time history analyses. Figure 5-11, Figure 5-12, Figure
5-13, and Figure 5-14 are the plots of the fragility curves for the 2010 steel MRF, the 1980s steel
MRF upper, the 1980s steel MRF lower, and the 1960s steel MRF, respectively. The 2010 steel
MRF shows that at the MCE level the probability of exceedance of the immediate occupancy
performance level (IO) is 30%. The 1980s steel MRF upper bound has a probability of
exceedance of 35% of the IO at the MCE level. The 1980s steel MRF lower and the 1960s steel
MRF present 80% and 95%, respectively, of probability of exceedance of the IO at the MCE
level. Only the 1980s steel MRF lower bound reaches a probability of exceedance of 15% and
5% for the LS and CP performance levels, respectively, at its MCE. The rest of the frames
exhibit a 0% of probability of exceeding the LS and CP performance levels at their MCE.
Figure 5-11: Fragility curves for 2010 steel MRF.
108
Figure 5-12: Fragility curves for 1980s steel MRF, upper bound.
Figure 5-13: Fragility curves for 1980 steel MRF, lower bound.
109
Figure 5-14: Fragility curves for 1960 steel MRF.
The fragility curves for the Vancouver frame are presented in the last plots of Appendix J. At its
MCE level the 2010 steel MRF exhibits a 99% of probability of exceeding the IO damage state,
3% for the LS level, and 0% for the CP performance level. Interestingly, the stiffer-framed 1980s
steel MRF upper bound presents at its MCE level a 100% probability of exceeding the IO
damage state, 6% for the LS level, and 0% for the CP performance level. The least stiff and
worst performer, the 1980s steel MRF lower bound, presents at its MCE level a 95% probability
of exceeding the IO damage state, 65% for the LS level, and 45% for the CP performance level.
Finally, the 1960s steel MRF exhibits at its MCE level a 100% probability of exceeding the IO
damage state, 12% for the LS level, and 1% for the CP performance level.
Figure 5-15 shows the fragility curves for the different frame cases. The first row (a, b, and c)
includes the steel MRFs designed for Montreal’s hazard level and the second row includes the
steel MRFs designed for Vancouver (d, e, and f). Each plot shows the fragility curves of the
different provisions designed with a specific hazard level and for a given damage state. The same
pattern of performance is repeated in both seismic hazard levels, with the worst performance
corresponding to the 1980s steel MRF lower bound and the best performance corresponding to
the 2010 steel MRF. Interestingly, the 1980s steel MRF upper bound for Vancouver’s hazard
110
level has the lowest probabilities of exceeding the collapse prevention level compared to the
others steel MRFs. This is due to the drift requirement and design loads of the Vancouver-1980s
scenario. The median and dispersion values of these fragility curves are listed in Table J- 1.
Figure 5-15: Fragility curves for the different frame cases.
5.3. Time History Analysis Results and Comparison

This section shows the results obtained from a time history analysis of the different frames under
two ground motions. These two excitations represent the MCE and five times the MCE level.
The following figures show the time versus roof displacements and the time versus roof
acceleration. In the left-side plots a) and c) describe the MCE level. The right-side plots describe
111
the five times MCE level. The upper plots, a) and b), show the displacements and the lower
plots, c) and d), show the nodal accelerations. Table 5-8 lists the ground motion records applied
in the THAs.
Table 5-8: Details of Ground Motion Records Used in the Time History Analyses.
GM Record Earthquake Station Station Scale
Year Magnitude GM
No. Seq. No. Name Seq. No. ID No. Factor
28 411 Coalinga-05 1983 155 1162 5.77 1 28
63 138 Tabas, Iran 1978 57 70 7.35 4 33
26 735 Loma Prieta 1989 484 58378 6.93 1 26
64 15 Kern County 1952 148 1095 7.36 4 34
18 12 Kern County 1952 326 24303 7.36 1 18
Imperial
29 164 1979 240 6604 6.53 1 29
Valley-06
Figure 5-16 presents the plots for the 2010 steel MRF. Figure 5-16 a) shows a maximum roof
displacement of 92.8 mm, which corresponds to 0.4% of the building height for the MCE level.
Based on the performance limits stipulated above from the ASCE (2007) the global response is
under the immediate occupancy level. Additionally no residual displacement can be appreciated.
However, for the five times MCE level (Figure 5-16 b) the roof displacement reaches 331.2 mm,
which corresponds to 1.47% of the building height. The structure presents a residual
displacement of 32 mm. The maximum roof acceleration reaches 0.32 g for the MCE level and
0.67 g for five times the MCE level, illustrated in plots c) and d), respectively.
112
Figure 5-16: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (2010 steel MRF).
Figure 5-17 presents the plots for the 1980s steel MRF upper bound. Figure 5-17 a) shows a
maximum roof displacement of 88.3 mm, which corresponds to 0.39% of the building height for
the MCE level. Based on the performance limits stipulated above from the ASCE (2007), the
global response is under the immediate occupancy level. Additionally, no residual displacement
can be appreciated. However, for the five times MCE level (Figure 5-17 b)) the roof
displacement reaches 337.9 mm, which corresponds to 1.5% of the building height. The structure
presents a residual displacement of 40 mm. The maximum roof acceleration reaches 0.24 g for
the MCE level and 0.68 g for five times the MCE level, illustrated in plots c) and d),
respectively.
113
Figure 5-17: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (1980s steel MRF upper
bound).
Figure 5-18 presents the plots for the 1980s steel MRF lower bound. Figure 5-18 a) shows a
maximum roof displacement of 129.4 mm, which corresponds to 0.575% of the building height
for the MCE level. Based on the performance limits stipulated above from the ASCE (2007), the
displacement reaches 386.1 mm, which corresponds to 1.72% of the building height. The
structure presents a residual displacement of 165 mm. The maximum roof acceleration reaches
0.12 g for the MCE level and 0.43 g for five times the MCE level, illustrated in plots c) and d),
respectively.
114
Figure 5-18: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (1980s steel MRF lower
bound).
Figure 5-19 presents the plots for the 1980s steel MRF lower bound. Figure 5-19 a) shows a
maximum roof displacement of 123.8 mm, which corresponds to 0.55% of the building height
for the MCE level. Based on the performance limits stipulated above from the (ASCE 2007), the
displacement reaches 325.5 mm, which corresponds to 1.45% of the building height. The
structure presents a residual displacement of 122 mm. The maximum roof acceleration reaches
0.29 g for the MCE level and 0.47 g for five times the MCE level, illustrated in plots c) and d),
respectively.
115
Figure 5-19: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations (1960 steel MRF).
In conclusion, all the frames performed under the immediate occupancy level for the MCE. No
frames presented residual displacements for the MCE level. The largest roof displacement
corresponded to the 1980s steel MRF lower bound and the largest roof acceleration to the 2010
steel MRF for the MCE level. The 2010 steel MRF has the largest value in acceleration as it
possesses the highest stiffness value. On the other hand, the largest roof displacement
corresponded, again, to the 1980s steel MRF lower bound and the largest roof acceleration to the
1980s steel MRF upper bound for the five times MCE level. Finally, the highest residual
displacement corresponded to the 1980s steel MRF lower bound.
Time history analyses were conducted for the Vancouver frames. The roof displacements and
roof acceleration were recorded and plotted (see Appendix K). The maximum roof displacements
at the MCE level for all the frames are under the LS performance limit, and slightly over the
immediate occupancy level. For five times the MCE level the roof displacements are smaller
than the collapse prevention level. The average of the maximum roof accelerations are around
0.5g for the MCE and greater than 1.0 g for five times the MCE level.
116
Chapter 6
Conclusion
6.1. Summary of Thesis
A literature review was provided on the three main topics of this thesis, namely, seismic impact
assessment, seismic fragility analysis, and seismic performance assessment. Seismic impact
assessment studies provide essential information to support insurance companies and decision
makers in emergency management agencies. The seismic impact assessment studies in North
America include Onur et al. (2005), AIR Worldwide (2013), and Elnashai et al. (2009). Several
fragility analyses are available for North America, but only a few of them focus on Canada.
These studies include Ventura et al. (2005), HAZUS of FEMA (2003), and ATC-13 (1985). The
seismic performance assessments studies available in Canada for steel MRFs are Biddah and
Heidebrecht (1999) and Kyriakopoulos (2012). Developing these seismic performance
assessments for fragility curves is not an easy task and so many regional seismic impact
assessment studies choose to obtain the fragility functions based on experts’ opinions or using
capacity spectrum methods.
The evolution of the seismic design loads was shown for different cities (Vancouver, Montreal,
and Toronto) for steel MRFs based on the National Building Code of Canada. It showed an
upward trend of the base shear coefficient over time for both conventional and ductile three-
storey steel MRFs. The base shear tends to decrease for taller buildings because the fundamental
periods (𝑇) increase and their corresponding spectral acceleration values reduce. In addition, a
summary of the evolution of the steel design concepts provided in CAN/CSA.S16 was included.
It was found that the base shear coefficient has had two peaks in the 1970s and in the 2000s, with
a valley in the 1990s. This indicates that seismic design loads can be very different depending on
design provisions. However, the seismic loads did not govern the design for the 1980s and
1960s, but the wind loads did, based on the base shear coefficient. Another important fact is that
prior to 1989 the CSA.S16 lacked seismic provisions and structural designers preferred to design
for wind loads. This is why Clause 27, regarding seismic provisions for steel structures, was
introduced in CAN/CSA.S16-1989.
117
A description of the representative steel MRF taken from Biddah and Heidebrecht (1999) was
presented. The layout of the building was described by the plan and elevation views. The plan
layout consisted of a three-by-four grid with bays 8 m long. The elevation view consisted of six
storeys with a typical height of 3.6m and a first floor height of 4.5m. Two cities (Montreal and
Vancouver) were analysed in this thesis. General assumptions for all the buildings were
indicated, including the office occupancy use, the normal importance category, the normal site
class, and the concrete and steel deck supported by secondary beams for the floor slabs. Gravity
loads (dead and live) were quantified based on NBCC 2010, except for the snow loads which
were quantified for each provision and city.
A whole chapter describes with meticulous detail the design process for each steel MRF. Several
main differences in design philosophy exist. The 2010 steel MRF was designed with the capacity
design concept. The 1980s and the 2010 steel MRF were based on the limit states design. The
1980s steel MRFs were not concerned with the SCWB concept. The 1960s steel MRF used a
Type 2 construction philosophy with allowable stress design. Another main difference was the
connection type: reduced beam sections were used for the 2010 steel MRF and WFP with a
single side shear tab were used for both the 1980s and 1960s steel MRFs. However, the 1960s
steel MRFs’ connections were only designed for lateral load. Finally, another significant
difference was the demand. As mentioned above, the wind load governed the design base shear
for the 1980s and 1960s steel MRFs. For the 2010 steel MRF, both seismic and wind load
patterns were verified for final design. The base shear coefficient for the wind loads were 0.062,
0.029, and 0.024 for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 steel MRFs in Montreal, respectively.
Alternatively for Vancouver, the base shear coefficients were 0.096, 0.044, and 0.025 for the
1960s, 1980s, and 2010 steel MRFs, respectively. On the other hand, the seismic base shear
coefficients for Montreal were 0.04, 0.018, and 0.0154 for the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010 steel
MRFs, respectively, and for Vancouver, 0.04, 0.036, and 0.038, respectively. Interestingly, the
base shear coefficients due to wind loads have decreased over time. Another parameter that has
changed over time is the drift limit. The 1960s limited inter-storey drift values to 1/400 or 1/300
depending on certain criteria. This limit was modified in the 1980s to a more strict value of
1/500, although it was not mandatory. However, the 2010 code reduces this inter-storey drift
limit to 1/40 to allow more flexibility in steel MRFs and to guarantee ductile behaviour. In
addition, NBCC 2010 includes a check for irregularities, which governs the design and makes
118
structures stiffer. The selfweight of the steel MRFs in Montreal resulted in 28 tons, 22 tons, 14
tons, and 18.6 tons for the 2010, 1980s upper bound, 1980s lower bound, and 1960s steel MRF,
respectively. The 1980s lower bound represents 50% of the selfweight of the 2010 steel MRF.
The same selfweight pattern appears in Vancouver’s steel MRFs, with 29.4 tons, 27.86, 17.28,
and 19.1 for the 2010, 1980s upper bound, 1980s lower bound, and 1960s steel MRFs,
respectively. Interestingly, the selfweight of the 1980s upper bound represents 95% of the 2010
frame. The selfweight of the frames designed in Vancouver are 15% heavier on average.
The numerical models were developed in OpenSees and considered strength and stiffness
degradation based on the IK-model parameters from Lignos et al. (2011). In addition, the P-Delta
effects were taken into account by including leaning columns and their respective gravity loads.
The main difference between these numerical models, besides the member sizes, was the
representation of the beam-column connection behaviour. These models were validated against a
representative experimental model. The 2010 RBS connections were validated against the
experiment of Uang et al. (2000). The validation of the 1980s’ connections are based on
experimental results from Kim et al. (2000), and the 1960s’ connections behaviour is based on
Kyriakopoulos (2012).
The connections were validated and calibrated with a single experiment. The major limitations of
these validations belong to the 1980s and 1960s connections. For the validation of the 1980s
connections the experimental test selected was designed and built conform to the USA standards
and to provide a better performance after the Northridge earthquake. Therefore, this validation
presents higher uncertainties in the capacity. For the validation of the 1960s steel MRF a
particular behaviour was obtained as it was found that the behaviour is dependent on the free
length of the connection plates. The un-welded free-length allowed the flange plate to buckle
sufficiently without inducing a premature low cycle fatigue fracture (Kyriakopoulos &
Christopoulos 2013). This unwelded free-length of 1.2 times the width of the flange plate is
suggested by the steel handbooks, but is not a design requirement. Therefore this length could be
smaller in other similar structures.
The numerical models only analysed the structural elements while the non-structural elements
were only considered in the loads and mass contribution. This limitation is reasonable for the
performance of the structural elements and for the collapse analysis. However, the actual hazard
119
is not accounted for due to the absence of the non-structural elements. Due to the absence of non-
structural elements, the period increases the hazard decreases. Additionally, the non-structural
elements contribute in great proportion to the losses for a final regional seismic impact
assessment.
Another simplification in the numerical model was the analysis of a 2D frame to represent the
behaviour of one direction of the 3D structure building. Using this simplification brings other
implications, such as assuming rigid diaphragms for the slabs and neglecting the failure and
collapse of gravity columns. Assuming that the slabs will behave as rigid ignores redistribution
of the lateral forces to the vertical elements and the dynamic characteristics influenced by the
local vibration model of the floor systems when the slabs exhibit cracking or yielding (Kunnath
et al. 1991). Ignoring the gravity column behaviour limits the determination of the actual
performance of the structure, as they can fail before the considered lateral resisting system
collapse. In this case the performance is affected as the gravity column failure can produce
greater damages and economic losses.
The foundations were not considered in the design and were considered in the numerical model
as rigid supports. This simplification neglects the influence of the foundation flexibility in the
dynamic response and the effects of damaged foundations in the structural response. This affects
the actual performance of the structure as well as the possible damages and losses.
Pushover analyses were conducted and the failure mechanism of each frame case was identified
based on the pushover curves. The pushover curves and the plastic hinge formation plots showed
SCWB behaviour for the 1960s and 2010 steel MRFs, a first-floor failure mechanism for the
1980s steel MRFs upper and lower bound. The ductility values obtained from the pushover
analyses for the 2010 and 1960s steel MRFs in Montreal were 10 and 4, respectively. Even
though the 1960s steel MRFs’ ductility was not as high as that of the 2010 steel MRF, its
performance was characterized by SCWB behaviour and its ultimate drift was greater than 2%.
However, the 1980s steel MRFs presented ductility values of 2.37 and 1.84 for the upper and
lower bound, respectively, and ultimate drifts of 1.23 and 1.45, respectively. These low ductility
values were due to the first-storey failure mechanism. The 1980s and 2010 performances were
anticipated from the design. However, the 1960s performance was better than expected. The
same pattern behaviour was exhibited by Vancouver’s steel frames.
120
Two selections of ground motions were conducted for the fragility analysis as the hazard levels
of both seismic zones were quite different. A set of 34 far-fault records was selected to cover up
to the maximum credible earthquake (MCE) level. In addition, these records were amplified up
to a factor of five to observe the collapse of the structures. The 𝐼𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 for all the frame cases
presented values less than the life safety performance limit for up to the MCE. These results
were expected for all the frames cases. The 2010 steel MRF performance was anticipated in this
way because: i) the design period was smaller than the period obtained from an eigenvalue
analysis and the seismic loads were increased to account for P-Delta effects, torsional moments
and notional loads, and ii) the elimination of irregularities controlled the design. The 1980s and
1960s steel MRFs were designed for wind loads greater than the design seismic loads. The
fragility curves were developed for all the frame cases. For the MCE level all the structures
exhibited less than a 5% probability of exceeding the collapse prevention performance level,
except for the 1980s steel MRF lower bound in Vancouver, which reached 45% of probability.
At the MCE level the frames presented less than a 6% probability of exceeding the life safety
performance level, except for the 1980s lower bound which reached 15% and 65% for Montreal
and Vancouver, respectively. For the immediate occupancy level Montreal’s frames presented a
probability of exceedance in the range of 30% to 95% and Vancouver’s frames all reached a
100% probability of exceedance.
6.2. Recommendations for Future Work

The connection behaviour of each steel MRF was validated based on one similar testing
available in literature (Kim et al. 2000; Kyriakopoulos 2012; Uang et al. 2000). This thesis can
be improved by carrying out further testing on similar connections of the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010
steel MRFs. These tests can provide more statistically valid connection behaviour by refining the
strength and stiffness deterioration parameters. It is also recommended that for the 1980s’
connections, instead of testing WFP with a single side shear tab connections as presently
designed, the Canadian design provisions and construction details of the 1980s should be used.
Steel MRF with pre-Northridge connections were not considered in this study. Therefore, it is
also encouraged to evaluate the seismic performance assessments of the steel MRF that used this
type of connections, especially for the brittle failure these connections exhibit. The evaluation of
the 1990s MRFs performance with pre-Northridge connections is of particular importance, as
121
they considered the SCWB behaviour and therefore the frame performance would be controlled
by the brittle connection behaviour. The 1980s MRFs with pre-Northridge connections would
not behave differently than the 1980s MRFs presented in this study as the column failure
controls the frame performance.
The pushover curves obtained in this thesis can be employed to improve the fragility analyses of
steel MRFs in Montreal and Vancouver in the HAZUS Earthquake Model. Subsequently, a more
accurate seismic impact assessment can be carried out for Vancouver and Montreal.
Only steel MRFs were studied in this thesis. The procedure presented in this thesis can be
followed to generate the fragility curves of other structure types such as reinforced concrete
MRFs, brace frames, shear walls, and wood frames. In addition only the Montreal and
Vancouver locations were studied in this thesis. In the same way other seismic zones can be
studied. The six-storey steel MRF is a medium height building, and the response can be
described by the first mode. However, tall buildings have greater contributions from higher
modes. The evaluation of the same frame but for larger number of storeys is recommended to
consider higher mode effects.
122
References or Bibliography
AIR Worldwide, 2013. Study of Impact and the Insurance and Economic Cost of a Major
Earthquake in British Columbia and Ontario/Quebec. , (Boston, MA), p.345.
AISC, 2005. AISC 358-05. Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment
frames for seismic applications, Chicago, (IL), The United States.
AISC, 1994. Manual of Steel Construction: Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Second
Edi.,
ASCE, 2007. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Reston, Virginia, USA.
ATC, 1985. ATC-13: earthquake damage evaluation for California, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 1988. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: supporting
documentation, Redwood City, California.
ATC-13, 1985. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Redwood City.
Bertero, V. V., Krawinkler, H. & Popov, E.P., 1973. Further Studies on Seismic Behavior of
Steel Beam-to-Column Subassemblages, EERC Report 73-27,
Biddah, A. & Heidebrecht, A.C., 1999. Evaluation of the seismic level of protection afforded to
steel moment resisting frame structures designed for different design philosophies.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 26(1), pp.35–54.
Biddah, A. & Heidebrecht, A.C., 1998. Seismic Performance of Moment Resisting Steel Frame
Structures Designed for Different Levels of Seismic Hazard. Earthquake Spectra.
Chiou, B. et al., 2008. NGA Project Strong-Motion Database. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), pp.23–
44.
CISC, 1973. Canadian Structural Steel Design First Edit., Markham, ON.
CISC, 1980. Handbook of Steel Construction Third Edit., Markham, ON.
123
CISC, 1970. Handobook of Steel Construction Second Edi., Markham, ON.
CISC, 2004. Moment Connections for Seismic Applications First Edit., Markham, ON.
Cornell, C.A. et al., 2002. Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management
Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4),
pp.526–533.
CSA, 2009. Design of Steel Structures-CAN/CSA-S16-09, Toronto, ON.
CSA, 1984. Limit States Design of Steel Structures- CAN/CSA.S16-84, Rexdale, ON, Canada.
CSA, 1969. Steel Structures for Buildings-CAN/CSA.S16-1969, Rexdale, ON, Canada.
CSA, 1978. Steel Structures for Buildings-Limit States Design- CAN/CSA.S16.1-78, Rexdale,
ON, Canada.
D. D’Ayala, A. Meslem, D. Vamvatsikos , K. Porter , T. Rossetto, H. Crowley, V.S., 2013.

Guidelines for Analytical Vulnerability Assessment,
Deierlein, G.G., Reinhorn, A.M. & Willford, M.R., 2010. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For
Seismic Design A Guide for Practicing Engineers. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical
Briefs, 4.
Elnashai, A. S., Cleveland, L. J., Jefferson, T., & Harrald, J., 2009. Impact of New Madrid
Seismic Zone Earthquakes on the Central USA - Volume I,
Engelhardt, M.D. et al., 2000. Behavior and design of radius-cut, reduced beam section
connections A draft report of SAC task, 7.,
FEMA, 2003. Hazus –MH 2.1, Washington DC.
FEMA, 2000a. SAC database. Available at: http://www.sacsteel.org/connections/.
FEMA, 2000b. SAC Steel Project. Available at: http://sacsteel.org/ [Accessed June 23, 2014].
FEMA P265, 2009. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Redwood City,
California.
124
Filiatrault, A. et al., 2013. Elements of earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 3rd ed.,
Presses internationales Polytechnique.
Geschwindner, L.F. & Disque, R.O., 2005. Flexible Moment Connections for Unbraced Frames
Subject to Lateral Forces — A Return to Simplicity. , pp.99–112.
Goto, B.Y. & Chen, W., 1987. Second-order elastic analysis for frame design. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 113(7), pp.1501–1519.
Huang, X., 2012. Applicability Criteria Of Fiber-Section Elements For The Modelling Of RC
Columns Subjected To Cyclic Loading. University of Toronto.
Ibarra, L.F. & Krawinkler, H., 2005. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic
excitations, Standford, CA.
ICBO, 1988. Uniform Building Code 1988 Editi., Whittier, California: International Conference
of Building Officials.
Katsanos, E.I., Sextos, A.G. & Manolis, G.D., 2010. Selection of earthquake ground motion
records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 30(4), pp.157–169.
Kim, T. et al., 2002. Cover-plate and flange-plate steel moment-resisting connections. Journal of
Kircher, C.A., Whitman, R. V & Holmes, W.T., 2006. HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation
Methods. ASCE - Natural Hazards Review, 7(2), pp.45–59.
Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V. V. & Popov, E.P., 1971. Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-to-
Column Subassemblages, EERC Report 71-7,
Krawinkler, H. & Seneviratna, G.D.P.K., 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic
performance evaluation. Engineering Structures, 20(4), pp.452–464.
Kunnath, K., Panahshahi, N. & Reinhorn, A.M., 1991. Seismic Response of RC Buildings with
Inelastic Floor Diaphragms. Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(4), pp.1218–1237.
125
Kyriakopoulos, N., 2012. Upgrade of Seismically Deficient Steel Frame Structures Built in
Canada Between the 1960s and 1980s using Passive Supplemental Damping. University of
Toronto.
Kyriakopoulos, N. & Christopoulos, C., 2013. Seismic assessment and upgrade of Type 2
construction steel moment-resisting frames built in Canada between the 1960s and 1980s
using passive supplemental damping. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 40(April),
pp.644–654.
Lee, K. & Foutch, D.A., 2002. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Pre-Northridge Steel Frame
Buildings with Brittle Connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4), pp.546–555.
Lignos, D.G. & Krawinkler, H., 2007. A Database in Support of Modeling of Component
Deterioration for Collapse Prediction of Steel Frame Structures. In Proc. ASCE Structures
Congress, SEI institute. Long Beach, CA.
Lignos, D.G. & Krawinkler, H., 2011. Deterioration Modeling of Steel Components in Support
of Collapse Prediction of Steel Moment Frames under Earthquake Loading. Journal of
Lignos, D.G. & Krawinkler, H., 2009. Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems
under seismic excitations, Standford, CA.
Mazzoni, S. et al., 2007. The OpenSees command language manual, version 2.0.
Mitchell, D. et al., 2010. Evolution of seismic design provisions in the National building code of
Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 37(9), pp.1157–1170.
Naimi, S., Celikag, M. & Hedayat, A. a, 2013. Ductility enhancement of post-Northridge

connections by multilongitudinal voids in the beam web. The Scientific World Journal,
2013.
Nixon, D.O.N., Beaulieu, D. & Adams, F., 1975. Simplified second order frame analysis.
Journal of Civil Engineering, 2(4), pp.602–605.
126
Noel, A. & Uang, C.-M., 1996. Cyclic testing of steel moment connections for the San Francisco
Civic Center Complex, La Jolla, California.
NRCC, 1965. National Building Code of Canada, Associate Comittee on the National Building
Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
OAK Engineering Inc. (OAK), 1994. Development of Damage Functions for Buildings,
Onur, T., Ventura, C.E. & Finn, W.D.L., 2005. Regional seismic risk in British Columbia —
damage and loss distribution in Victoria and Vancouver. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 32(2), pp.361–371.
PEER, 2011. PEER database. Available at: http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd.
Popov, E.P. & Jokerst, M., 1995. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Human Genome
Laboratory steel joint test: Technical Brief. Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.,
Popov, E.P. & Pinkney, B.R., 1969. Cyclic yield reversal in steel building connections. Journal
of the Structural Division.
Roeder, C.W., 2000. Connection performance state of art re port. Report No. FEMA-355D,
SAC Joint Venture, 1997. Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing, and Documentation of
Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experimental Specimens. SAC Steel Project,
Sacramento, California, USA.
Taucer, F.F., Spacone, E. & Filippou, F.C., 1991. A fiber beam-column element for seismic
response analysis of reinforced concrete structures, Berkely, California.
127
Uang, C., M. Yu, Q.S. & Gilton, C., 2000. Cyclic Response of RBS Moment Connections:
Loading Sequence and Lateral Bracing Effects. Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of
California, San Diego., (Vol 99, N.
Uang, C.-M., Yu, K. & Gilton, C., 2000. Effects of Loading History on Cyclic Performance of
Steel RBS Moment Connections. In 12th WCEE. Upper Hutt, New Zealand, pp. 1–8.
Whittaker, A. & Gilani, A., 1996. Washington High School Reconstruction Cyclic Testing of
Steel Beam-Column Connections, California.
Yousuf, M. & Bagchi, A., 2009. Seismic design and performance evaluation of steel-frame
buildings designed using the 2005 National building code of Canada. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 36(2), pp.280–294.
128
Appendices
A. Preliminary Design of 2010 Steel MRF
The purpose of the preliminary design is to quickly compute the initial sizes of the MRF
elements and obtain an indication of the general structural behaviour regarding deflection and
strength. In order to simplify this process some assumptions must be made. There are three
methods of analysis that can be used for the design process: i) the equivalent static method, ii)
the response spectrum method, and iii) the time history method. The equivalent static method
(ESM) was chosen for the design process. In order to use this approach, the structure must be
regular and the irregularities as defined in NBCC 2010 must be eliminated (see Table A-1 for
details). The preliminary design only verified Type 2 irregularities and the remaining
irregularities were verified visually.
Table A-1: Structural Irregularity Types and Definitions of NBCC 2010.

Type Irregularity Type and Definition
Vertical Stiffness Irregularity
A vertical stiffness irregularity shall be considered to exist where the lateral stiffness of
1
the SFRS in a storey is less than 70% of the stiffness of any adjacent storey, or less than
80% of the average stiffness of the three storeys above or below.
Weight (Mass) Irregularity
A weight irregularity shall be considered to exist where the weight, Wi, of any storey is
2
more than 150% of the weight of an adjacent storey. A roof that is lighter than the floor
below need not be considered.
Vertical Geometric Irregularity
3 A vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exist where the horizontal
dimension of the SFRS in any storey is more than 130% of that in an adjacent storey.
In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral-Force-Resisting Element
Except for braced frames and moment-resisting frames, an in-plane discontinuity shall
4
be considered to exist where there is an offset of a lateral-farce-resisting element of the
SFRS or a reduction in lateral stiffness of the resisting element in the storey below.
Out-of-Plane Offsets
5 Out-of plane offsets are discontinuities in a lateral force path, such as out-of-plane
offsets of the vertical elements of the SFRS.
Discontinuity in Capacity - Weak Storey
A weak storey is one in which the storey shear strength is less than that in the storey
6
above. The storey shear strength is the total strength of all seismic-resisting elements of
the SFRS sharing the storey shear for the direction under consideration.
Torsional Sensitivity (to be considered when diaphragms are not flexible)
7 Torsional sensitivity shall be considered to exist when the ratio B calculated according
to Sentence 4.1.8.11.(9) exceeds 1.7.
129
Non-orthogonal Systems
8 A non-orthogonal system irregularity shall be considered to exist when the SFRS is not
oriented along a set of orthogonal axes.
Sentence 4.1.8.11 (9): 𝐵 = 𝑀𝐴𝑋(𝐵𝑥 ), where 𝐵𝑥 = 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 ⁄𝛿𝑎𝑣𝑒 , 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum storey displacement at the extreme points
of the structure at level x in the direction of the earthquake induced by the equivalent static forces acting at distances + 0.10Dnx
from the centres of mass, and 𝛿𝑎𝑣𝑒 is the average displacements at the extreme point due to the previous mentioned.
In order to estimate the minimum lateral earthquake force, the fundamental lateral period (𝑇𝑎 )
needs to be determined first. Because there is no selection of member sizes previous to the PD,
the 𝑇𝑎 is computed using the empirical formula suggested in NBCC 2010. This empirical value,
𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 , is usually smaller than the value obtained using other mechanical methods such as the
modal response spectrum analyses or the Rayleigh method. Therefore, NBCC 2010 allows
increasing the period using 𝑇𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 1.5𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 for MRFs if a mechanical method such as the modal
superposition method or the Rayleigh method is used, and the model complies with requirements
stated in Sentence 4.1.8.3 (8) of NBCC 2010. The new assumed fundamental period (𝑇𝑙𝑖𝑚 )
becomes the upper limit of the fundamental period used to calculate the base shear. Therefore,
this advantage (i.e., use of a longer period and having lower base shear) is incorporated from the
PD phase onwards. The minimum base shear is computed as explained in Section 2.1.
The spectral accelerations and PGA for NBCC 2010 for different cities (Montreal, Vancouver,
and Toronto) are listed in Table A-2. The design spectra, which also take into account the soil
conditions, are plotted for Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto in Figure A- 1.
Table A-2: Spectral Accelerations and PGA for Different Cities in the NBCC 2010.
2%/50 Years (0.000404 per Annum) Probability
Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA Montreal
0.641 g 0.313 g 0.137 g 0.047 g 0.327 g
Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA Vancouver
0.930 g 0.641 g 0.334 g 0.173 g 0.461 g
Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA Toronto
0.229 g 0.130 g 0.066 g 0.021 g 0.124 g
130
1
0.9
0.8 Montreal
0.7 Vancouver
0.6 Toronto
0.5
Sa (g)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T (sec)
Figure A- 1: Design spectra according to NBCC 2010.
In NBCC 2010, the seismic loads must be increased to account for torsional effects, notional
loads, and P-Delta effects. The torsional moments are due to the accidental eccentricity and
inherent eccentricity. The latter are the result of the difference of the position of mass centre and
stiffness centre. The torsional moments due to accidental eccentricities are taken from a distance
equal to 10% of the plan dimensions. Because the structure is symmetrical in both directions,
there are no inherent eccentricities due to the displacement of the stiffness centre from the mass
centre and therefore these torsional moments are zero. The seismic loads increase around 5% due
to the torsional moments. Notional loads (Ns) are equal to 0.5% of the gravity load at each level
to account for construction imperfections. In Canada, these loads are only prescribed for steel
structures. Finally, P-Delta effects are included in the design to account for secondary moments
due to the increasing displacements. In the PD, for simplicity, the P-Delta loads were computed
with the inter-storey drift limit for MRFs, 2.5%, as established by NBCC 2010.
After obtaining the seismic loads with the corresponding notional loads, P-Delta effects and
torsional moments, the analyses of the structure can proceed. For simplicity, the portal method
was employed to obtain the internal forces of the elements when the structure is subjected to
gravity and lateral loads. Because the capacity design is the approach that is used, the beams are
designed to yield with the maximum seismic load combination (D+0.5L+0.25S+E). As
mentioned in Section 3.2.2, RBS is the type of connection that is used and a 35% reduction in the
sectional plastic 𝑍𝑥 , is assumed for the PD as a result. On the other hand, the columns were
verified to respond elastically under yielding of the plastic hinge. After selecting the member
sizes due to strength, drifts must be verified to be smaller than 2.5%. The drift is computed based
131
on 70% of the lateral forces used for the strength design. This assumption is intended to be
similar to the allowance of the NBCC for using up to 2.0 sec for drift checks of MRFs. Basically,
when the structure has a period greater than 2.0 sec, two base shears will control the design: one
is strength-related (𝑇 ≤ 1.5𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 ) and the other one is for a drift check (𝑇 ≤ 2.0 𝑠𝑒𝑐).
Conversely, when the period is smaller than the strength-related period, the base shear is the
same for strength and drift checks. See Appendix B for details of the preliminary design of the
six-storey steel MRF located in Montreal.
Table A-3: Vertical Distribution of Seismic Load for PD/Cycle 1S.
Vertical Distribution of Seismic Load

Consider Ft (Force Concentrated at the
Ta 1.32 s Roof)
Ft 31.03 kN
V 336.58 kN
Vr = V-Ft 306 kN
hx Wx hx Wx Fx Fx/MRF Vx Fx+T/MRF Vx+T

Type Level Fx/V
(m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Roof 6 22.5 3044.16 68494 0.31 104 51.80 104 54.388 109
Floor 5 18.9 3753.6 70943 0.22 75 37.58 179 39.457 188
Floor 4 15.3 3753.6 57430 0.18 61 30.42 240 31.942 252
Floor 3 11.7 3753.6 43917 0.14 47 23.26 286 24.426 300
Floor 2 8.1 3753.6 30404 0.10 32 16.11 318 16.910 334
Floor 1 4.5 3829.2 17231 0.05 18 9.13 337 9.584 353
Σ 21887.76 288419 1 336.58
Table A-4: Total Shears Including Notional Loads and P-Delta Effects.
hsx Px Nx Nx(cumul) Vx,F+N U2Vx,F+N
Type Level θx U2
(m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Roof 6 3.6 3044 15.22 15.22 118.817 0.427 1.427 170
Floor 5 3.6 7521 22.38 37.60 216.357 0.579 1.579 342
Floor 4 3.6 11745 21.12 58.72 298.318 0.656 1.656 494
Floor 3 3.6 15919 20.87 79.59 365.714 0.725 1.725 631
Floor 2 3.6 20070 20.76 100.35 418.682 0.799 1.799 753
Floor 1 4.5 24283 21.06 121.41 458.000 0.884 1.884 863
132
Table A-5: Beam and Column Moments with the Portal Method.
Portal Method
Story V (kN) Columns Moments (kN m) Beams Moments (kN m)
Floor Moments Shear
(kN) Ext. Int. A B C D 1 2 3
Top 27 53 53 27
6 89 15 30 27 27 27
Bottom 27 53 53 27
Top 54 108 108 54
5 179 30 60 81 81 81
Bottom 54 108 108 54
Top 78 156 156 78
4 259 43 86 132 132 132
Bottom 78 156 156 78
Top 99 199 199 99
3 331 55 110 177 177 177
Bottom 99 199 199 99
Top 119 237 237 119
2 395 66 132 218 218 218
Bottom 119 237 237 119
Top 102 204 204 102
1 453 75 151 221 221 221
Bottom 238 476 476 238
Table A-6: Selected Beams in the Preliminary Design.

Zx
Strain Fy RBS Mpb Mpr Mr
Floor Section (103 Ry
Hardening (Mpa) Coeff. (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
mm3)
6 W360x64 1.152 345 0.65 1140 1.116 256 329 354
5 W530x85 1.152 345 0.65 2100 1.116 471 605 652
4 W610x101 1.152 345 0.65 2900 1.116 650 836 900
3 W610x101 1.152 345 0.65 2900 1.116 650 836 900
2 W610x125 1.152 345 0.65 3670 1.116 823 1058 1140
1 W690x125 1.152 345 0.65 4010 1.116 899 1156 1245
Table A-7: Shears Forces Induced by Plastic Hinging.

Point Left Right
Mpr Uniform
Floor Section Loads Shear Shear
(kNm) (kN/m)
(kNm) (kN) (kN)
6 W360x64 329 43.41 0 -50 137
5 W530x85 605 61.87 5.4 -92 254
4 W610x101 836 61.87 5.4 -158 320
3 W610x101 836 61.87 5.4 -158 320
2 W610x125 1058 61.87 5.4 -222 383
1 W690x125 1156 61.87 5.4 -250 411
133
Table A-8: Axial Forces in the Columns.
Shear
Axial Force from Compression Axial Compression Axial
Induced Mpr
Level other Frame (kN) Force (kN) Force (kN)
(kN) (kNm)
Int. Ext. Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Interior Exterior
6 -87 -137 -43 -22 329 -130 -159 -130 -159
5 -162 -254 -62 -31 605 -223 -285 -354 -444
4 -162 -320 -62 -31 836 -223 -351 -577 -794
3 -162 -320 -62 -31 836 -223 -351 -800 -1145
2 -162 -383 -62 -31 1058 -223 -414 -1024 -1559
1 -162 -411 -62 -31 1156 -223 -442 -1247 -2001
Table A-9: Shears and Bending Moments of the Columns.

Moment
Moments at each
Induced by Bending Moments Shears
Mpr level
Level Shear (kNm) (kN)
(kNm) (kNm)
(kNm)
Int. Ext. Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Interior Exterior
6 94 69 329 423 397 423 397 225 212
5 173 127 605 778 732 389 366 257 240
4 239 160 836 1075 996 537 498 299 277
3 239 160 836 1075 996 537 498 338 312
2 302 192 1058 1360 1250 680 625 395 363
1 330 206 1156 1486 1362 743 681 165 151
Table A-10: Selected Columns in the Preliminary Design.

Cr Vr Mr
Floor Sections (kN) (kN) (kN) Verification
Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
6 W360x101 W360x91 2990 2690 768 687 584 522 OK OK
5 W360x101 W360x91 2990 2690 768 687 584 522 OK OK
4 W360x162 W360x122 5700 3510 992 967 975 705 OK OK
3 W360x162 W360x122 5700 3510 992 967 975 705 OK OK
2 W360x162 W360x122 5700 3510 992 967 975 705 OK OK
1 W360x162 W360x122 5300 3030 992 967 975 705 OK OK
134
Table A-11: Drift Check for the Preliminary Design.
Kc
70% Seismic Δx
Level Kb Kc Drift Check
Load/Frame Interior Exterior (mm)
6 38 1.34E+07 1.67E+07 1.48E+07 6.31E+07 27.99 0.78% OK

5 66 3.64E+07 1.67E+07 1.48E+07 6.31E+07 23.06 0.64% OK
4 88 5.73E+07 2.87E+07 2.03E+07 9.79E+07 19.73 0.55% OK
3 105 5.73E+07 2.87E+07 2.03E+07 9.79E+07 23.56 0.65% OK
2 117 7.39E+07 2.87E+07 2.03E+07 9.79E+07 22.51 0.63% OK
1 124 8.93E+07 2.29E+07 1.62E+07 7.83E+07 27.69 0.62% OK
135
B. Design Process of 2010 Steel MRF
B.1 Period, Base Shears and Irregularities
The design is an iterative process that verifies whether the previous selection of members is
adequate given the actual loads. Gravity loads change in each iteration when the cross sections
have been changed. In the same way the period of the structure is dependent on the members.
Each iteration starts with the computations of the new fundamental period and the process is
halted when the period is equal or closer to the previous iteration. There will be two base shears
for each iteration, one for strength (𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ) with an upper bound of 𝑇 = 1.5𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 , and the
other for drift verifications (𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑡 ),which is more relaxed, with an upper bound of 𝑇 = 2.0 𝑠𝑒𝑐.
The period is calculated with the Rayleigh method as it is effective and appropriate to determine
the fundamental period based on static analysis results alone.
∑ 𝑊𝑥 𝛿𝑥𝑒2
𝑇 = 2𝜋√ (B-1)
∑ 𝐹𝑥 𝛿𝑥𝑒
where 𝑊𝑥 is the weight of the floor at level 𝑥, 𝐹𝑥 is the seismic load at level 𝑥 from previous
iterations, and 𝛿𝑥𝑒 is the elastic displacement at level 𝑥. In this study, elastic displacements were
obtained with SAP2000. For structures with T>0.7 sec, a force concentrated at the top (𝐹𝑡 ) must
be incorporated to account for higher mode effects, as stated in the NBCC.
After computing the corresponding vertical distribution, Type 1 irregularities must be verified.
Vertical shear and flexural irregularities are verified by checking that the lateral stiffness of a
storey is greater than 70% of the lateral stiffness of any adjacent storey and greater than 80% of
the average lateral stiffness of the three storeys above or below. Further, Type 7 irregularities,
which relate to torsional sensitivity, must be verified by having 𝐵𝑥 less than 1.7. 𝐵𝑥 is evaluated
as follows:
𝐵x = 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 ⁄𝛿𝑎𝑣𝑒 (B-2)
136
where 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum storey displacement at the extreme points of the structure at level x
in the direction of the earthquake induced by the equivalent static forces acting at distances of
+0.10𝐷𝑛𝑥 from the centres of mass, and 𝛿𝑎𝑣𝑒 is the average of these displacements at level x.
Next, Type 6 irregularities can be easily checked by ensuring that each storey has more or equal
strength than the one above. This can be done for MRFs by comparing the moment-resistant
capacity of the RBS of the beams at each level. The rest of the irregularities (Type 3, Type 4,
Type 5, and Type 8) are either not applicable because of the geometry of the structure or can be
easily discarded with a glance at the plan views.
B.2 Notional Loads, P-delta Effects and Torsional Moments

As stated before, capacity design requires the development of plastic hinges. CSA S16-09
expects these hinges to form in the beams and the beams must sustain the seismic loads with
ductile behaviour. These loads must account for notional loads, P-Delta effects, and torsional
moments. Notional loads are quantified as follows:
𝑁𝑥 = 0.005(𝑃𝑥 − 𝑃𝑥−1 ) (B-3)
where 𝑃𝑥 is the total gravity load carried by the building columns at level 𝑥, and 𝑃𝑥−1 is the total
gravity load carried by the building columns at level 𝑥 − 1. The stability effects are evaluated
with the stability coefficient as follows:
𝑃𝑥 ∆𝑥
𝜃𝑥 = (B-4)
𝑅𝑜 𝑉𝑥 ℎ𝑠𝑥
where ∆𝑥 is the storey drift including inelastic effects (calculated using 𝛿𝑥 from Eq. (B-5)), 𝑉𝑥 is
the design seismic storey shear, and ℎ𝑠𝑥 is the storey height. This expression shows the ratio of
the storey shear due to the gravity loads under lateral deformation at the probable storey shear
resistance. When the stability coefficient is less than 0.10, the P-Delta effects can be ignored. If it
is greater then seismic loads are increased by a factor of (1 + 𝜃𝑥 ). However, when (1 + 𝜃𝑥 ) >
1.4, the NBCC user’s guide recommends redesigning the structure to avoid dynamic instability
under major earthquakes.
𝑅𝑑 𝑅𝑜 (B-5)
𝛿𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥𝑒
𝐼𝐸
137
Afterward, torsional moments are considered in the seismic loads using equilibrium forces. As
mentioned above, the inherent eccentricities are zero and only accidental eccentricities are
considered. These eccentricities are equal to 10% of the building dimension perpendicular to the
loading. The moment distribution of the different SFRSs depends on the lateral stiffness of the
elements. Because only the design of the MRFs is within the scope of this study, it is assumed
that 75% of the total in-plane torsional moments are sustained by the braced frames and the rest
is sustained by the MRFs. Figure B-1 illustrates the assumed distribution of torsional moments
and seismic loads.
Figure B-1: Assumed distribution of torsional moments and seismic load.
In order to achieve ductile behaviour by applying the SCWB approach, the factored flexural
resistance (capacity) of the RBS must be greater or equal to the bending moment demand due to
gravity and seismic loads. Beam sections must be Class 1, which is to say that the width-to-
thickness ratios must be under certain limits explained below. In addition, beam factored shear
resistance must exceed or be equal to the shears due to the gravity loads.
B.3 Beam-Column Connections and Beam Design

The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) prepared guidelines for the design of pre-
qualified moment connections (CISC 2004). This study used the reduced beam section
connection type. The geometry of the RBS is shown in Figure 3-4.
138
The beam selection criteria for RBS connections based on the CISC guidelines are: beam size ≤
W920, beam mass ≤ 447 kg/m, beam flange thickness ≤ 44.5 mm, beam clear span-to-depth
ratio ≤ 7, and beams must be rolled I-shapes. RBS sections must be between the following
ranges:
0.5 𝑏 ≤ 𝑎 ≤ 0.75𝑏 (B-6)
0.65 𝑑 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 0.85𝑑 (B-7)
0.20 𝑏 ≤ 𝑐 ≤ 0.25𝑏 (B-8)
The factored moment resistance of the RBS 𝑀𝑟,𝑅𝐵𝑆 must be greater or equal to the factored
moment at the RBS centre (𝑀𝑓 ) and is computed as follows:
𝑀𝑟,𝑅𝐵𝑆 = 𝜑𝑍𝑅𝐵𝑆 𝐹𝑦 ≥ 𝑀𝑓 (B-9)
where
𝑍𝑅𝐵𝑆 = 𝑍𝑏 − 2𝑐𝑡(𝑑 − 𝑡) (B-10)
where 𝜑 is 0.9, 𝑍𝑏 is the plastic section modulus of the whole W-section and 𝑍𝑅𝐵𝑆 is the beam
plastic section modulus at the centre of the RBS. The maximum probable bending resistance at
the centre of the RBS (𝑀𝑝𝑟 ) is computed as:
𝑀𝑝𝑟 = 𝐶𝑝𝑟 𝑅𝑦 𝐹𝑦 𝑍𝑅𝐵𝑆 (B-11)
where 𝐶𝑝𝑟 is a factor for strain hardening and is calculated as:
𝐹𝑦 𝐹𝑢 (B-12)
𝐶𝑝𝑟 = ≤ 1.2
2𝐹𝑦
In addition, the shear forces (𝑉𝑐𝑓 ) and the moment at the column faces (𝑀𝑐𝑓 ) must be less than
the beam factored shear resistance (𝑉𝑟 ) and the beam flexural resistance, respectively, as follows:
139
𝑉𝑟 = ∅0.66𝑑𝑤𝐹𝑦 ≥ 𝑉𝑐𝑓 (B-13)
𝑀𝑟 = 𝑅𝑦 𝐹𝑦 𝑍𝑏 ≥ 𝑀𝑐𝑓 (B-14)
B.4 Strong-Column Design

The columns are designed to sustain gravity loads while the plastic hinges are developed in the
RBS within the elastic range. The shears caused by the yielding of the plastic hinges can be
computed as shown:
P P
wgrav
Mpr Mpr
d
Vh Vh Vh Vh
dc x 0 Lh 0 x dc
Figure B-2: Shears and bending moments in beam plastic hinges.
The bending moments at the centre line of the columns (𝑀𝑐 ) are computed as explained in Eq.
(B-15) and are described in Figure B- 3. 𝑀𝑐 is composed of two parts: the first corresponds to the
yielding of the plastic hinges, ∑(𝑀𝑝𝑟 + 𝑉ℎ 𝑥), and the second corresponds to the moments due to
the uniform gravity load.
𝑑𝑐
𝑀𝑐 = ∑ (𝑀𝑝𝑟 + 𝑉ℎ (𝑥 + )) + ∑(𝑀𝑐,𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣 ) (B-15)
2
140
Figure B- 3: Bending moment demand on columns upon plastic hinges.
The shear forces can then be calculated with the bending moments of the columns in both ends,
as indicated in Eq. (B-16). The axial forces in the columns are the contribution of the shear due
to the hinges (𝑉ℎ ) the gravity loads carried by the beam segments, 𝑤𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣 , and the gravity loads
due to the perpendicular frame. The latter were estimated for this study.
(𝑀𝑐,𝑖−𝑡𝑜𝑝 + 𝑀𝑐,𝑖−𝑏𝑜𝑡 ) (B-16)

𝑉𝑐,𝑖 =
ℎ𝑠
where 𝑀𝑐,𝑖−𝑡𝑜𝑝 is the bending moment at floor 𝑖 at the top, 𝑀𝑐,𝑖−𝑏𝑜𝑡 is the bending moment at
floor i at the bottom, and ℎ𝑠 is the height of the floor.
Because the distribution of the bending moments above and below the joint of a column is
uncertain, CSA.S16-09 only requires that the summation of the flexural resistance of columns
above and below the joint be greater than the total moment 𝑀𝑐 . Then, CSA.S16-09 proposes that
the column factored flexural resistances, 𝑀𝑐 , be computed as:
𝐶𝑓
𝑀′𝑟𝑐 = 1.18𝜑𝑀𝑝𝑐 (1 − ) ≤ 𝜑𝑀𝑝𝑐 (B-17)
∅𝐶𝑦
where 𝐶𝑓 is the factored axial load (demand), 𝐶𝑦 is the column axial yield strength, and 𝑀𝑝𝑐 is
the column plastic moment capacity, (𝑀𝑝𝑐 = 𝑍𝑐 𝐹𝑦𝑐 ).
141
Because the columns are part of an unbraced frame, the interaction of axial and flexural effects
must be verified for overall member strength (OMS) and lateral-torsional-buckling strength
(LTBS) as shown in Eq. (B-18) and Eq. (B-19), respectively. Finally, the column sections must
satisfy the limits of width-to-thickness ratio for Class 1 or 2 (see Table B-1).
𝐶𝑓 0.85 𝑈1𝑥 𝑀𝑓𝑥

𝑂𝑀𝑆: + ≤1 (B-18)
𝐶𝑟𝑥 𝑀𝑟𝑥
𝐶𝑓 0.85 𝑈1𝑥 𝑀𝑓𝑥 (B-19)

𝐿𝑇𝐵𝑆: + ≤1
𝐶𝑦𝑥 𝑀𝑟𝑥
Table B-1: Maximum Width-to-Thickness Ratios from CSA.S16-09 (Table Portion).

Stress
Element Ratio Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Distribution
Flange of I-
b/2t 145/√Fy 170/√Fy 200/√Fy
Uniform sections
Compression Web of I-
h/w 670/√Fy 670/√Fy 670/√Fy
sections
Flexural 1100 Cf 1700 Cf 1900 Cf
Webs h/w (1 − 0.39 ) (1 − 0.61 ) (1 − 0.65 )
Compression √Fy ∅Cy √Fy ∅Cy √Fy ∅Cy
B.5 Column with Plastic Hinges

CSA.S16-09 allows yielding at the base of the columns of the first floor, regardless of the
number of storeys, and near the top of the columns of a single-storey building. As a result, the
columns of the first floor in this study were designed to develop plastic hinges at the base. Based
on the CSA.S16-09, the requirements of these sections are: i) must be Class 1, ii) the column
axial load must be limited to 30% of the yielding axial strength force (𝐶𝑦 ) if 𝐹𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑆(1) ≥ 0.3, iii)
must be laterally braced, and iv) the maximum probable flexural resistance at the hinges must be
taken as:
𝐶𝑓
𝑀𝑝𝑟𝑐 = (1.1𝑅𝑦 )1.18𝑀𝑝𝑐 (1 − ) ≤ (1.1𝑅𝑦 )𝑀𝑝𝑐 (B-20)
𝐶𝑦
B.6 Column Web Panel Zone

The panel zones are located at the intersection of columns and beams. These are subjected to
higher shear demands due to the moments imposed by the beams to the columns. Figure B-4
142
shows all the contributions to the shear in the panel zones such as the moments in the column
face, the shear at level 𝑖 in the columns, and the horizontal forces from the diaphragms, 𝐹𝑖 . The
𝑀𝑐𝑓 are expressed as a pair of forces. The expression to obtain the panel zone shear can be found
in Eq.(B-21).
Figure B-4: Shear demand on column panel zone.
𝑀𝑐𝑓 𝑀𝑐𝑓
𝑉𝑝𝑧,𝑖 = ( ) +( ) + 𝐹𝑖 − 𝑉𝑐,𝑖+1 (B-21)
𝑑𝑏 − 𝑡 𝐿,𝑖 𝑑𝑏 − 𝑡 𝑅,𝑖
The shear in the panel zone (𝑉𝑝𝑧 ) must be less than the factored shear resistance of the panel
zone. The column webs can provide the whole resistance or additional plates must be welded.
Based on the CSA.S16-09, the shear capacity of the web panel zone can be computed as either:
𝑉𝑟 = 0.55𝜑𝐹𝑦𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑤′ (B-22)
3𝑏𝑐 𝑡𝑐2 (B-23)

′(1− )
𝑉𝑟 = 0.55𝜑𝐹𝑦𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑤 𝑑𝑏 𝑑𝑐 𝑤 ′ ≤ 0.66𝜑𝐹𝑦𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑤′
where 𝜑 is 0.9, 𝑤′ is the overall thickness of the column web (including the additional plates if
necessary), 𝑑𝑏 is the beam depth, and 𝑑𝑐 , 𝑡𝑐 , and 𝐹𝑦𝑐 are the column depth, flange thickness of
the column, and the yield strength, respectively. Eq. (B-22) is employed if the panel zone is
expected to be within the elastic range and Eq. (B-23) is used when the panel zones are deemed
to yield. Both cases assume that no shear buckling of the panel zone occurs and the slenderness
must be under certain values as follows:
143
ℎ 1014
≤ (B-24)
𝑤′ √Fy
hb +hc (B-25)
≤ 90 (when 𝐹𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑆(0.2) ≥ 0.55)
𝑤′
where ℎ𝑏 and ℎ𝑐 are the clear depth between flanges of the beam and column sections,
respectively.
Because a ductile behaviour is desired only in the RBS of the beams, the panel zones were
designed to behave elastically and avoid any type of failure in this zone.
B.7 Quantification and Verification of Wind Loads

The quantification of the wind load is provided in NBCC 2010. First, the wind pressure needs to
be computed as follows:
𝑝 = 𝐼𝑤 𝑞𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑔 𝐶𝑝 (B-26)
where 𝐼𝑤 is the importance factor for wind load (see ), 𝑞 is the velocity pressure depending on
the location of the structure (see Table B-4), 𝐶𝑒 is the exposure factor (see Table B-3), 𝐶𝑔 is the
gust effect factor, and 𝐶𝑝 is the external pressure coefficient averaged over the area of the
surface. The gust factor shall be 2 for the building as a whole and for the main structural
elements, as well as the gust factor for internal pressures. The external pressure for windward,
𝐶𝑝𝑤 , and leeward, 𝐶𝑝𝑙 , directions must be computed as follows:
𝐶𝑝𝑤 = 0.6 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐻 ⁄𝐷 < 0.25
= 0.27(𝐻 ⁄𝐷 + 2) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 0.25 < 𝐻 ⁄𝐷 < 1 (B-27)
= 0.8 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐻 ⁄𝐷 ≥ 1
𝐶𝑝𝑤 = −0.3 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐻 ⁄𝐷 < 0.25

(B-28)
= −0.27(𝐻 ⁄𝐷 + 0.88) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 0.25 < 𝐻 ⁄𝐷 < 1
144
= −0.5 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐻 ⁄𝐷 ≥ 1
where 𝐻 is the height of the building and 𝐻 is the along-wind dimension of the building.
Table B-2: Importance Factor for Wind Load, NBCC 2010.

Importance Importance Factor, Iw
Category ULS SLS
Low 0.8 0.9
Normal 1 0.9
High 1.15 0.9
Post-disaster 1.25 0.9
Table B-3: Exposure Factor for Wind Load, NBCC 2010.
Exposure Type Exposure Factor, Ce

Open Terrain (ℎ⁄10)0.2
Rough Terrain 𝑀𝐴𝑋(0.7(ℎ⁄12)0.3 , 0.7)
Table B-4: Velocity Pressure for Different Cities, NBCC 2010.

City q (kPa)
Montreal 0.42
Toronto 0.44
Vancouver 0.45
Table B-5: Fundamental Period with Rayleigh’s Method.
Wx Fx δxe δ2xe Fxδxe Wxδ2xe

Level
(kN) (kN) (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm2)
6 3044 104 32 1008 3290 3069649
5 3754 75 28 805 2132 3021233
4 3754 61 24 558 1437 2093535
3 3754 47 18 325 838 1218718
2 3754 32 12 142 384 533834
1 3829 18 6 34 106 130182
Σ 8188 10067152
T1 2.22 s Consider Ft (Force Concentrated at the Roof)
T1 2.00 s Limit to 2 sec for Displacements and Drift Checks
145
Table B-6: Vertical Distribution of Seismic Load for Drifts.
hx Wx hx Wx Fx Vx Vx+T
Type Level Fx/V
(m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Roof 6 22.5 3044 68494 0.344 57 57 59
Floor 5 18.9 3754 70943 0.212 35 91 96
Floor 4 15.3 3754 57430 0.171 28 120 126
Floor 3 11.7 3754 43917 0.131 22 141 148
Floor 2 8.1 3754 30404 0.091 15 156 164
Floor 1 4.5 3829 17231 0.051 8 165 173
Σ 21888 288419 1 165
Table B-7: Verification of Torsional Irregularity (Type 7).

Fx+T/MRF Fx+T/MRF δxe,max δxe,min δxe,avg βx Δxe Δx
Level
MAX (kN) MIN (kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (<1.7) (%hsx) (%hsx)
6 29.746 26.913 18.5 17.1 17.8 1.04 0.05% 0.38%
5 18.279 16.539 16.6 15.4 16.0 1.04 0.07% 0.56%
4 14.798 13.388 13.8 12.8 13.3 1.04 0.09% 0.66%
3 11.316 10.238 10.5 9.7 10.1 1.04 0.10% 0.71%
2 7.834 7.088 6.9 6.4 6.7 1.04 0.10% 0.71%
1 4.440 4.017 3.4 3.2 3.3 1.04 0.07% 0.55%
Table B-8: Quantification of Seismic Loads Considering Notional Loads, P-Delta Effects,
and Torsional Moments.
Px Nx(cumul) Vx (strength-PD) Vx,F+N Vx,F+N +T U2Vx,F+N+T U2Fx,F+N+T/MRF
Level θx U2
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
6 3044 15 104 119 125 0.064 1.064 133 66.396
5 7521 38 179 216 227 0.129 1.129 257 61.897
4 11745 59 240 298 313 0.173 1.173 367 55.370
3 15919 80 286 366 384 0.207 1.207 464 48.133
2 20070 100 318 419 440 0.228 1.228 540 38.116
1 24283 121 337 458 481 0.193 1.193 574 16.914
Table B-9: Verification of Vertical Shear Stiffness Irregularity (Type 1).

Ratio w.r.t. avg. of 3
δxe,avg Vx Δx KS,x Ratio w.r.t. Story
Storeys
Level
(mm) (kN) (mm) (mm)
Below Above Below Above
6 17.8 57 1.81 31.31 92% - 83% -
5 16.0 91 2.68 34.11 90% 109% 82% -
4 13.3 120 3.16 37.89 92% 111% 83% -
3 10.1 141 3.43 41.19 90% 109% - 120%
2 6.7 156 3.42 45.61 91% 111% - 121%
1 3.3 165 3.27 50.27 - 110% - 121%
146
Table B-10: Verification of Vertical Stiffness Irregularity (Type 1).
Exterior Exterior Flexural Stiffness, EI Ratio w.r.t. Ratio w.r.t. avg.

Level Column Column (kN-mm2) Story of 3 Storeys
Sections Areas 1 MRF Both Below Above Below Above
6 W360x147 18800 1.08288E+15 2.1658E+15 100% - 94% -
5 W360x147 18800 1.08288E+15 2.1658E+15 91% 100% 88% -
4 W360x162 20600 1.18656E+15 2.3731E+15 100% 110% 93% -
3 W360x162 20600 1.18656E+15 2.3731E+15 90% 100% - 106%
2 W360x179 22800 1.31328E+15 2.6266E+15 100% 111% - 114%
1 W360x179 22800 1.31328E+15 2.6266E+15 - 100% - 107%
Table B-11: Verification of Weak Storey Irregularity (Type 6).
Floor Section Mr,RBS Verification

6 W530x66 334 -
5 W530x74 381 OK
4 W530x74 381 OK
3 W610x82 479 OK
2 W610x82 479 OK
1 W610x92 540 OK
Table B- 12: Reduced Beam Section Design.
New Beam b d tf tw Z A Cf
Floor Class 1
Section (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm3) (mm2) (kN)
6 W530x66 165 525 11 9 1560000 8370 -93 OK

5 W530x74 166 529 14 10 1810000 9520 -42 OK
4 W530x74 166 529 14 10 1810000 9520 -48 OK
3 W610x82 178 599 13 10 2210000 10500 -33 OK
2 W610x82 178 599 13 10 2210000 10500 -33 OK
1 W610x92 179 603 15 11 2530000 11800 9 OK
RBS Properties MBMH/ Check

Mr,RBS Zr,RBS /Zb
Mr,RBS Mr,RBS>MBMH
a (mm) s (mm) c (mm) ZRBS (mm3)
82.5 393.75 41.25 1076959 334 0.69 0.28 OK
83 396.75 41.5 1228216 381 0.68 0.42 OK
83 396.75 41.5 1228216 381 0.68 0.48 OK
89 449.25 44.5 1542201 479 0.70 0.46 OK
89 449.25 44.5 1542201 479 0.70 0.50 OK
89.5 452.25 44.75 1740610 540 0.69 0.48 OK
147
Table B-13: Maximum Probable Bending Moment and Shear Force at Plastic Hinges
Locations.
New Beam
Floor Cpr Ry ZRBS Mpr Lh,ext Lh, int x
Section
6 W530x66 1.15 1.12 1076959 478 7075 7069 279
5 W530x74 1.15 1.12 1228216 545 7071 7065 281
4 W530x74 1.15 1.12 1228216 545 7068 7062 281
3 W610x82 1.15 1.12 1542201 684 7003 6998 314
2 W610x82 1.15 1.12 1542201 684 6999 6993 314
1 W610x92 1.15 1.12 1740610 772 6995 6989 316
Vh, ext L Vh, ext R Vh, int L Vh, int R Vh,ext L Vh,ext R
span1 span 1 span 2 span 2 span 3 span 3
-92 178 -92 179 -92 178
-73 235 -73 235 -73 235
-73 235 -73 235 -73 235
-115 276 -115 276 -115 276
-115 276 -115 276 -115 276
-140 302 -140 302 -140 302
Table B- 14: Verification of the Beam Cross Section at the Column Face.
Ratios Verification
Floor Vcf,ext R Mcf, ext R Vr Mr
Vcf/Vr Mcf/Mr V M
6 178 528 958 601 0.19 0.88 OK OK
5 237 611 1052 697 0.23 0.88 OK OK
4 237 611 1052 697 0.23 0.88 OK OK
3 278 771 1228 851 0.23 0.91 OK OK
2 278 771 1228 851 0.23 0.91 OK OK
1 303 868 1347 974 0.23 0.89 OK OK
Table B-15: First-Storey Columns Design.

d b tf tw A Z rx ry
Sections
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm3) (mm) (mm)
Exterior W360x179 368 373 24 15 22800 3480000 159 95
Interior W360x237 380 395 30 19 30100 4690000 162 102
Class 1 Class 1
Cf Mf (KL/r)x (KL/r)y Fex Fey
Flange Web
842 214 OK OK 28.302 47.269 2464.331 883.443
1730 278 OK OK 27.778 44.118 2558.201 1014.157
148
λx λy n Crx Cry Mrx OMS LTBS
0.374 0.625 1.340 7455 8530 1081 0.28 0.27
0.367 0.583 1.340 9818 10946 1456 0.34 0.32
Table B-16: Columns Selected and Properties.

Ac dc bc tc
Column Sections
Level (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Interior Exterior Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
6 W360x196 W360x147 25000 18800 372 360 374 370 26.2 19.8
5 W360x196 W360x147 25000 18800 372 360 374 370 26.2 19.8
4 W360x216 W360x162 27600 20600 375 364 394 371 27.7 21.8
3 W360x216 W360x162 27600 20600 375 364 394 371 27.7 21.8
2 W360x237 W360x179 30100 22800 380 368 395 373 30.2 23.9
1 W360x237 W360x179 30100 22800 380 368 395 373 30.2 23.9
wc Zc Ic rx ry
(mm) (mm3) (mm4) (mm) (mm)
16.4 12.3 3840000 2840000 636000000 463000000 159 157 95.5 94.3
16.4 12.3 3840000 2840000 636000000 463000000 159 157 95.5 94.3
17.3 13.3 4260000 3140000 712000000 516000000 161 158 101.0 94.8
17.3 13.3 4260000 3140000 712000000 516000000 161 158 101.0 94.8
18.9 15.0 4690000 3480000 788000000 575000000 162 159 102.0 95.2
18.9 15.0 4690000 3480000 788000000 575000000 162 159 102.0 95.2
Table B-17: Verification of the Columns upon Plastic Hinging in the Beams (Axial).
MAX MAX Check Check

VhE ∑ VhE Tension Compresion D+0.5L+0.25S+E
Level Cf≤Cy Cf≤Cy
(kN) (kN) D+E D+0.5L+0.25S+E Int.
Ext. (Exterior) Int.
Ext.
6 -135 -135 80 -199 OK -164 OK

5 -154 -289 131 -534 OK -744 OK
4 -154 -443 180 -848 OK -1200 OK
3 -195 -639 270 -1191 OK -1637 OK
2 -195 -834 360 -1530 OK -2065 OK
1 -221 -1055 476 -1893 OK -2490 OK
149
Table B-18: Verification of the Bending Moments in the Columns upon Plastic Hinging.
Mc = ∑(Mc+Vh(x+dc/2) Mpc =ZcFyc M'rc=1.18ϕMpc(1- ΣM'rc

Cf/ϕCy) <ϕMpc Mc/ΣM'rc
(kN m) (kNm) (kNm)
(kNm)
Level
Ext. Interior Ext.
Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
Left Left Right Right
6 520 561 520 560 1325 980 1192 882 1192 882 0.91 0.63
5 578 654 578 653 1325 980 1192 882 2385 1764 0.52 0.37
4 578 654 579 653 1470 1083 1323 975 2515 1857 0.49 0.35
3 740 822 741 820 1470 1083 1323 975 2645 1950 0.59 0.42
2 741 823 741 821 1618 1201 1456 1081 2779 2056 0.56 0.40
1 841 924 842 922 1618 1201 1456 1081 2912 2161 0.61 0.43
Table B-19: Calculations and Verification of the Shears in the Columns.

EI/hs Moment (kNm)
Level Location Ext. Ext.
Int. Ext. Int.
(Left) (Right)
Top 520 1081 560
6 3.53E+10 2.57E+10
Bottom 289 616 416
Top 289 616 237
5 3.53E+10 2.57E+10
Bottom 273 583 318
Top 305 650 335
4 3.96E+10 2.87E+10
Bottom 351 781 372
Top 389 781 448
3 4.38E+10 2.87E+10
Bottom 370 740 400
Top 370 824 421
2 4.38E+10 3.19E+10
Bottom 467 981 472
Top 374 785 450
1 3.50E+10 2.56E+10
Bottom 1474 1986 1320
Shear (kN) Factored Shear Resistance - Vr (kN) Story Shears
Ext. Ext. Ext. Ext. Yielding
Int. Int. Vx,max Check
(Left) (Right) (Left) (Right) Mech.
225 472 271 907 1250 907 1439 3973 OK
156 333 154 907 1250 907 977 3973 OK
182 398 197 992 1329 992 1174 4306 OK
211 423 235 992 1329 992 1291 4306 OK
233 502 248 1131 1472 1131 1484 4865 OK
411 616 393 1131 1472 1131 2036 4865 OK
150
Table B-20: Verification of the OMS and the LTBS for the Upper Columns.
Column Sections Mrx OMS LTBS Mfx<Mrx
Level
6 W360x196 W360x147 1192 882 0.42 0.57 0.79 0.57 OK OK
5 W360x196 W360x147 1192 882 0.33 0.47 0.55 0.38 OK OK
4 W360x216 W360x162 1323 975 0.38 0.38 0.66 0.44 OK OK
3 W360x216 W360x162 1323 975 0.48 0.44 0.71 0.55 OK OK
2 W360x237 W360x179 1456 1081 0.50 0.46 0.81 0.55 OK OK
1 W360x237 W360x179 1456 1081 0.74 0.57 0.77 0.60 OK OK
Table B-21: Design of Column Web (Panel Zone).

Mcf (kNm) Tension/Compression Force for Diaphragm Equilibrium
Ext. Int. Ext. Ext. Int. Ext. Ext.
Int. Ext. Right
Left Left Right Right Left Left Right Right Left
503 528 503 528 980 1027 980 1027 225 472 271
565 611 565 611 1097 1185 1097 1185 -69 -138 -117
565 611 565 611 1097 1185 1097 1185 26 64 42
720 770 720 770 1228 1314 1228 1314 28 25 39
720 770 720 771 1228 1314 1228 1314 22 79 13
816 867 816 867 1388 1475 1388 1475 178 114 145
Vpz Vr Extra Plates Thickness (mm) Vpz <Vr

Ext. Ext. Ext. Ext. Ext. Ext. Ext. Ext.
Int. Int. Int. Int.
Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right
531 1064 485 898 1250 898 OK OK OK
1009 2087 1148 1020 2165 1204 2 12 5 OK OK OK
888 1820 946 992 1867 992 7 OK OK OK
989 2095 1040 1040 2405 1102 1 14 2 OK OK OK
973 1962 1053 1125 2484 1125 13 OK OK OK
799 2132 936 1124 2718 1124 16 OK OK OK
151
C. Preliminary Design of the 1980s Steel MRF
C.1. Wind Loads
The wind pressure is defined in NBCC 1980 as follows:
𝑝 = 𝑞𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑔 𝐶𝑝 (C-1)
where 𝑞 is the velocity pressure depending on the location of the structure (see Table C-2), 𝐶𝑒 is
the exposure factor (see Table C-1), 𝐶𝑔 is the gust effect factor, and 𝐶𝑝 is the external pressure
coefficient, averaged over the area of the surface. The gust factor shall be 2 for the building as a
whole. The external pressure for windward (𝐶𝑝𝑤 ) is taken as 0.8, and for leeward (𝐶𝑝𝑙 ) is -0.5.
Table C-1: Exposure Factor for Wind Load, NBCC 2010.
Direction Exposure Factor, Ce

Windward (ℎ⁄10)0.2
Leeward −(ℎ⁄20)0.2
Table C-2: Velocity Pressure for Different Cities, NBCC 2010.
q (kPa)
City 1/10 1/30 1/100
Montreal 0.31 0.37 0.44
Toronto 0.39 0.48 0.58
Vancouver 0.45 0.55 0.67
The velocity pressure (𝑞) for Montreal in the 1980s is about 88% of 𝑞 in NBCC 2010. The base
shear obtained from the wind load is 479kN, which is 2.9% of the seismic weight. The seismic
weight is obtained in Table 3-5.
152
C.2. Safety Criterion and Load Combinations
LSD has been implemented since 1974. The basic principle is described as follows:
Factored Resistance ≥ Effect of Factored Loads
The effect of factored loads is due to the load combinations and based on CSA.S16.1-M78 (CSA
1978). Factored loads are computed as shown in Eq. (C-2) and are listed in Table C-3.
𝛼𝐷 𝐷 + 𝛾𝜓(𝛼𝐿 L + 𝛼𝑄 𝑄 + 𝛼𝑇 𝑇) (C-2)
where 𝜓 is the load combination factor (see Table C-3), 𝛾 is the importance factor (which is
taken as 1), 𝐷 are the dead loads including selfweight, 𝐿 are the live loads, 𝑄 are the wind or
earthquake loads, and 𝑇 are the influences resulting from temperature changes, shrinkage or
creep. Effects due to 𝑇 can be neglected if safety and serviceability are not affected. This
allowance is considered in this study.
Table C-3: Load Factors and Load Combinations for CSA.S16.1-M78.

Load Factors
αD 1.25
αL 1.5
αQ 1.5
Load Combinations ψ
αDD 0
αDD+ψαLL 1
αDD+ψαQQ 1
αDD+ψ(αLL+αQQ) 0.7
C.3. Stability Effects
The procedure to evaluate P-Delta effects used in this study was the iterative method. CISC
(1980) summarized it as follows:
Step 1 – Apply the factored load combination to the structure.
153
Step 2 – Compute the lateral deflections at each floor level by first-order elastic
analysis.
Step 3 – Compute the artificial storey shears 𝑉𝑖′ due to sway forces as follows:
∑ 𝑃𝑖
𝑉𝑖′ = (∆𝑖+1 − ∆𝑖 )
ℎ𝑖
where ∑ 𝑃𝑖 is the sum of the column axial loads in storey 𝑖, ℎ𝑖 is the storey height of
𝑖, and ∆𝑖+1 − ∆𝑖 is the drift between level 𝑖 and 𝑖 + 1.
Step 4 – Compute the artificial lateral loads 𝐻 ′ as the difference of the storey shears
at each level.
Step 5 – Repeat Step 1 adding 𝐻 ′ to the factored load combination.
Step 6 – Repeats Step 2 to 5 until convergence, i.e. when the displacements obtained
are equal or very close to the previous iteration.
If the structure does not convergence within 5 cycles then it may indicate that the structure is
excessively flexible and the member sizes must be increased. The upper bound structure
converges within three cycles while the lower bound structure requires 5 cycles to converge
C.4. Preliminary Design
The preliminary design (PD) requires a first assumption of the member sizes if an iterative
method is applied for the P-Delta analysis. However, for simplicity it is recommended to use the
one-step approach for the stability effects in the PD. The portal method was used to estimate the
internal forces in the frame. The member sections were selected based on an assumed load
combination and the following equations:
𝑀𝑓
𝑍𝑥,𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = (C-3)
𝐹𝑦
where 𝑀𝑓 is the factored bending moment from the assumed load combination, 𝐹𝑦 is the yielding
strength material, and 𝑍𝑥 is the minimum plastic section modulus of the beams. Selecting cross
154
sections that meet the requirements of flange and web slenderness limits of the selected class can
be done at this point. The interaction equation for the columns is evaluated as follows:
𝐶𝑓 𝑈2 𝑀𝑓
+ ≤1 (C-4)
𝐶𝑟 𝑀𝑝
where 𝐶𝑓 is the compressive force in the columns under factored loads, 𝐶𝑓 is the factored
compressive resistance of the columns, and 𝑈2 is the amplification factor.
Table C-4: Gravity Loads from the Interior Columns.
Spandrel Tributary Tributary

∑P
Floor D (kPa) L (kPa) Wall Area Perimeter P (kN)
(kN)
(kN/m) (m2) (m)
6 2.95 1 1.5 384 56 1521 1521
5 4.6 2.4 1.5 384 56 2313 3834
4 4.6 2.4 1.5 384 56 2313 6147
3 4.6 2.4 1.5 384 56 2313 8460
2 4.6 2.4 1.5 384 56 2313 10773
1 4.6 2.4 1.5 384 56 2313 13086
Table C-5: P-Delta Analysis Iterations.

Lateral Δ V' W+H'
Floor H' (kN)
Load (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN)
6 30.96 62.51 1.53 32.49
5 60.55 58.89 1.53 5.65 66.20
4 58.95 52.15 7.18 8.19 67.14
3 57.01 43.15 15.37 12.08 69.09
2 54.51 31.47 27.45 13.85 68.36
1 57.25 17.67 41.30 10.09 67.33
0 51.38
Iteration 1
Wind Load Δ W+H'
Floor V' (kN) H' (kN)
W (kN) (mm) (kN)
6 30.96 73.54 1.65 32.61
5 60.55 69.63 1.65 6.32 66.87
4 58.95 62.14 7.97 9.57 68.51
3 57.01 51.86 17.54 14.79 71.80
2 54.51 38.11 32.33 17.44 71.95
1 57.25 21.47 49.77 12.68 69.92
0 62.44738072
155
Iteration 2
Wind Load Δ W+H'
W (kN) (mm) (kN)
6 30.96 75.61 1.67 32.63
5 60.55 71.67 1.67 6.40 66.95
4 58.95 64.09 8.07 9.79 68.74
3 57.01 53.63 17.86 15.35 72.35
2 54.51 39.50 33.21 18.29 72.80
1 57.25 22.29 51.50 13.31 70.56
0 64.81
Iteration 3
Wind Load Δ W+H'
W (kN) (mm) (kN)
6 30.96 76.02 1.67 32.63
5 60.55 72.07 1.67 6.42 66.97
4 58.95 64.48 8.08 9.83 68.78
3 57.01 53.99 17.91 15.46 72.47
2 54.51 39.79 33.37 18.48 73.00
1 57.25 22.46 51.86 13.46 70.71
0 65.31
Iteration 4
Wind Load Δ W+H'
W (kN) (mm) (kN)
6 30.96 76.10 1.67 32.63
5 60.55 72.16 1.67 6.42 66.97
4 58.95 64.56 8.09 9.84 68.78
3 57.01 54.07 17.92 15.48 72.49
2 54.51 39.85 33.40 18.53 73.04
1 57.25 22.50 51.93 13.49 70.74
0 65.43
156
Table C-6: Internal Forces with Portal Method.
V Moments of the Columns
Storey Moments of the Beams
Floor Moments (kN) (kNm)
Shear
Ext. Int. A B C D 1 2 3
Top 10 20 20 10
6 33 5 11 10 10 10
Bottom 10 20 20 10
Top 30 60 60 30
5 100 17 33 40 40 40
Bottom 30 60 60 30
Top 51 101 101 51
4 168 28 56 80 80 80
Bottom 51 101 101 51
Top 72 145 145 72
3 241 40 80 123 123 123
Bottom 72 145 145 72
Top 94 188 188 94
2 314 52 105 166 166 166
Bottom 94 188 188 94
Top 87 173 173 87
1 385 64 128 181 181 181
Bottom 202 404 404 202
Table C-7: Total Bending Moments.
Total Bending Moment Beams

Floor (Mf, kNm)
1 2 3
6 143 143 143
5 225 225 225
4 266 266 266
3 308 308 308
2 352 352 352
1 366 366 366
Table C-8: Beams Selected in the Preliminary Design.
Floor Section Fy Zx(required) Zx(used) Zx(required)/Zx(used) CHECK
6 W360x39 345 459 662 0.694 OK

5 W410x46 345 726 885 0.820 OK
4 W410x54 345 857 1050 0.816 OK
3 W410x54 345 993 1050 0.946 OK
2 W460x68 345 1134 1490 0.761 OK
1 W460x68 345 1180 1490 0.792 OK
157
Table C-9: Properties of the Selected Beam Sections.
Flange Web
Floor Section d b t w
Slenderness Slenderness
6 W360x39 353 128 10.7 6.5 OK,Class 2 OK,Class 2
5 W410x46 403 140 11.2 7 OK,Class 2 OK,Class 2
Table C-10: Properties of the Selected Column Sections.

Column Cross Section Gyration
Column Sections Sections Modulus Radius (rx,
Floor Fy (A, mm2) (Zx, 103 mm3) mm)
Interior Exterior Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
6 W360x45 W310x45 345 5730 5690 779 708 146 132
5 W360x45 W310x45 345 5730 5690 779 708 146 132
4 W360x64 W310x60 345 8140 7530 1140 933 148 130
3 W360x64 W310x60 345 8140 7530 1140 933 148 130
2 W360x122 W310x74 345 15500 9430 2270 1180 154 132
1 W360x122 W310x74 345 15500 9430 2270 1180 154 132
Table C-11: Verification of the Sections.

Factored
Factored Axial Plastic Compressive
Bending Slenderness
Force Moment Resistance
Floor Moment Factor (λ)
(Cf, kN) (Mp, kN m) (Cr, kN)
(Mf, kN m)
6 166 83 20 10 242 220 0.33 0.36 1682 1649
5 465 233 60 30 242 220 0.33 0.36 1682 1649
4 764 382 101 51 354 290 0.32 0.37 2394 2177
3 1064 532 145 72 354 290 0.32 0.37 2394 2177
2 1363 681 188 94 705 366 0.31 0.36 4579 2733
1 1662 831 404 202 705 366 0.77 0.90 3592 1969
158
Elastic Euler Interaction
Interaction Equation
Buckling κ U1 Equation
Ratio
(Ce, kN) Check
18566 15070 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.180 0.095 OK OK
18566 15070 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.524 0.277 OK OK
27102 19344 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.605 0.350 OK OK
27102 19344 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.853 0.494 OK OK
55877 24976 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.565 0.506 OK OK
8940 3996 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.036 0.973 CHECK OK
159
D. Design Process of the 1980s Steel MRF
D.1. Beam and Columns
Starting with the previous sections from the PD, the lateral loads 𝐻 ′ are computed for a P-Delta
analysis. The maximum internal forces of all the load combinations are determined and used as
the design loads. Each member might have a different governing load combination. The sections
for the beams must meet the requirements of web and flange slenderness limits for Class 2 as
follows:
𝑏 170
≤ (flange slenderness) (D-1)
2𝑡 √𝐹𝑦
𝑑−2𝑡 1370 (D-2)
≤ (web slenderness)
𝑤 √𝐹𝑦
where 𝑏 is the width of the beam flanges, 𝑡 is the thickness of the beams flanges, and 𝑤 is the
web thickness. Additionally, the beams should yield before the shear strength (𝑉𝑟 ) is reached, this
can be attained by limiting the web slenderness ratio as follows:
𝑑 − 2𝑡 534
≤ 439√ (D-3)
𝑤 𝐹𝑦
The columns sizes were selected to be W310 for the exterior and W360 for the interior, both
Class 2. Strength and stability requirements must be verified. The strength requirement is
described in Eq. (D-4), and the stability requirement is described in Eq. (D-5).
𝐶𝑓 𝑀𝑓
+ 0.85 ≤1 (D-4)
𝐶𝑟 𝑀𝑟
𝐶𝑓 𝜔𝑋 𝑀𝑓𝑋 𝑈 (D-5)
+ ≤1
𝐶𝑟 𝑀𝑟𝑥
where 𝜔 is the coefficient used to determine the equivalent uniform bending effect in beam-
column elements (𝜔𝑥 = 0.6 − 0.4 𝑀𝑓1 ⁄𝑀𝑓2 ≥ 0.4, for member bent in double curvature, where
𝑀𝑓1 and 𝑀𝑓2 are the smaller and larger design end moments respectively), and 𝑈 is the
𝑪
amplification factor (𝑈 = 1⁄(1 − 𝑪𝒇 ), where 𝐶𝑒 is the Euler buckling load, 𝐶𝑒 = 1970000𝐴/
𝑒
(𝐾ℎ𝑠 ⁄𝑟)2 ).
160
D.2. Connections
The web connections must only account for vertical shear. This web connection consists of a
single plate field bolted to the beam web and shop welded to column flange. The bolts selected
are M20 A325M bearing type, with a factored shear resistance for a single shear and threads
intercepted of 73.5 kN. The shear tab plates must meet the shear demand as follows:
𝑉𝑓 ≤ 0.9𝑥0.66𝑥𝐹𝑦 𝑡𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑠𝑡 (D-6)
where 𝑡𝑠𝑡 is the thickness of the shear tab, and 𝑙𝑠𝑡 is the length of the shear tab.
The flange connection is composed of a moment plate field welded to the column flanges and to
the top and bottom beam flanges. First the moment plate is designed to transfer the beam flange
force due to the factored moments. Then the required gross plate area is computed. Ideally, the
plate width should be narrower than the corresponding beam flange to allow downhand welding.
However this is not mandatory and is only applicable for the top plates. Second, the required
weld length must be computed based on the type of welding, which in this case is going to be
fillet, and the electrode classification, which is E480XX. In addition, it is necessary to define the
fillet weld size 𝐷 (i.e., the smaller length between the plate thickness or the available length for
welding) in order to compute the minimum weld length. Finally, the plate length is obtained
based on the minimum weld length and an extra unwelded length of at least 1.2 times the plate
width as recommended by the steel handbook.
The shear capacity of the columns is verified for the unbalanced moments. Clause 20.3 of CSA
(1978) requires column webs to be stiffened if the shear due to unbalanced moments exceeds:
𝑉𝑟 = 0.55𝜑𝑤𝑑𝐹𝑦 (D-7)
The column web stiffeners must be verified as well. The bottom and top opposite flange should
be checked for capacity as follows:
𝑀𝑓
𝐵𝑟 = 𝜑𝑤𝑐 (𝑡𝑏 + 5𝑘)𝐹𝑦𝑐 < (for the opposite compression beam flange) (D-8)
𝑑𝑏
𝑀𝑓
𝑇𝑟 = 𝜑𝑡𝑐 2 𝐹𝑦𝑐 < (for the opposite tension beam flange) (D-9)
𝑑𝑏
where 𝑤𝑐 is the thickness of the column web, 𝑡𝑏 is the thickness of the beam flange, 𝑘 is the
distance from the outer face of the column flange to web toe or fillet, 𝑑𝑏 is the depth of the beam,
161
and 𝑡𝑐 is the thickness of the column flange. Finally, the stiffener welds are designed based on
the maximum forces carried by the stiffeners and by defining the type of welds, which in this
case is double fillet, and the electrode type, which is E480XX.
Table D-1: P-Delta Analysis for the Lower Bound.
Floor
Wind Load Δ V' H' W+H'
W (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN)
6 30.96 146.584769 4.11 35.08
5 60.55 136.846112 4.11 16.33 76.88
4 58.95 117.6456 20.45 24.32 83.27
3 57.01 91.424991 44.77 27.97 84.98
2 54.51 60.471295 72.74 11.90 66.41
1 57.25 32.18762 84.64 8.96 66.21
0 93.60
Iteration 1
Floor
6 30.96 190 4.82 35.78
5 60.55 178 4.82 20.54 81.08
4 58.95 155 25.36 32.82 91.77
3 57.01 121 58.18 39.21 96.22
2 54.51 79 97.39 14.23 68.75
1 57.25 42 111.62 9.99 67.24
0 121.62
Iteration 2
Floor
6 30.96 203 4.98 35.94
5 60.55 191 4.98 21.66 82.20
4 58.95 166 26.64 35.62 94.57
3 57.01 130 62.26 43.30 100.30
2 54.51 85 105.55 14.65 69.16
1 57.25 45 120.20 9.89 67.14
0 130.09
162
Iteration 3
Floor
6 30.96 207 5.02 35.98
5 60.55 195 5.02 21.97 82.52
4 58.95 170 26.99 36.52 95.47
3 57.01 133 63.51 44.71 101.71
2 54.51 87 108.22 14.71 69.22
1 57.25 46 122.93 9.76 67.01
0 132.69
Iteration 4
Floor
6 30.96 208 5.03 36.00
5 60.55 197 5.03 22.06 82.61
4 58.95 171 27.10 36.81 95.75
3 57.01 134 63.90 45.17 102.18
2 54.51 87 109.08 14.71 69.22
1 57.25 46 123.79 9.69 66.94
0 133.48
Iteration 5
Floor
6 30.96 209 5.04 36.00
5 60.55 197 5.04 22.09 82.64
4 58.95 171 27.13 36.90 95.85
3 57.01 134 64.03 45.33 102.33
2 54.51 87 109.35 14.71 69.22
1 57.25 46 124.06 9.67 66.91
0 133.73
163
Table D-2: Design of the Beams for the Lower Bound.
Zx(required) Zx(used) d b t w Flange Web

Section
(x103mm3) (x103mm3) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Slender. Slender.
W360x39 361 662 353 128 10.7 6.5 Class 2 Class 2

W410x46 821 885 403 140 11.2 7 Class 2 Class 2
W460x60 1003 1280 455 153 13.3 8 Class 2 Class 2
W460x60 1211 1280 455 153 13.3 8 Class 2 Class 2
W530x74 1567 1810 529 166 13.6 9.7 Class 2 Class 2
W530x74 1678 1810 529 166 13.6 9.7 Class 2 Class 2
k1 rx Area Mp (required) Mp (used) Mp(required)/Mp Check

(mm) (mm) (mm2) (kN m) (kN m) (used) BMD
18 143 4980 112 206 0.55 OK

19 163 5890 255 275 0.93 OK
19 183 7590 312 397 0.78 OK
19 183 7590 376 397 0.95 OK
20 208 9520 487 562 0.87 OK
20 208 9520 521 562 0.93 OK
24 298 18700 0 1760 0.00 OK
Table D-3: Verification of Shear on Beam Strength, Deflection and Drift for the Lower
Bound.
Vf Vr Max
Section Yield Limits Vr Check Check Drift Check
(kN) (kN) Deflect.
W360x39 Yielding limit Vr 59 470 OK 2.5 OK 0.00167 OK
W410x46 Yielding limit Vr 136 578 OK 3.3 OK 0.00317 CHECK
164
Table D-4: Column Properties of the Lower Bound.
Column Column
Column Column
Flange Web
Column Sections Depth Width
Floor Thickness Thickness
(d, mm) (b, mm)
(t, mm) (w, mm)
6 W360x45 W310x45 352 313 171 166 9.8 11.2 6.9 6.6
5 W360x45 W310x45 352 313 171 166 9.8 11.2 6.9 6.6
4 W360x72 W310x60 350 303 204 203 15.1 13.1 8.6 7.5
3 W360x72 W310x60 350 303 204 203 15.1 13.1 8.6 7.5
2 W360x122 W310x74 363 310 257 205 21.7 16.3 13 9.4
1 W360x122 W310x74 363 310 257 205 21.7 16.3 13 9.4
Column Cross Column Modulus Column Gyration Column Gyration

Sections Sections Radius Radius
(A, mm2) (Sx, 103 mm3) (rx, mm) ry, mm)
5730 5690 691 634 146 132 37.8 38.8
5730 5690 691 634 146 132 37.8 38.8
9100 7530 1150 842 149 130 48.5 49.3
9100 7530 1150 842 149 130 48.5 49.3
15500 9430 2010 1060 154 132 63 49.9
15500 9430 2010 1060 154 132 63 49.9
Table D-5: Verification of the Columns of the Lower Bound.

Factored
Factored
Factored Axial Bending Plastic Compressive
Bending Slenderness
Force Moment Moment Resistance
Moment Top Factor (λ)
(Cf, kN) Bottom (Mp, kN m) (Cr, kN)
(Mf, kN m)
(Mf, kN m)
Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
321 140 28 81 48 91 215 197 0.33 0.36 1682 1649
686 316 88 107 121 136 215 197 0.33 0.36 1682 1649
1052 492 172 142 218 183 357 261 0.32 0.37 2678 2177
1419 668 274 225 267 214 357 261 0.32 0.37 2678 2177
1793 844 347 229 385 226 624 329 0.31 0.36 4579 2733
2169 1018 656 330 386 233 624 329 0.39 0.45 4446 2632
165
Interaction
Elastic Euler Interaction
κ ω U1 Equation
Buckling (Ce, kN) Equation Ratio
Check
18566 15070 0.58 0.89 0.40 0.40 1.02 1.01 0.24 0.25 OK OK
18566 15070 0.73 0.79 0.40 0.40 1.04 1.02 0.58 0.41 OK OK
30710 19344 0.79 0.78 0.40 0.40 1.04 1.03 0.59 0.45 OK OK
30710 19344 0.98 0.95 0.40 0.40 1.05 1.04 0.85 0.66 OK OK
55877 24976 0.90 0.99 0.40 0.40 1.03 1.03 0.62 0.60 OK OK
35761 15985 0.59 0.70 0.40 0.40 1.06 1.07 0.94 0.82 OK OK
Table D-6: Design of the Connections of the Lower Bound.

Beam Web Connection
Factored
Verification
Beam Vf Factored Bearing Bearing
Floor of the Beam
Section (kN) Resistance Resistance for
Web
the Bolts
6 W360x39 59 49 147 OK
5 W410x46 136 52.8 158.4 OK
4 W460x60 150 60.3 180.9 OK
3 W460x60 163 60.3 180.9 OK
2 W530x74 184 67.8 203.4 OK
1 W530x74 190 67.8 203.4 OK
Web Plates
Beam Plate Length Plate Thicknes Thicknes
Floor
Section Suggested Length Used Required Used
6 W360x39 221 220 4.8 6.00
5 W410x46 254 250 4.2 6.00
4 W460x60 286 280 3.7 6.00
3 W460x60 286 280 3.7 6.00
2 W530x74 335 330 3.2 6.00
1 W530x74 335 330 3.2 6.00
166
Flange Connection
Alternate Moment plate field welded to column flange and top flange of beam, bottom flange of
2 beam groove welded directly to column flange
Fyplates
300
(Mpa)
Flange Factored
Force Net Area Plate Plate Min Plate Fillet Shear
due to of Plate Width Width Plate Thick. Weld Resistance
Floor
Factor Required Required Used Thick. Used Size of Fillet
Loads (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Welds
(kN) (kN/mm)
6 318 1176 100 100 12 12 11 1.69
5 633 2344 112 112 21 22 11 1.69
4 685 2536 125 126 20 22 12 1.84
3 827 3061 125 126 24 26 12 1.84
2 920 3407 138 138 25 26 12 1.84
1 985 3648 138 138 26 28 12 1.84
Weld Length Minimum

Required/side Plate Length
(mm) (mm)
100 220
190 324
190 341
230 381
250 416
270 436
Column Shear Capacity

Due to unbalanced moments the column joint (nowadays panel zone) will be subjected to a shear force.
(CAN3-S16.1-M78 Clause 20.3)
Column Shear Check Column

Shear Force Thickness of Extra Plates
Resistance Vr Shear Resistance
Floor (kN) (mm)
(kN) Vr (kN)
6 415 353 220 316 OK OK No Extra Plates No Extra Plates
5 415 353 544 632 CHECK CHECK 3 6
4 514 388 683 684 CHECK CHECK 4 7
3 514 388 790 794 CHECK CHECK 6 10
2 806 498 869 893 CHECK CHECK 1 10
1 806 498 916 971 CHECK CHECK 2 12
167
Column Web Stiffeners
Required
Br opposite to
Capacity for Tr opposite to the
the bottom Required Capacity for opposite
opposite to top flange
Floor flange capacity to the top flange (kN)
the bottom capacity (kN)
(kN)
flange (kN)
6 312 309 5 9 209 273 109 45
5 313 310 320 323 209 273 424 360
4 530 415 155 270 496 373 189 312
3 530 415 297 411 496 373 331 454
2 943 565 NR* 355 1023 577 NR* 343
1 943 565 42 420 1023 577 NR* 407
* Not Required
Stiffeners Effective Effective

Total Stiffeners Stiffeners Stiffners
Thickness Stiffeners Stiffeners Area
Area (mm2) Width (mm) Thickness (mm)
(mm) Width (mm2)
Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. (mm) Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
351 145 60 60 8 8 46 736 736 8 8
1366 1160 60 60 8 8 51 816 816 16 12
609 1004 70 70 10 10 58 1150 1150 10 10
1066 1461 70 70 10 10 58 1150 1150 10 14
0 1143 100 70 14 10 63 1764 1260 14 10
135 1352 100 70 14 10 63 1764 1260 14 12
Table D-7: P-Delta Analysis for the Upper Bound.

Floor
6 30.96 67 3.07 34.03
5 60.55 60 3.07 8.71 69.26
4 58.95 49 11.78 6.07 65.02
3 57.01 39 17.85 6.71 63.71
2 54.51 28 24.56 12.38 66.89
1 57.25 16 36.94 8.85 66.10
0 45.79
168
Iteration 1
Floor
6 30.96 76 3.38 34.34
5 60.55 68 3.38 9.89 70.44
4 58.95 55 13.27 6.72 65.66
3 57.01 44 19.98 7.52 64.53
2 54.51 32 27.51 14.59 69.10
1 57.25 18 42.10 10.27 67.52
0 52.37
Iteration 2
Floor
6 30.96 77 3.41 34.38
5 60.55 69 3.41 10.04 70.59
4 58.95 56 13.45 6.79 65.73
3 57.01 45 20.24 7.63 64.63
2 54.51 33 27.87 14.95 69.46
1 57.25 18 42.82 10.50 67.75
0 53.32
Iteration 3
Floor
6 30.96 77 3.42 34.38
5 60.55 69 3.42 10.06 70.61
4 58.95 56 13.48 6.79 65.74
3 57.01 45 20.27 7.64 64.65
2 54.51 33 27.91 15.01 69.52
1 57.25 18 42.92 10.54 67.78
0 53.46
Iteration 4
Floor
6 30.96 77 3.42 34.38
5 60.55 69 3.42 10.06 70.61
4 58.95 56 13.48 6.79 65.74
3 57.01 45 20.28 7.64 64.65
2 54.51 33 27.92 15.01 69.53
1 57.25 18 42.93 10.54 67.79
0 53.48
169
Iteration 5
Floor
6 30.96 77 3.42 34.38
5 60.55 69 3.42 10.06 70.61
4 58.95 56 13.48 6.79 65.74
3 57.01 45 20.28 7.64 64.65
2 54.51 33 27.92 15.01 69.53
1 57.25 18 42.93 10.54 67.79
0 53.48
Table D- 8: Preliminary Design of the Beams for the Upper Bound.
Zx(required) Zx(used) d b t w Flange Web

F Section
(x103mm3) (x103mm3) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Slend. Slend.
6 W360x51 806 894 355 171 11.6 7.2 Class 2 Class 2

5 W410x67 964 1360 410 179 14.4 8.8 Class 2 Class 2
4 W610x92 1116 2530 603 179 15 10.9 Class 2 Class 2
3 W610x125 1245 3670 612 229 19.6 11.9 Class 2 Class 2
2 W610x125 1471 3670 612 229 19.6 11.9 Class 2 Class 2
1 W690x140 1608 4550 684 254 18.9 12.4 Class 2 Class 2
k1 rx Mp (required) Mp (used) Mp(required)/ Check

Area (mm2)
(mm) (mm) (kN m) (kN m) Mp (used) BMD
19 148 6450 250 278 0.90 OK

20 169 8600 299 422 0.71 OK
25 235 11800 347 786 0.44 OK
26 249 15900 387 1140 0.34 OK
26 249 15900 457 1140 0.40 OK
27 276 17800 499 1413 0.35 OK
170
Table D-9: Verification of Shear on Beam Strength, Deflection and Drift for Upper Bound.
Vf Vr Max
Floor Section Yield limits Vr Check Check Drift Check
(kN) (kN) Deflec.
6 W360x51 Yielding limit Vr 136 524 OK 2.5 OK 0.00108 OK
Table D-10: Column Properties of the Lower Bound.

Column Column
Column
Column Depth Flange Web
Column Sections Width
Floor (d, mm) Thickness Thickness
(b, mm)
(t, mm) (w, mm)
Interior Exterior Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
6 W360x51 W310x52 355 318 171 167 11.6 13.2 7.2 7.6
5 W360x51 W310x52 355 318 171 167 11.6 13.2 7.2 7.6
4 W360x91 W310x79 353 306 254 254 16.4 14.6 9.5 8.8
3 W360x147 W310x97 360 308 370 305 19.8 15.4 12.3 9.9
2 W360x147 W310x97 360 308 370 305 19.8 15.4 12.3 9.9
1 W360x162 W310x118 364 314 371 307 21.8 18.7 13.3 11.9
Column Modulus Column Gyration Column Gyration

Column Cross Sections
Sections Radius Radius
(A, mm2)
(Sx, 103 mm3) (rx, mm) (ry, mm)
6450 6670 796 750 148 134 38.8 39.2
6450 6670 796 750 148 134 38.8 39.2
11600 10100 1510 1160 152 133 62.3 63
18800 12300 2570 1440 157 134 94.3 76.9
18800 12300 2570 1440 157 134 94.3 76.9
20600 15000 2830 1750 158 136 94.8 77.6
171
Table D-11: Verification of the Columns of the Lower Bound.
Factored Factored
Factored Bending Bending Plastic Compressive
Slender.
Axial Force Moment Moment Moment Resistance
Floor Factor (λ)
(Cf, kN) Bottom (Mf, Top (Mp, kN m) (Cr, kN)
kN m) (Mf, kN m)
6 321 140 34 85 39 89 247 233 0.32 0.36 1897 1937
5 690 316 93 106 88 113 247 233 0.32 0.36 1897 1937
4 1067 490 151 132 155 134 469 360 0.31 0.36 3422 2930
3 1451 664 211 149 231 156 798 447 0.30 0.36 5565 3572
2 1836 838 284 183 281 184 798 447 0.30 0.36 5565 3572
1 2231 1011 468 248 384 222 879 543 0.38 0.44 5932 4211
Interaction Interaction
Elastic Euler
κ ω U1 Equation Equation
Buckling (Ce, kN)
Ratio Check
21476 18205 0.87 0.96 0.40 0.40 1.02 1.01 0.23 0.22 OK OK
21476 18205 0.95 0.93 0.40 0.40 1.03 1.02 0.52 0.35 OK OK
40739 27157 0.97 0.99 0.40 0.40 1.03 1.02 0.44 0.32 OK OK
70440 33572 0.91 0.95 0.40 0.40 1.02 1.02 0.37 0.32 OK OK
70440 33572 0.99 0.99 0.40 0.40 1.03 1.03 0.48 0.40 OK OK
50029 26990 0.82 0.89 0.40 0.40 1.05 1.04 0.60 0.43 OK OK
Table D- 12: Design of the Connections of the Lower Bound.

Beam Web Connection
Factored Factored Bearing
Verification
Beam Bearing Resistance for the
Floor Vf (kN) t (mm) of the Beam
Section Resistance Bolts
Web
(kN) (kN)
6 W360x51 136 7.2 52.8 211.2 OK
5 W410x67 153 8.8 52.8 211.2 OK
4 W610x92 166 10.9 52.8 211.2 OK
3 W610x125 175 11.9 52.8 211.2 OK
2 W610x125 195 11.9 60.3 241.2 OK
1 W690x140 189 12.4 60.3 241.2 OK
172
Web Plates
Plate Length Plate Length Thickness
Thickness Used
Floor Beam Section Suggested Used Required
(mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
6 W360x51 221 220 4.9 6.00
5 W410x67 254 250 4.3 6.00
4 W610x92 382 380 2.9 6.00
3 W610x125 382 380 2.9 6.00
2 W610x125 382 380 2.9 6.00
1 W690x140 431 430 2.5 6.00
Flange Connection
Moment plate field welded to column flange and top flange of beam, bottom flange of beam
groove welded directly to column flange
Fy (Mpa) 300
Factored
Flange Force Net Area Plate Plate Min. Plate Fillet Shear
due to Factor of Plate Width Width Plate Thick. Weld Resistance
Floor
Loads Required Required Used Thick. Used Size of Fillet
(kN) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Welds
(kN/mm)
6 705 2611 199 200 13 14 10 1.84
5 730 2704 207 208 13 14 10 1.84
4 575 2129 207 208 10 12 10 1.84
3 632 2340 257 258 9 10 10 1.84
2 746 2765 257 258 11 12 10 1.84
1 730 2704 282 282 10 10 10 1.84

(CAN3-S16.1-M78 Clause 20.3)
Column Shear
Shear Force Check Column Shear Thickness of Extra Plates
Resistance Vr
Floor (kN) Resistance Vr (kN) (mm)
(kN)
6 437 413 455 536 CHECK CHECK 0 3
5 437 413 565 580 CHECK CHECK 3 4
4 573 460 459 470 OK CHECK No Extra Plates 0
173
Br Opposite to
Required Capacity Tr Opposite to Required Capacity
the Bottom
for Opposite to the the Top Flange for Opposite to the
Floor Flange Capacity
Bottom Flange (kN) Capacity (kN) Top Flange (kN)
(kN)
6 339 381 366 324 292 379 413 326
5 345 388 385 342 292 379 438 351
4 605 505 NR* 69 585 463 NR* 112
3 1049 629 NR* 3 852 515 NR* 116
2 1049 629 NR* 118 852 515 NR* 231
1 1172 827 NR* NR* 1033 760 NR* NR*
Stiffeners Effective Effective Stiffeners

Total Stiffeners Stiffeners
Thickness Stiffeners Stiffeners2 Area Thickness
Floor Area (mm2) Width (mm)
(mm) Width (mm ) (mm)
Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. (mm) Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
6 1329 1051 60 60 8 8 67 1064 1064 10 8
5 1410 1132 60 60 8 8 70 1112 1112 12 10
4 0 359 100 100 14 14 65 1806 1806 14 14
3 0 375 140 120 18 16 89 3186 2832 18 16
2 0 744 140 120 18 16 89 3186 2832 18 16
1 0 0 140 120 18 16 100 3600 3200 18 16
174
E. Preliminary Design of the 1960s Steel MRF
E.1. Wind Loads
The wind pressure is defined in NBCC1960 as follows:
𝑝 = 𝑞𝐶ℎ 𝐶𝑝 (E- 1)
where 𝑞 is the velocity pressure depending on the location of the structure (see Table E-1), 𝐶ℎ is
the height factor (𝐶ℎ = (ℎ⁄30)1⁄5 where h is the height at level of evaluation), and 𝐶𝑝 is the
external pressure coefficient, averaged over the area of the surface. The external pressure for
windward (𝐶𝑝𝑤 ) is taken as 0.9, and for leeward (𝐶𝑝𝑙 ) is -0.5.
Table E-1: Velocity Pressure for Different Cities, NBCC 1960.

Wind
City Gust (mph) Press (psf)
Montreal 75 15
Toronto 84 19
Vancouver 90 22
E.2. Safety Criterion and Load Forces
The ASD was implemented until 1974. The stresses due to the loads must be less than the
permitted stresses, and for the ASD, the load combinations are accompanied only by probability
factors, as shown in Table E-2.
Table E-2: Load Combinations and Probability Factors.

Probability Dead Live Wind or
Factor ψ Load Load Earthquake
X
1.00 X X
X X
0.75 X X X
175
E.3. Preliminary Design
Table E-3: Lateral Load Distribution and Storey Shear.
Seismic Lateral Story

Wind
Level Load Load Shear W
(kip)
(kip) (Kip) (Kip)
6 7.79 12 7.79 8
5 15.05 12 15.05 23
4 14.43 10 14.43 37
3 13.68 8 13.68 51
2 12.71 5 12.71 64
1 12.71 3 12.71 76
Table E-4: Internal Forces with the Portal Method.

Storey Moments of the Columns Moments of the
Floor Moments Shear V (Kip) (kip in) Beams (kip in)
(Kip) Exterior Interior A B C D 1 2 3
Top 92 184 184 92
6 8 1 3 92 92 92
Bottom 92 184 184 92
Top 270 540 540 270
5 23 4 8 362 362 362
Bottom 270 540 540 270
Top 440 880 880 440
4 37 6 12 710 710 710
Bottom 440 880 880 440
Top 602 1203 1203 602
3 51 8 17 1042 1042 1042
Bottom 602 1203 1203 602
Top 752 1503 1503 752
2 64 11 21 1353 1353 1353
Bottom 752 1503 1503 752
Top 676 1353 1353 676
1 76 13 25 1428 1428 1428
Bottom 1578 3156 3156 1578
176
Table E-5: Maximum Bending Moments and Shear Forces for Simple Supported Beams.
Total Bending Moment Beams Total Bending Moment Beams

Floor (Mf, kNm) (Mf, Kp in)
1 2 3 1 2 3
6 174 174 174 1538 1538 1538
5 242 242 242 2144 2144 2144
4 242 242 242 2144 2144 2144
3 242 242 242 2144 2144 2144
2 242 242 242 2144 2144 2144
1 242 242 242 2144 2144 2144
Maximum Beam Shear Forces Total Bending Moment Beams

Floor (Vf, Kip) (Mf, kNm)
1 2 3 1 2 3
6 15 15 15 208 208 208
5 22 22 22 523 523 523
4 22 22 22 872 872 872
3 22 22 22 1203 1203 1203
2 22 22 22 1515 1515 1515
1 22 22 22 1590 1590 1590
Table E-6: Design of Simple Supported Beams.
SF Fy Fb Zx(required) Zx(used) d b t w Flange Web

F. Section
(BM) (ksi) (ksi) in3 in3 (in) (in) (in) (in) Slend. Slend.
6 W 18x40 0.66 36 24 65 78.4 17.9 6.02 0.53 0.32 OK OK
5 W 21x50 0.66 36 24 90 110 20.83 6.53 0.54 0.38 OK OK
4 W 21x50 0.66 36 24 90 110 20.83 6.53 0.54 0.38 OK OK
3 W 21x50 0.66 36 24 90 110 20.83 6.53 0.54 0.38 OK OK
2 W 21x50 0.66 36 24 90 110 20.83 6.53 0.54 0.38 OK OK
1 W 21x50 0.66 36 24 90 110 20.83 6.53 0.54 0.38 OK OK
177
SF Max
Section Yielding Limits Vr Fv (ksi) FV (ksi) Check Check
(Shear) Deflection
W 18x40 Yielding limit Vr 2.60 0.4 14 OK 0.13 OK

Table E-7: Properties of the Columns.

Column Flange Column Web
Column Depth Column Width
Column Sections Thickness Thickness
(d, in) (b, in)
Floor (t, in) (w, in)
6 W 10x33 W 8x28 9.73 8.06 7.96 6.535 0.435 0.465 0.29 0.285
5 W 10x33 W 8x28 9.73 8.06 7.96 6.535 0.435 0.465 0.29 0.285
4 W 14x74 W 12x45 14.17 12.06 10.07 8.045 0.785 0.575 0.45 0.335
3 W 14x74 W 12x45 14.17 12.06 10.07 8.045 0.785 0.575 0.45 0.335
2 W 14x193 W 14x74 15.48 14.17 15.71 10.07 1.44 0.785 0.89 0.45
1 W 14x193 W 14x74 15.48 14.17 15.71 10.07 1.44 0.785 0.89 0.45
Column Column Column

Column Cross
Modulus Gyration Modulus Flange Web
Sections
Sections Radius Sections Slenderness Slenderness
(A, in2)
(Zx,in3) (rx, in) (Ix,in4)
9.71 8.23 35 24.3 4.19 3.45 170 98 OK OK OK OK

9.71 8.23 35 24.3 4.19 3.45 170 98 OK OK OK OK
22.94 13.24 121 58.2 6.11 5.15 857 351 OK OK OK OK
22.94 13.24 121 58.2 6.11 5.15 857 351 OK OK OK OK
56.73 22.94 310 121 6.50 6.11 2399 857 OK OK OK OK
56.73 22.94 310 121 6.50 6.11 2399 857 OK OK OK OK
178
Table E-8: Verification of the Selected Columns.
Strength Strength
Axial Stress Bending Stress Allow. Allow. Interaction Interaction
(fa, ksi) (fb, ksi) Axial Bending Equation Equation
Floor
Stress (Fa, Stress Check Check
ksi) (Fb, ksi)
6 2.92 2.18 5.26 3.79 22 24 0.36 0.26 OK OK
5 8.11 5.59 15.42 11.10 22 24 1.02 0.73 CHECK OK
4 10.30 7.71 7.28 7.56 22 24 0.78 0.68 OK OK
3 12.50 9.83 9.95 10.34 22 24 1.00 0.89 OK OK
2 13.38 11.05 4.85 6.21 22 24 0.82 0.77 OK OK
1 14.27 12.27 10.18 13.04 22 24 1.09 1.12 CHECKCHECK
GU=GL K KL/rx
CO CP m
Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
0.27 0.31 1.11 1.13 37.56 46.42 20.00 111.51 0.11
0.54 0.62 1.22 1.22 41.28 50.11 20.00 111.51 0.11
1.00 0.87 1.40 1.35 32.45 37.15 20.00 111.51 0.11
1.66 1.36 1.65 1.53 38.25 42.11 20.00 111.51 0.11
3.16 2.34 1.91 1.74 41.61 40.33 20.00 111.51 0.11
4.19 2.99 1.45 1.36 31.59 31.52 20.00 111.51 0.11
Allowable Axial Elastic Euler

Interaction Interaction Equation
Stress Buckling Cm
Equation Ratio Check
(Fa, ksi) (Ce, kip)
20 19 106 69 0.85 0.85 0.34 0.26 OK OK
19 18 87 59 0.85 0.85 1.03 0.74 CHECK OK
20 20 141 108 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.68 OK OK
20 19 102 84 0.85 0.85 1.04 0.93 CHECK OK
19 19 86 92 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.82 OK OK
20 20 149 150 0.85 0.85 1.10 1.11 CHECK CHECK
179
F. Design Process of the 1960s Steel MRF
F.1. Beam and Columns
Type 2 construction philosophy designs the beams as simply supported under gravity loads. The
beam sections must have a section modulus greater than:
𝑀𝑓,𝑝𝑖𝑛
𝑍𝑥,𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = (F-1)
𝐹𝑏
where 𝑀𝑓,𝑝𝑖𝑛 is the maximum moment at the midpoint for a simple supported beam and 𝐹𝑏 is the
stress due to bending, and is computed as 66% of 𝐹𝑦 . The slenderness ratios for web and flanges
of bending elements must be limited by the following expressions:
𝑏 64
≤ (flange slenderness) (F-2)
2𝑡 √𝐹𝑦
ℎ 420 (F-3)
≤ (web slenderness)
𝑤 √𝐹𝑦
The columns must be designed for different force combinations, including gravity and lateral
loads and they have to sustain the structures under the most critical loading. The column sections
must satisfy the slenderness ratio limits to avoid buckling prior to reaching capacity. The
following expressions are the limits for compression plus bending elements:
𝑏 100
≤ (flange slenderness) (F-4)
2𝑡 √𝐹𝑦
ℎ 420 𝑓 𝑓 (F-5)
≤ [1 − 1.40 𝐹𝑎 ] 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐹𝑎 ≤ 0.28 (web slenderness)
𝑤 √𝐹𝑦 𝑎 𝑎
ℎ 255 𝑓
≤ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐹𝑎 > 0.28 (web slenderness) (F-6)
𝑤 √𝐹𝑦 𝑎
where 𝑓𝑎 is the axial stress, 𝐹𝑎 is the permissible axial compressive stress, and ℎ is the height of
the web (𝑑 − 2𝑡). There are two options for the column web slenderness ratio limit depending
180
on the ratio of computed axial stress to allowable axial compressive stress when bending is not
involved. The strength and stability check are verified with two interaction equations as follows:
𝑓𝑎 𝑓
+ 𝐹𝑏 ≤ 1 (strength interaction equation) (F-7)
0.6𝐹𝑦 𝑏
𝑓𝑎 𝐶𝑚 𝑓𝑏 𝛼 (F-8)
+ ≤ 1 (stability interaction equation)
𝐹𝑎 𝐹𝑏
where 𝐶𝑚 is the coefficient for equivalent bending stress and ∝ is the amplification factor. 𝐶𝑚 is
taken as 0.85 for members bent in double curvature and as 1 for single curvature members. The
amplification factor ∝ is obtained with the expression 1 − 𝑓𝑎 ⁄𝐹′𝑒 , where 𝐹′𝑒 is the Euler
buckling stress divided by the safety factor (149000⁄(𝐾𝐿⁄𝑟)2 ) and 𝐾𝐿⁄𝑟 is the slenderness
ratio conformed by the effective length factor (𝐾), the length of the column (𝐿), and the radius of
gyration (𝑟). 𝐹𝑎 is computed as follows:
𝐾𝐿
𝐹𝑎 = 0.6𝐹𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ≤ 𝐶𝑜 (F-9)
𝑟
𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐿 (F-10)
𝐹𝑎 = 0.6𝐹𝑦 − 𝑚 ( − 𝐶𝑜 ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜 < ≤ 𝐶𝑝
𝑟 𝑟
149000 𝐾𝐿 (F-11)
𝐹𝑎 = 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑝 <
(𝐾𝐿⁄𝑟) 2 𝑟
where 𝐶𝑜 is the maximum slenderness ratio for short columns (𝐶𝑜 = 30 − 𝐹𝑦 ⁄5 ≤ 20), 𝐶𝑝 is the
maximum slenderness ratio for intermediate columns (𝐶𝑝 = √286000⁄(𝐹𝑦 − 13) ≥ 78), and
149000
𝑚 is a coefficient obtained as m = (0.60𝐹𝑦 − )⁄(𝐶𝑝 − 𝐶𝑜 ).
𝐶𝑝 2
F.2. Connections
Type 2 construction connections are designed to only withstand wind load and as a result the
connections are designed for much less demand than the 1980s were, even though they have the
same concept of WFP and a single side shear tab. The design requirements for these moment
connections are very similar to the requirements from the 1980s. The yield strength of the steel
181
material of the connection is ASTM A36 (36ksi = 248MPa), compared to 300MPa for the other
connections from the 1980s and 2010. Therefore, the corresponding electrode used for the welds
was E60XX, compared to E70XX which was used for the following periods. As in the 1980s,
the web connection, the flange connection, the column shear capacity, the column web stiffeners,
and the stiffener welds must be checked.
The web connections are conformed of a single plate shop-welded to the column punched with
bolts for temporary erection bolts, and field-welded to the beam. The shear tab plate height was
selected based on beam depth. The weld size required was computed as:
𝑤𝐹𝑣
𝑠𝑤 = (F-12)
𝐹𝑣,𝑓𝑤
where 𝑠𝑤 is the size of the weld, 𝑤 is the beam web thickness, 𝐹𝑣 is the allowable shear stress of
the beam (𝐹𝑦 /1.67), and 𝐹𝑣,𝑓𝑤 is the allowable stress for fillet welds (0.6 kips per sixteenth of an
inch of a leg size per lineal inch of weld with E60XX electrodes). Then, the shear tab plate
thickness can be calculated as the size weld plus 1/16-inch.
The flange connection is composed of two moment plates; bottom and top. These plates will be
designed to transmit the beam flange force only, since the shear will be transmitted by the shear
tab. The theoretical beam flange force is obtained as:
𝐹𝑦
𝐹𝑏𝑓 = 𝑏𝑡 (F-13)
1.67
Based on this equation the weld size and the dimensions of the moment plates are defined. In the
1960s, an unwelded length of plate equal to at least 1.2 times one side welded length is
recommended. The moment plates are connected to the beam flanges with fillet welds and a full
grove penetration weld to the columns.
The shear capacity of the columns is verified for the unbalanced moments. The column webs
need to be stiffened if the shear stress due to unbalanced moments exceeds the allowable shear
stress. The column web stiffeners must be designed in case it is necessary. In conformity with the
182
requirements of Clause 24.4 of CSA.S16-1969 stiffeners are required in the opposite beam
flanges if:
𝐴𝑓 𝐹
𝑤𝑐 < 𝑡 ( 𝑦𝑏 ) (for the opposite compression beam flange) (F-14)
𝑏 +5𝑘 𝐹 𝑦𝑐
ℎ
and when 𝑤𝑐 < 30𝑐
𝐹𝑦𝑏 (F-15)
𝑡𝑐 < 0.4√𝐴𝑓 (for the opposite tension beam flange)
𝐹𝑦𝑐
where 𝑤𝑐 is the thickness of the column web, 𝑡𝑏 is the thickness of the beam flange or moment
plate, 𝑘 is the distance from outer face of column flange to web toe or fillet, 𝑑𝑏 is the depth of
the beam, 𝑡𝑐 is the thickness of the column flange, ℎ𝑐 is the clear depth of the column, 𝐴𝑓 is the
cross section area of the beam flange or moment plate, and 𝐹𝑦𝑏 and 𝐹𝑦𝑐 are the yield points of the
beam and the column, respectively. Finally, the stiffener welds are designed based on shear
forces carried by the stiffeners, and by defining the type of weld, which in this case is double
fillet, and the electrode type, which is E60XX.
Table F-1: Selected Beams and Properties.
SF Fy Fb Zx(used) d b t w Flange Web

Floor Section
(BM) (ksi) (ksi) (in3) (in) (in) (in) (in) Slender. Slender.
6 W 18x40 0.66 36 24 78.4 17.9 6.02 0.53 0.32 OK OK

5 W 18x50 0.66 36 24 101 17.99 7.50 0.57 0.36 OK OK
4 W 18x50 0.66 36 24 101 17.99 7.50 0.57 0.36 OK OK
3 W 18x50 0.66 36 24 101 17.99 7.50 0.57 0.36 OK OK
2 W 18x50 0.66 36 24 101 17.99 7.50 0.57 0.36 OK OK
1 W 18x50 0.66 36 24 101 17.99 7.50 0.57 0.36 OK OK
183
Table F-2: Drift Check.
Lateral
Deflection Drift
Floor Check
(D+L+S+W) (D+L+S+W)
in
6 2.086 0.0009 OK
5 1.959 0.0021 OK
4 1.666 0.0024 OK
3 1.325 0.0032 OK
2 0.879 0.0032 OK
1 0.432 0.0024 OK
Table F-3: Properties of Selected Columns.

Column Column Flange Column Web
Column Width
Column Sections Depth Thickness Thickness
Floor (b, in)
(d, in) (t, in) (w, in)
6 W 12x45 W 10x33 12.06 9.73 8.045 7.96 0.575 0.435 0.335 0.29
5 W 12x45 W 10x33 12.06 9.73 8.045 7.96 0.575 0.435 0.335 0.29
4 W 14x82 W 12x45 14.31 12.06 10.13 8.045 0.855 0.575 0.51 0.335
3 W 14x82 W 12x45 14.31 12.06 10.13 8.045 0.855 0.575 0.51 0.335
2 W 14x159 W 14x61 14.98 13.89 15.565 9.995 1.19 0.645 0.745 0.375
1 W 14x159 W 14x61 14.98 13.89 15.565 9.995 1.19 0.645 0.745 0.375
Column Column Column Column
Cross Modulus Gyration Modulus Flange Web
Floor Sections Sections Radius (rx, Sections Slenderness Slenderness
(A, in2) (Zx,in3) in) (Ix,in4)
6 13.2 9.71 64.7 38.8 5.44 4.41 390 189 OK OK OK OK
5 13.2 9.71 64.7 38.8 5.44 4.41 390 189 OK OK OK OK
4 24.1 13.2 139 64.7 6.42 5.44 995 390 OK OK OK OK
3 24.1 13.2 139 64.7 6.42 5.44 995 390 OK OK OK OK
2 46.7 17.9 287 102 6.78 6.29 2150 708 OK OK OK OK
1 46.7 17.9 287 102 6.78 6.29 2150 708 OK OK OK OK
184
Table F-4: Verification of the Selected Columns.
Strength
Bending Allowable Allowable Strength
Axial Stress Interaction
Stress Axial Bending Interaction
Floor (fa, ksi) Equation
(fb, ksi) Stress Stress Equation Check
Check
(Fa, ksi) (Fb, ksi)
6 4 2 3 2 22 24 0.28 0.18 OK OK
5 9 5 8 7 22 24 0.72 0.51 OK OK
4 7 6 6 6 22 24 0.59 0.52 OK OK
3 10 8 8 8 22 24 0.81 0.73 OK OK
2 7 8 5 7 22 24 0.52 0.64 OK OK
1 8 9 11 12 22 24 0.85 0.93 OK OK
GU=GL K KL/rx
CO CP m
Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
0.62 0.60 1.20 1.22 31.28 39.21 20.00 111.51 0.11
0.95 0.92 1.30 1.27 33.88 40.81 20.00 111.51 0.11
1.69 1.42 1.42 1.35 31.32 35.19 20.00 111.51 0.11
2.43 1.91 1.61 1.49 35.51 38.83 20.00 111.51 0.11
3.85 2.69 1.78 1.58 37.18 35.59 20.00 111.51 0.11
4.21 2.77 1.38 1.27 28.82 28.61 20.00 111.51 0.11
Allowable Axial Elastic Euler Interaction Interaction

Cm
Stress (Fa, ksi) Buckling (Ce, kip) Equation Ratio Equation Check
20 20 152 97 0.85 0.85 0.27 0.18 OK OK
20 19 130 89 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.51 OK OK
20 20 152 120 0.85 0.85 0.58 0.52 OK OK
20 20 118 99 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.74 OK OK
20 20 108 118 0.85 0.85 0.52 0.64 OK OK
21 21 179 182 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.89 OK OK
185
Table F- 5: Design of the Connections.
Beam Web Connection and Web Plates
Plate
Beam Web Required Size Required Plate
Fv Length
Beam Shear of a single fillet Plate Width
Floor (Ksi) Suggested
Section Capacity weld Thickness Used
Beam and Used
(kip/in) (in) (in) (mm)
(mm)
6 W 18x40 14 4.54 8/16 9/16 11 3
5 W 18x50 14 5.11 9/16 10/16 11 3
4 W 18x50 14 5.11 9/16 10/16 11 3
3 W 18x50 14 5.11 9/16 10/16 11 3
2 W 18x50 14 5.11 9/16 10/16 11 3
1 W 18x50 14 5.11 9/16 10/16 11 3
Flange Connection
Welded web plate and top flange plate to the beam and a welded backing bar in the bottom
flange.
Net Area of Theoret. Net Area of Plate Beam
Flange Plate
Fadm Plate Required Beam Flange Plate Req. Width Flange
Floor Force Thick.
(ksi) from forces Force Beam Used Thick.
(kip) (in)
(in2) (kip) Flange (in2) (in) (in)
6 6 22 0 68 3 5 8/16 10/16
5 22 22 1 92 4 6 9/16 12/16
4 43 22 2 92 4 6 9/16 12/16
3 61 22 3 92 4 6 9/16 12/16
2 79 22 4 92 4 6 9/16 12/16
1 87 22 4 92 4 6 9/16 12/16
Weld Length Length of Each

Fillet Weld Plate Length
Required/Used Side Weld
Size (in) (in)
(in) (in)
8/16 13 4.0 9
8/16 17 5.5 13
8/16 17 5.5 13
8/16 17 5.5 13
8/16 17 5.5 13
8/16 17 5.5 13
186
Column Shear Shear Stress Due

Check Column Shear Thickness of Extra
Stress in the Web to Wind Loads
Floor Stress Plates (in)
Fv (ksi) (ksi)
6 14 14 0.30 7 OK OK NR* NR*
5 14 14 0.49 19 OK CHECK NR* 3/16
4 14 14 0.53 26 OK CHECK NR* 3/16
3 14 14 0.76 36 OK CHECK NR* 3/16
2 14 14 1.69 36 OK CHECK NR* 3/16
1 14 14 2.50 40 OK CHECK NR* 3/16
*Not required

Total Stiffness Individual Stiffener Thickness of the
Required wc
Area Required Width Stiffeners in the
Floor (in) 2
(in ) (in) Bottom (in)
6 0.49 0.61 0.99 1.65 3 3 4/16 7/16
5 0.66 0.81 2.09 2.75 4 4 8/16 11/16
4 0.60 0.66 0.63 2.09 4 4 3/16 8/16
3 0.60 0.66 0.63 2.09 4 4 3/16 8/16
2 0.47 0.63 NR* 1.71 4 4 - 7/16
1 0.47 0.63 NR* 1.71 4 4 - 7/16
*Not required
Effective Net Total

Check Net
Stiffeners Stiffeners Area
Floor Stiffeners Area
Width Supplied (in2)
(mm) Int. Ext. Int. Ext.
6 2 0.99 1.65 OK OK
5 2 2.09 2.75 OK OK
4 2 0.75 2.09 OK OK
3 2 0.75 2.09 OK OK
2 2 - 1.71 - OK
1 2 - 1.71 - OK
187
G. Design Results of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs
Figure G-1: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF-2010.
Figure G-2: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF-1980s upper bound.
188
Figure G-3: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF-1980s lower bound.
Figure G-4: Final design of the six-storey steel MRF 1960s.
189
H. Pushover Curves of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs
Table H-1: Comparison of the Pushover Analysis of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 Steel MRF.
1980 1980
Drift at Yielding Δy
0.384 0.78 0.82 0.47
Yielding (Vb/W)y 8.86 17.32 7.38 5.36
Initial Stiffness
9748 9321 3788 6036
(kNm)
Drift at (Vb/W)max, Δmax
1.78 2.37 1.41 1.52
Maximum Base Shear
Coefficient (Vb/W)max 14.58 23.34 9.75 7.83
Ratio of Post-yielding
Stiffness to the Initial 0.18 0.17 0.44 0.21
Stiffness
Ultimate Drift Δu
3.41 8.87 2.93 3.94
Ductility μ 8.88 11.37 3.59 8.38
2400
2000
1600 2010
Vb (kN)
1980 (Upper Bound)

1200
1980 (Lower Bound)
800 1960
400
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Roof Drift
Figure H-1: Comparison of the pushover curves of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 Steel MRF
(Vancouver).
190
Pushover Curve of 6-Storey 2010NBCC
0.16 A B C D E F G
0.14
0.12
0.1
Vb/W
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Drift
Undeformed Shape Deformed Shape
25 25
20 20
15 15
y, m
y, m
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
x, m x, m
Figure H-2: Pushover curve, plastic hinges and deformed shape of the six-storey steel
MRF-2010 (Vancouver).
191
Pushover Curve of 6-Storey 1980NBCC (Upper Bound)
0.25
0.2
0.15
Vb/W
A B C D E F
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Drift
Plastic Hinges Formation Deformed Shape
20 20
y, m
y, m
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 0 10 20
x, m x, m
MRF-1980s upper bound (Vancouver).
192
A B C D E F
0.1
0.08
Vb/W
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Drift
Undeformed Shape Deformed Shape
20 20
y, m
y, m
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 0 10 20
x, m x, m
Figure H-4: Pushover curve, plastic hinges and deformed shape of the six-storey steel MRF
1980s lower bound (Vancouver).
193
0.1
A B C D E F
0.08
0.06
Vb/W
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Drift
Plastic Hinges Formation Deformed Shape
25 25
20 20
15 15
y, m
y, m
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 10 20 0 10 20
x, m x, m
MRF-1960s (Vancouver).
194
Table H- 2: Comparison of Updated Data from the Pushover Analysis and Plastic Hinges
Formation of the 1960s, 1980s and 2010 Steel MRF.
1980 1980
Drift at Yielding Δy
0.390 0.68 0.91 0.52
Yielding (Vb/W)y 9.100 15.68 8.12 5.88
Initial Stiffness
9856 9674 3712 5984
(kNm)
Drift at (Vb/W)max, Δmax
1.78 2.37 1.41 1.52
Maximum Base Shear
Coefficient (Vb/W)max 14.58 23.34 9.75 7.83
0.17 0.20 0.37 0.17
to the Initial Stiffness
Ultimate Drift Δu
3.41 4.50 1.68 3.94
Ductility μ 8.74 6.62 1.85 7.58
Table H- 3: Comparison of the Periods of 2010, 1980s and 1960s Steel MRFs in Vancouver.
Periods (sec)
1980 steel MRF 1980 steel MRF
2010 steel MRF 1960 steel MRF
(upper) (lower)
T1 1.60 1.53 2.46 2.14
T2 0.53 0.59 0.87 0.76
T3 0.30 0.32 0.49 0.41
T4 0.20 0.22 0.31 0.29
T5 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.19
T6 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.12
195
I. Selection of Ground Motion of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs
Table I-1: Spectral Acceleration for the Fundamental Period of the Steel MRFs for FE,
DBE, and MCE of NBCC 2010 (Vancouver).
Sa(T1) 1980 1980
2010 1960
(g) (Upper) (Lower)
FE 0.056 0.006 0.035 0.039
DBE 0.121 0.127 0.077 0.084
MCE 0.235 0.249 0.153 0.167
1
1980 (Lower Bound)

MCE
1980(Upper Bound)
0.9
0.8 DBE
0.7 FE
2010
0.6
1960
Sa (g)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T1 (sec)
Figure I-1: Design response spectrum for different hazard levels for NBCC 2010
(Vancouver).
Table I-2 Spectral Acceleration Bins (Vancouver)

Bin Number of
Range
Number Records
1 0.000 0.025 2
2 0.025 0.050 2
3 0.050 0.075 3
4 0.075 0.100 3
5 0.100 0.125 3
6 0.125 0.150 3
7 0.150 0.175 3
8 0.175 0.200 3
9 0.200 0.225 3
10 0.225 0.250 3
11 0.250 0.275 3
12 0.275 0.300 3
196
Table I-3: Selected Ground Motion Records (Vancouver).
Rec.
GM Earthquake PGA
Seq. Earthquake Name Year Station Name
No. Magnitude (g)
No.
1 3 Humbolt Bay 1937 Ferndale City Hall 5.8 0.042
Pasadena - CIT
4 13 Kern County 1952 7.36 0.050
Athenaeum
5 9 Borrego 1942 El Centro Array #9 6.5 0.054
6 22 El Alamo 1956 El Centro Array #9 6.8 0.046
7 3252 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-05 1999 TTN044 6.2 0.049
8 12 Kern County 1952 LA - Hollywood Stor FF 7.36 0.054
9 164 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Cerro Prieto 6.53 0.176
10 162 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Calexico Fire Station 6.53 0.233
11 15 Kern County 1952 Taft Lincoln School 7.36 0.173
12 3271 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-06 1999 CHY032 6.3 0.151
13 175 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #12 6.53 0.138
14 139 Tabas, Iran 1978 Dayhook 7.35 0.351
San Ramon - Eastman
16 214 Livermore-01 1980 5.8 0.107
Kodak
17 3465 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-06 1999 TCU061 6.3 0.075
19 289 Irpinia, Italy-01 1980 Calitri 6.9 0.152
20 564 Kalamata, Greece-01 1986 Kalamata (bsmt) 6.2 0.265
21 348 Coalinga-01 1983 Parkfield - Gold Hill 1W 6.36 0.089
22 313 Corinth, Greece 1981 Corinth 6.6 0.264
23 177 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #2 6.53 N.A.
24 168 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Cucapah 6.53 N.A.
25 334 Coalinga-01 1983 Parkfield - Fault Zone 1 6.36 0.143
26 96 Managua, Nicaragua-02 1972 Managua, ESSO 5.2 0.295
27 160 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Bonds Corner 6.53 0.686
28 169 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Delta 6.53 0.285
29 580 Taiwan SMART1(45) 1986 SMART1 O06 7.3 0.171
30 1209 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 CHY047 7.62 0.183
31 1187 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 CHY015 7.62 0.159
Northridge - 17645
32 1048 Northridge-01 1994 6.69 0.411
Saticoy St
33 1141 Dinar, Turkey 1995 Dinar 6.4 0.303
34 585 Baja California 1987 Cerro Prieto 5.5 1.270
197
Table I-4: Spectral Acceleration for the Fundamental Period of the 2010, 1980s, and 1960s
Steel MRF of the Selected Ground Motion Records (Vancouver).
Steel 1980 1980
2010 1960
MRF (Upper) (Lower)
GM
Sa(T1) Sa(T1) Sa(T1) Sa(T1)
No.
1 0.0122 0.0141 0.0025 0.0038
2 0.0201 0.0222 0.0084 0.0117
3 0.0308 0.0356 0.0062 0.0111
4 0.0487 0.0458 0.0227 0.0334
5 0.0529 0.0658 0.0160 0.0294
6 0.0645 0.0683 0.0180 0.0245
7 0.0727 0.0717 0.0405 0.0462
8 0.0752 0.0904 0.0565 0.0487
9 0.0836 0.0876 0.0395 0.0525
10 0.0909 0.1008 0.0476 0.0531
11 0.1042 0.1105 0.0400 0.0545
12 0.1152 0.1015 0.0679 0.0759
13 0.1188 0.1303 0.0960 0.1276
14 0.1272 0.1348 0.0442 0.0651
15 0.1435 0.1503 0.0902 0.0795
16 0.1450 0.1282 0.0844 0.1046
17 0.1501 0.1707 0.0330 0.0495
18 0.1530 0.1751 0.1023 0.0918
19 0.1710 0.1747 0.0671 0.0995
20 0.1768 0.1879 0.1039 0.1271
21 0.1890 0.2263 0.0557 0.0702
22 0.1903 0.1989 0.0950 0.0892
23 0.2038 0.1794 0.1601 0.1992
24 0.2087 0.2307 0.1177 0.1322
25 0.2212 0.2313 0.1122 0.1293
26 0.2331 0.2271 0.1072 0.1436
27 0.2345 0.2177 0.1652 0.2090
28 0.2348 0.2200 0.1347 0.1590
29 0.2561 0.2409 0.1097 0.1256
30 0.2565 0.2312 0.1624 0.1958
31 0.2684 0.2592 0.1542 0.2170
32 0.2959 0.3448 0.1721 0.1621
33 0.3344 0.3893 0.2278 0.3107
34 0.3446 0.3596 0.1367 0.2045
198
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
Sa (g)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
T1 (sec)
2010 1980 (Upper) 1980 (Lower) 1960 MCE DBE FE
Figure I-2: Spectral acceleration distribution of the selected ground motion records.
199
J. Fragility Analysis of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs
Table J-1: Parameters for Fitting Demand Curves (Vancouver).
Steel MRF a b βD
2010 0.0396 0.7886 0.1466
1980 (Upper) 0.0417 0.8109 0.8495
1980 (Lower) 0.2725 1.1071 0.906
1960 0.0555 0.6670 0.1941
Figure J-1: Spectral acceleration vs maximum inter-storey drift for the 2010 steel MRF
(Vancouver).
200
Figure J-2: Spectral acceleration vs maximum inter-storey drift for the 1980s steel MRF
upper bound (Vancouver).
lower bound (Vancouver).
201
(Vancouver).
Figure J-5: Spectral acceleration vs maximum nodal acceleration for the 2010 steel MRF
(Vancouver).
202
Figure J-6: Spectral acceleration vs maximum nodal acceleration for the 1980s steel MRF
203
(Vancouver).
Figure J-9: Fragility curves of the 2010 steel MRF – (Vancouver).
204
Figure J-10: Fragility curves of the 1980 steel MRF upper bound (Vancouver).
Figure J-11: Fragility curves of the 1980s steel MRF lower bound (Vancouver).
205
Figure J-12: Fragility curves of the 1960 steel MRF (Vancouver).
Table J- 1: Median and Dispersion Values for the Steel MRFs.
Immediate Occupancy Life Safety Collapse Prevention

City Steel MRF
Med Disp Med Disp Med Disp
2010 0.098 0.295 0.432 0.393 0.966 0.499
1980 Upper 0.057 0.394 0.282 0.484 0.674 0.588
Montreal
1980 Lower 0.024 0.733 0.100 0.774 0.218 0.829
1960 0.025 0.426 0.132 0.516 0.326 0.620
2010 0.111 0.314 0.558 0.423 1.345 0.540
1980 Upper 0.111 0.534 0.532 0.684 1.251 0.684
Vancouver
1980 Lower 0.037 0.838 0.116 0.862 0.216 0.894
1960 0.045 0.418 0.302 0.536 0.855 0.667
206
K. Time History Analysis of Vancouver’s Steel MRFs
Time vs Roof Displacement GM28 (2010-SMRF) Time vs Roof Roof Displacement GM62 (2010-SMRF)
150 500
100
Roof Displacement(mm)
50
0
0
-50
-100
-150 -155.992
-200 -500 -498.882

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec) Time(sec)
Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM28 (2010-SMRF) Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM62 (2010-SMRF)
0.4 0.38159 2
1.6993
Roof Relative Acceleration(g)

1.5
0.2
1
0.5
0
0
-0.5
-0.2
-1
-0.4 -1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec) Time(sec)
Figure K-1: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations for the 2010 steel MRF
(Vancouver).
Time vs Roof Roof Displacement GM31 (1980-SMRF Upper) Time vs Roof Displacement GM59 (1980-SMRF Upper)
200 1000
187.564
866.853
150 800
100 600
50 400
0 200
-50 0
-100 -200
-150 -400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(sec) Time(sec)
Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM31 (1980-SMRF Upper) Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM59 (1980-SMRF Upper)
0.3 5
0.2
0.1
0
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4 -0.39042 -5 -4.9183

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(sec) Time(sec)
Figure K-2: Dynamic analysis for different ground excitations for the 1980s steel MRF
207
Time vs Roof Displacement GM31 (1980-SMRF Lower) Time vs Roof Displacement GM74 (1980-SMRF Lower)
400 1000
360.795
818.668
Roof Displacement(mm) 300
500
200
100
0
0
-100
-500
-200
-300 -1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(sec) Time(sec)
Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM31 (1980-SMRF Lower) Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM74 (1980-SMRF Lower)
0.3 6

0.2 4
0.1 2
0 0
-0.1 -2
-0.2 -4
-0.27466
-0.3 -6
-6.9143
-0.4 -8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(sec) Time(sec)
Time vs Roof Displacement GM32 (1960-SMRF) Time vs Roof Displacement GM65 (1960-SMRF)
300 400
233.466
200
200
0
100
-200
0
-400
-100
-600
-721.648
-200 -800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec) Time(sec)
Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM32 (1960-SMRF) Time vs Roof Acceleration, GM65 (1960-SMRF)
0.6 0.58049 1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0
-0.5
-0.2
-0.4 -1 -0.98747
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec) Time(sec)
(Vancouver).
208
Table K- 1: Details of Ground Motion Records Used in the Time History Analyses of
Vancouver.
GM Record Earthquake Station Station Scale
Year Magnitude GM
No. Seq. No. Name Seq. No. ID No. Factor
Imperial
28 169 1979 241 6605 6.53 1 28
Valley-06
62 1048 Northridge-01 1994 512 90003 6.69 4 32
Chi-Chi,
31 1187 1999 637 99999 7.62 1 31
Taiwan
Baja
59 585 1987 240 6604 5.5 3.5 34
California
Baja
74 585 1987 240 6604 5.5 5 34
California
32 1048 Northridge-01 1994 512 90003 6.69 1 32
Chi-Chi,
65 1209 1999 659 99999 7.62 4.5 30
Taiwan
209

Diaz Gomez Lucia V 201411 MAS Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diaz Gomez Lucia V 201411 MAS Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Fragility Analysis of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames

(MRF) Designed in Canada in the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010

LUCÍA VALENTINA DÍAZ GÓMEZ

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

© Copyright by LUCÍA VALENTINA DÍAZ GÓMEZ 2014

Lucía Valentina Díaz Gómez

Master of Applied Science

Department of Civil Engineering

stiffness degradation through the appropriate representation of the beam-column connection

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x

Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Regional Seismic Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 1

1.2. Seismic Fragility Functions for Regional Seismic Impact Assessment.............................. 3

1.2.1. Fragility Analysis Procedure in GEM ..................................................................... 3

1.2.2. Fragility Curves in HAZUS .................................................................................... 5

1.2.3. Fragility Analysis in ATC-13 ................................................................................. 7

1.3. Seismic Performance of Steel MRFs in Canada ................................................................. 8

1.4. Problem Definition............................................................................................................ 10

1.5. Thesis Scope and Objectives ............................................................................................ 11

1.6. Thesis Layout .................................................................................................................... 12

2.1. Evolution of Design Seismic Loads .................................................................................. 13

2.2. Comparison of the Different Provisions of the NBCC ..................................................... 24

2.3. Evolution of CSA.S16 Clause 27...................................................................................... 27

Chapter 3 Design of the Reference Structure ............................................................................... 30

3.1. Representative Steel Moment Resisting Frame ................................................................ 30

3.2. Design based on NBCC 2010 and CSA.S16-2009 ........................................................... 32

3.2.1. Gravity Loads and Seismic Weight ...................................................................... 32

3.2.3. Design Process ...................................................................................................... 35

3.3.1. Gravity Loads........................................................................................................ 42

3.3.3. Design Process ...................................................................................................... 43

3.4. Design Process in the 1960s ............................................................................................. 49

3.4.1. Gravity Loads........................................................................................................ 49

3.4.3. Design Process ...................................................................................................... 50

Chapter 4 Numerical Model in OpenSees .................................................................................... 58

4.1. Overview of the Inelastic Model....................................................................................... 58

4.2. Numerical Model for Main Elements ............................................................................... 62

4.2.1. Fibre Section Element ........................................................................................... 63

4.2.2. Lumped Spring...................................................................................................... 64

4.3. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 2010 ....................................................... 67

4.3.1. Experimental Results Available in Literature ....................................................... 67

4.3.2. Validation of Numerical Model Against the Experimental Results ..................... 68

4.4. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 1980s ..................................................... 71

4.4.1. Experimental Results Available in Literature ....................................................... 71

4.4.2. Validation of Numerical Model Against the Experimental Results ..................... 73

4.5. Behaviour of Connections of Steel MRF in the 1960s ..................................................... 75

4.5.1. Experimental Results Available in Literature ....................................................... 75

4.5.2. Validation of Numerical Model Against the Experimental Results ..................... 75

4.6. Eigenvalue and Pushover Analysis ................................................................................... 79

4.6.1. Eigenvalue Analysis.............................................................................................. 79

5.1. Selection of Ground Motions ............................................................................................ 94

5.2. Seismic Fragility Analysis Procedure ............................................................................... 99

5.3. Time History Analysis Results and Comparison ............................................................ 111

Chapter 6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 117

6.1. Summary of Thesis ......................................................................................................... 117

6.2. Recommendations for Future Work................................................................................ 121

References or Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 123

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 129

A. Preliminary Design of 2010 Steel MRF.......................................................................... 129

B. Design Process of 2010 Steel MRF ................................................................................ 136

C. Preliminary Design of the 1980s Steel MRF .................................................................. 152

D. Design Process of the 1980s Steel MRF ......................................................................... 160