DISTRIBUTED KNEE-BRACED SYSTEM

(DKB) AS A COMPLETE OR
SUPPLEMENTAL RETROFIT FOR SOFT-
STORY WOOD-FRAME BUILDINGS
M. Gershfeld1 , C. Chadwell,2 J.van de Lindt3, W. Pang4, E. Ziaei5, M.
Amini6, S. Gordon7

ABSTRACT

The NEES-Soft, NSF sponsored project, evaluated the performance of various retrofit schemes
for “soft-story” light wood-frame buildings subjected to seismic loading as one of its objectives.
The DKB (Distributed Knee-Braced) system retrofit was one of the retrofits evaluated. This
system consists of an assembly of light wood-frame knee-braced frames placed so as to reinforce
an existing deficient line of resistance. The individual knee-braced frames are constructed by
reinforcing existing wall studs of the existing soft-story building with additional stud(s) and
connecting them to the existing floor joists with a new diagonal 2x wood member. The
reinforcement of the members and connections along the knee-braced frame load path are
designed to exceed the capacity of the knee-brace connection to the stud assembly and floor joist,
thus creating a ductile load path fuse at these connections. The DKB system was numerically
evaluated using 2D non-linear dynamic analyses. The numerical results were validated using,
reversed-cyclic tests of two full scale DKB configurations and a follow up shake table test of one
of the configurations. The four-frame 10ft DKB system was able to develop maximum lateral
load capacity of approximately 2,400 lbs (1088 kg) at 4.5% drift and at 7.5% drift was still able
to support close to 1,000 lb (454 kg). The findings of this research suggest that the DKB system,
for certain structural archetypes, can be an effective alternative to other more traditional “soft-
story” timber structure retrofits.

1
Professional Practice Professor, Dept. Civil Eng., California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 91768
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
3
George T. Able Professor of Infrastructure, Dept. Civil Eng., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
4
Assistant Professor, Glenn Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
5
PhD Student, Glenn Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
6
PhD Student, Dept. Civil Eng., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
7
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Eng., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Gershfeld M, Chadwell C, van de Lindt J, Pang W, Amini M, Gordon S. Distributed knee-braced system (DKB) as a
complete or supplemental retrofit for soft-story wood-frame buildings. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference
in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

DOI: 10.4231/D3QB9V611
Distributed Knee-Braced (DKB) System as a Complete or Supplemental
Retrofit of Soft-story Wood-frame Buildings

M. Gershfeld1, C. Chadwell2, J. van de Lindt3, W. Pang4, E. Ziaei5, M. Amini6, S. Gordon7

ABSTRACT

The NEES-Soft, NSF sponsored project, evaluated the performance of various retrofit schemes for “soft-story” light
wood-frame buildings subjected to seismic loading as one of its objectives. The DKB (Distributed Knee-Braced)
system retrofit was one of the retrofits evaluated. This system consists of an assembly of light wood-frame knee-
braced frames placed so as to reinforce an existing deficient line of resistance. The individual knee-braced frames
are constructed by reinforcing existing wall studs of the existing soft-story building with additional stud(s) and
connecting them to the existing floor joists with a new diagonal 2x wood members. The reinforcement of the
members and connections along the knee-braced frame load path are designed to exceed the capacity of the knee-
brace connection to the stud assembly and floor joist, thus creating a ductile load path fuse at these connections.
The DKB system was numerically evaluated using 2D non-linear dynamic analyses. The numerical results were
validated using, reversed-cyclic tests of two full scale DKB configurations and a follow up shake table test of one of
the configurations. The four-frame 10ft DKB system was able to develop maximum lateral load capacity of
approximately 2,400 lbs (1088 kg) at 4.5% drift and at 7.5% drift was still able to support close to 1,000 lb (454 kg).
The findings of this research suggest that the DKB system, for certain structural archetypes, can be an effective
alternative to other more traditional “soft-story” timber structure retrofits.

Introduction

Following extensive work performed by the city of San Francisco CAPSS (Community Action
Plan for Seismic Safety), completion of ATC 71.1 project and the resulting publication by the
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-807 (Guidelines for Seismic Retrofit
of Weak-Story Wood-framed Buildings), an ordinance mandating seismic retrofit for soft-story
wood frame buildings with compliance schedule was signed in to law by the Mayor of San
Francisco, CA in 2013 [1]. The public policy concerns focus on the cost of the retrofit to
property owners and prevention of occupant’s displacement during construction. The technical
concerns focus on addressing inherent complexities of designing and retrofitting buildings with
(1) archaic wall, floor and roof assemblies, (2) built using construction practices not considered
acceptable by today’s codified standards and (3) exhibiting deficiencies in lateral load path

1
Professional Practice Professor, Dept. Civil Eng., California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 91768
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
3
George T. Able Professor of Infrastructure, Dept. Civil Eng., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
4
Assistant Professor, Glenn Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
5
PhD Student, Glenn Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
6
PhD Student, Dept. Civil Eng., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
7
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Eng., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Gershfeld M, Chadwell C, van de Lindt J, Pang W, Amini M, Gordon S. Distributed knee-braced system (DKB) as a
complete or supplemental retrofit for soft-story wood-frame buildings. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference
in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
capacity and continuity. Technical solutions to address these concerns are not trivial, which was
the impetus for the “NEES-Soft” Project. The “NEES-Soft” Project, formally named “Seismic
Risk Reduction for Soft-Story Wood-frame Buildings”, is a five-university, multi-industry, NSF-
funded project that has the objectives of (1) enabling performance-based seismic retrofit (PBSR)
for at-risk soft-story woodframe buildings, and (2) experimentally validating the FEMA P-807
retrofit procedure. As part of the validation effort, a number of retrofit options are being
investigated through testing of sub-assemblages, slow pseudo-dynamic hybrid testing (University
of Buffalo), and full-scale shake table testing (UC San Diego) [2]

The Distributed Knee-Brace (DKB) system retrofit was tested (1) using reversed-cyclic testing at
the California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, (2) as part of a larger hybrid
testing program at the NEES@Buffalo, and (3) shake table testing at Colorado State University,
Fort Collins. This appears to be the first time the light wood-frame knee-brace frame subjected to
lateral loads is being tested and its behavior is being quantified This paper discusses the
proposed DKB system as a possible full or supplemental retrofit option; the physical testing
performed and the supporting numerical models and associated simulations (quasi-static and
dynamic) conducted; and the test results, observations and conclusions.

Retrofit Strategies

Retrofit of a soft-story type structure is a delicate balance between public policy, design, and
construction criteria. Since a majority of the soft-story buildings use ground level for parking,
from a public policy perspective, limiting retrofit schemes to ground level only is friendly to
occupants and property owners, ensures public support, and speeds up implementation.
However, imposing these constraints creates a physical limit to the level of performance that can
be achieved. Since the dynamic behavior of the ground level and upper levels are fundamentally
linked, leaving upper levels “as-is” establishes an upper bound on the overall building
performance. Thus, the retrofit strategy must be a balance of strengthening and stiffening
appropriate portions of the ground floor lateral-load resisting system. The location of the vertical
elements of a selected retrofit system and their load-deformation characteristics require careful
evaluation and placement. Retrofit strategies that utilize concentrated line(s) of resistance (Figure
1a), such as moment frames, braced frames shear walls and others. in most cases, result in an
increase in diaphragm and foundation demands triggering diaphragm and foundation
strengthening.

The proposed DKB System is a series of light wood-frame, knee-braced frames arranged in two-
frame configurations and distributed across a portion of the depth of the ground floor. This
retrofit strategy, with distributed lines of resistance, provides additional lateral capacity parallel
to the existing soft line of resistance using an array of light frames (Figure 1b). Having multiple,
distributed lines of resistance has several benefits. The existing wall studs, previously not
contributing to the lateral load resisting capacity of the building, are now being utilized. This
results in a decreased diaphragm span and consequently diaphragm and foundation demands. In
addition, the capacity of a single knee-braced frame is predictable with clearly defined load
deformation characteristics allowing the designer easy adjustment of the system capacity by
varying the type, number and location of frames. These attributes of the DKB system are likely
to result in a reduction in retrofit design and construction time and cost.
Figure 1. Retrofit strategies schematic diagrams: (a) concentrated line of resistance – Rigid
frame, (b) distributed lines of resistance - DKB System.

Reversed-Cyclic Testing at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Un-retrofitted Test Specimen

The un-retrofitted test specimen was designed to replicate a typical first floor of a soft-story
timber structure circa 1930’s. The framing members consisted of No. 2 Douglas Fir-Larch (DF-
L) sawn wood members to best reflect the quality of wood used in older buildings. The floor
was sheathed with 19/32in (15mm), 32/16 APA rated plywood sheathing over 2x10, No. 2, DF-L
@16in (40.6cm) on center floor joists. Three 2x4 stud walls (the two exterior walls are bearing)
were constructed perpendicular to the direction of the loading. The walls are spaced at 10ft
(3.05m) intervals. The overall dimensions of the test specimen was 4ft (1.22m) wide, 20ft (6.1m)
long, and 8ft-10⅜in (2.71m) tall (Figure 2a). Concrete blocks were placed on the 2nd floor to
simulate dead loads from floors and walls of the prototype 3-story building. The total load
above the wall ranged from 1550lbs (703kg) to 1650lbs (748kg) and was equivalent to
approximately 400 lbs/ft (595kg/m) along each exterior wall lines (Figure 2b). The test specimen
was braced laterally using strong floor steel frame with rollers placed on each side of the test
structure to maintain its lateral stability in the direction perpendicular to actuator loading.

Figure 2. Test structure: (a) un-retrofitted framing, (b) location of weights simulating dead load
from floors above and possible knee-brace locations.

Retrofit of the Test Specimen

The retrofit of a typical knee-braced frame for the DKB system consisted of: (1) adding a new
wall stud to the existing; (2) reinforcing the connection between the stud and bottom plate with a
Simpson Strong-Tie© A35 connector; (3) reinforcing the stud to joist connection with a Simpson
Strong-Tie© H2A; and (4) adding a knee-brace between the reinforced stud assembly and joist
fastened with 8d framing nails. The knee-brace connection location to the wall stud was selected
to maximize the two-stud combined load capacity. The knee-brace connection location to the
joist was selected to maximize the frame capacity while not exceeding the capacity of the stud
wall considering combined bending and axial loading. The knee-brace placement also had to
accommodate architectural clearance requirements (Figure 3a).

Figure 3. Knee-brace: (a) knee-brace placement geometry, (b) simplified force diagram.

Based on the knee-brace geometry and the selected load fuse locations (knee-brace to joist and
knee-brace to stud connections), the simplified analysis indicate that the maximum force a frame
can resist is 39% of the fuse capacity (Figure 3b). The 2012 NDS LRFD [3] capacity of the
single shear connection (the load fuse), made with 6-8d (0.131in(3.3mm )x 3.25in(82mm))
framing nails at both ends of the knee-brace was calculated to be 1257lbs (569kg). This results
in an estimated single frame capacity of approximately 490lbs (222kg).

Knee-Braced Frame Design

The reinforcement design of the wall stud, the stud to foundation connection, and joist to stud
connection was based on horizontal force at the diaphragm of 1.30 Fu where, Fu is the diaphragm
level force based on the LRFD connection capacity (the load fuse). Table 1 summarizes the
reinforcing necessary to capacity protect the elements of the knee-braced frame and Figure 4
shows the connection details.

Table 1. Summary of the retrofit requirement based on retrofit design of single frame
Items Existing New Comments
Members
Knee-brace 2x4 Add block between two frames
Stud wall 2x4 2x4 (add) Extra stud and blocking added
Joist 2x10 No reinforcement required
Connections
Knee-brace to stud 6-8d 3 framing nails on each side
Knee-brace to joist 6-8d 6 framing nails on one side only
Hardware
Stud to joist 1-Simpson H2A Install per recommendations
Stud to bottom plate 1-Simpson A35 Install per recommendations
Figure 4. DKB connections: (a) knee-brace to stud, (b) knee brace to floor joist, (c) stud to joist
with the H2A and (d) stud to bottom plate with A35.

Test Specimen Configurations

The test structure was retrofitted with the DKB frame system using two different configurations:
20ft and 10ft knee-braced frames (Figure 5a,b) with each configuration consisting of four knee-
braced frames.

Figure 5. DKB Retrofit (a) 20ft knee-braced frame configuration, (b) 10ft knee-braced frame
configuration.

Reversed-Cyclic Test Protocol, Results and Observations

The CUREE-Caltech loading protocol for deformation controlled quasi-static cyclic testing was
selected for the DKB frame system testing (Figure 6a). The results include hysteresis curves for
both the 10ft and 20ft DKB four-frame systems (Figures 6b,c).

Figure 6. (a) CUREE-Caltech Standard Protocol.(b) Hysteresis curve for 10ft DKB four-frame
system, (c) Hysteresis curve for 20ft DKB four-frame system.

A summary of the test data from the 10ft and 20ft frame is provided in Table 2. The data shows
little difference in the overall behavior between the two frame configurations.
Table 2. Load Deformation Curves Summary
10ft (4 frames) 20ft (4 frames)
Label
(+) (-) (+) (-)
Fmax (lbs/kg) 2410/1091 2340/1061 2240/1016 2240/1016
∆ at Fmax (in/mm) 4.59/117 4.49/114 5.54/141 5.18/132
Drift at Fmax (%) 4.51 4.41 5.44 5.09
∆max (in/mm) 7.45/189 7.29/185 7.82/199 8.00/203
Drift at ∆max (%) 7.30 7.20 7.68 7.86
F at ∆max (lbs/kg) 980/445 990/449 950/431 930/422

Pictures of the stud to wall, knee-brace, and stud to joist connections were taken before and after
testing (Figure 7). Overall, there was no damage or significant displacement noted at the base
connection nor at the stud to joist connection. All damage was concentrated at the knee-brace to
joist and knee-brace to stud connections.

Figure 7. (a) Representative stud to bottom plate connection reinforced with A35, (b) Stud to
joist connection reinforced with H2A before and (c) after testing. (d) Representative
knee-brace to stud connection with framing nails before and (e) after testing.

In one location, the H2 connectors exhibited shear related deformations but in all cases, no
tension or compression related distress was noticed. At every knee-brace connection, the nails
reached their full capacity as suggested by the combination of nail popping, nail fracture, and/or
complete withdrawal. Representative images of the knee-brace to joist connection from before
and after testing are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. (a) Typical Knee-brace to Joist connection with 6-8d x 3.25” (83mm) framing gun nails
and block, (b) before and after testing
 Analytical Model

Using the data collected from the quasi-static cyclic testing at Cal Poly, a mechanistic model was
created for use in the NEES@Buffalo hybrid testing. For modeling purpose, only one of the
frames in each four-frame assemblies was considered (Figure 9). This frame was modeled using
an in-house Matlab program developed to model the NEES-Soft project full-scale four-story
shake table test building and the three-story hybrid test building [4]. The configuration of the 2D
knee-braced frame model is shown in Figure 9(a).
0.6

0.4

0.2

Diaphragm Force, Kips

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 Pushover (CU model)

Test data (test3)

-0.8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Diaphragm Displacement, in

(a) (b)

Figure 9. (a) 2D Knee-brace model for 20-ft frame, (b) test hysteresis loop versus model
pushover curve.

The floor joist to wall stud connection (the H2A) is modeled using a system of two parallel
springs (shown as L5 and L4-B2-L3). The L5 spring or link element is a compression-only
element which is used to consider the bearing compression resistance of the top plates. The L4
and L3 are shear-slip link elements which are used primarily to model the shear-slip behaviors
due to uplift in the strap to floor joist and strap to stud connections. These two link elements are
connected to the double top plates (B2) in series. The hysteresis of the shear link elements (L3
and L4) are calibrated based on the shear-slip hysteresis behavior of six 8d common nails.

Two link elements (L1) are utilized to model the stud to bottom plate connections at the base of
the frame. The current model assumes pin behavior at the base. The two knee-braces are
modeled using frame elements (B4). The knee-brace to stud and knee-brace to joist connections
(L2) are modeled using three pairs of orthogonal Modified Stewart Hysteretic (MSTEW) spring
elements, also known as the CUREE model [5]. The hysteresis loops of the MSTEW springs are
obtained from cyclic nail tests of 8d common nails [6]. The L3 and L4 connection parameters are
also based on the 8d common nail parameters.

A pushover analysis was performed using the mechanistic 2D model. The test hysteresis and
model pushover curve are depicted in Figure 9(b). As shown, the initial stiffness of the model is
slightly higher than that of the actual test. However, the displacement at maximum force and the
peak force of the model match the test results reasonably well. The model predicted that failure
occurred at the knee-brace to joist connection. This was consistent with test observations.
 Shake Table Test Results and Observations

The shake table test was performed at Colorado State University shake table. The four-frame
DKB specimen for the shake table test was identical to the reversed-cyclic test. (Figure 10a). A
large steel plate was bolted to the diaphragm to facilitate installation of seismic mass and a
number of steel beams were welded to the plate to provide a total weight of 3200 lbs (1447 kg).

Figure 10. (a) Undamaged four-frame DKB system test setup prior to testing, (b) Ground motion
record RINALDI85 MCE (c) Image of the knee-brace to joist nailed connection failure

Instrumentation consisted of two string potentiometers attached to the floor diaphragm, and two
linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) attached to each wall. The LVDT’s were used to
measure the relative movement between the sill plate and the base as well as the uplift of the
stud. In addition, accelerometers were attached to the shake table and the roof diaphragm. The
specimen was subjected to a number of design based earthquake (DBE) and maximum
considerable earthquake (MCE) ground motions that were applied as shown in table 3

Table 3. Ground motions testing sequence

Test EQ Name PGA Component
1 Loma Prieta 0.56 G03000 DBE
2 Loma Prieta 0.56 G03090 DBE
3 Loma Prieta 0.56 G03090 MCE
4 Cape 0.55 RIO360 MCE
5 Superstition 0.36 70% B-ICC090 MCE
6 Northridge 0.75 85%RINALDI85 MCE

Reduction in seismic intensity of the Superstition and Northridge (Figure 10b) earthquakes was
necessary because of the total shake table stroke length of 20 in (508 mm). The DKB
configuration performed well under ground motion records 1-5 and no significant damage was
observed during the damage inspection; however, the final test resulted in the collapse of the
specimen due to failure of the knee-brace to joist connection (Figure 10c) as predicted by
numerical model. Figure 11 shows inter-story displacement under Loma Prieta MCE ground
motion. There was no residual deformation and the peak displacement was 3.29 in (84 mm).
(2.9% story drift). Figure 12 shows inter-story displacement under 85% Rinaldi earthquake. The
peak displacement was 13in (330 mm). (11.8% story drift) which resulted in an unstable
structure ready to collapse.
 4 15

3
Displacement (in.)

Displacement (in.)
10
2

1
5
0

-1 0

-2

-3 -5
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time(sec) time(sec)

Figure 11. Inter-story displacement time Figure 12. Inter-story displacement time
histories for Test 3 (100% Loma-Prieta histories for Test 6 (85% Rinaldi)
MCE)

Conclusions

The tested and analytical load-deformation characteristics of the DKB system indicate that it is a
viable solution for retrofitting soft-story buildings. The simplified analysis, physical test data,
and numerical modeling all provide a good prediction of both system behavior and capacity. The
system is proven capable of accommodating drifts of approximately 4.5% at peak capacity of
560 lbs (254 kg) per frame and upwards of 7.5% drift while still supporting 240 lbs (109 kg)
(approximately 40% of the maximum frame capacity). The system successfully withstood
multiple ground motions with no residual deformation at 3.29 in (84 mm) displacement (2.9%
drift) and failed at 85% Rinaldi with 13in (330 mm) displacement (11.8% drift) From a design
perspective, because of the load fuse approach, the peak strength of this system can be closely
predicted by simple calculations. As such, the DKB system retrofit allows fairly simple
adjustment to the total capacity of the lateral load resisting system by varying (1) the capacity of
an individual frame, (2) the total number of frames and (3) their location.

Finally, the hysteresis curves developed from test data (and modeling) indicate that the
performance of 10ft and 20ft frame DKB system are identical within statistical variance. This is
consistent with the design intent of forcing the failure mechanism into the knee-brace
connections (the load fuse) and capacity protecting the other elements in the frame system.

The DKB system successfully addresses the constraints associated with retrofit of soft-story
buildings (diaphragm reinforcement, addition of new foundation and providing favorable load-
deformation characteristics) and has the potential of being a cost effective solution.

Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
CMMI-1314957 (NEES Research) and NEES Operations. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the investigators and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors kindly
acknowledge David Mar at Tipping Mar, Gary Mochizuki at Structural Solutions, Steve Pryor at
Simpson Strong-Tie. Cal Poly Pomona and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo undergraduate students
participating in construction and testing of the specimens.
 References

1. City of San Francisco Ordinance 66-13. “Ordinance Amending the Building Code to establish a
Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program for wood-frame buildings…” www.sfgsa.org
2. van de Lindt, John,., et.al. (2012) “A Comprehensive Introduction to the NEES-Soft Project: Seismic
Risk Reduction for Soft-Story Woodframe Buildings” Joint Conference Proceedings, 9th
International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering/ 4th Asia Conference on Earthquake
Engineering March 6-8, 2012, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
3. National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction with Commentary, 2012 Edition,
American Wood Council, ANSI/AWC NDS-2012
4. Pang, W., Ziaei, E., and Filiatrault, A., (2012) “A 3D model for collapse analysis of Soft-story Light-
frame wood building,” World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, July 16-
19.
5. Folz, B., Filiatrault, A., (2001) “Cyclic analysis of wood shear walls,” J. struct. Eng., 127(4), 433-
441.
6. Hassanzadeh Shirazi, SM., (2012) “Propagation of uncertainty in light-frame wood buildings,”
Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University, SC, USA.