International Journal of Steel Structures

September 2010, Vol 10, No 3, 305-316

www.ijoss.org

Performance Evaluation of Cold-Formed Steel Braced Frames

Designed under Current U.S. Seismic Design Code
Moon-Sung Lee1,*G and Douglas A. Foutch2
1
Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, ERICA Campus,
1271 Sa-3-dong, Sangrok-gu, Ansan, Kyungki-do, 426-791, Korea
2
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
3129b NCEL, 205 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the seismic performance of cold-formed steel braced frames (CFSBF) by adopting
a new evaluation procedure developed from the SAC Joint Venture. The validity of R factors for CFSBF in current U.S. design
codes was examined. To estimate the global collapse drift capacity of CFSBF buildings the modified IDA procedure was used.
Also, the values of some parameters were newly decided for CFSBF buildings. The two-, four-, and six-story prototype CFSBF
buildings for the Seattle site were chosen for this study. The modeling of the braces and columns of CFSBF buildings was based
on the results of static cyclic test and shaketable test conducted from CERL. Also, the gypsum walls’ contribution to resisting
lateral loads was considered for analysis. According to the evaluation results, the four- and six-story CFSBF buildings designed
under current design codes were not able to satisfy the performance objective, so a new configuration scheme for CFSBF
buildings exhibiting better seismic performance was proposed.

Keywords: cold-formed steel, performance evaluation, response modification factor

1. Introduction cyclic tests of cold-formed steel wall panels with braces.

Cold-formed steel (CFS) is a very popular building
material in the U.S. There is more cold-formed steel used
for building construction than hot rolled steel. CFS is
used to build steel stud frames. This kind of structure is
frequently used to serve as nonstructural partition walls.
However, recently by installing diagonal straps, CFS
frames are being used as the main structural system in
buildings such as military barracks and low-rise hotels.
The cold-formed steel braced frame (CFSBF) consists of
conventional steel stud frame and straps that are made of
thin sheet metal that carry only tensile forces. The U.S.
military tried to adopt this structural system for barracks
in moderate to high seismic area to save on construction
costs. However, in spite of the popularity of CFS structures,
information on the seismic behavior of CFSBF was very
limited. Adham et al. (1990) and Fulop and Dubina
(2002) conducted experimental research on the static
Note.-Discussion open until February 1, 2011. This manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on June
29, 2010; approved on September 27, 2010.
*Corresponding author
Tel: +82-31-400-5138; Fax: +82-31-418-8681
E-mail: moonlee@hanyang.ac.kr
In an effort to develop the design guideline of CFSBF
system and to understand the seismic behavior of CFSBF
system, the full-scale static cyclic test and the full-scale
shaketable test (Kim et al., 2006) were conducted at the
Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL, U.S.
Army). Finally, in this research, seismic performance of
the CFSBF system designed under current U.S. seismic
design provisions (FEMA 450, 2003) was evaluated.
The objective of modern seismic design is to achieve
ductile and inelastic behavior of structural systems when
a major earthquake occurs, since designing for elastic
behavior of structural systems is not economical. To
accomplish inelastic behavior of a structural system,
current U.S. design code simply adopted the response
modification factors (R factors). The R factors represent
ductility, energy absorbing capacity, and other aspects of
each structural system. A lateral resisting frame system is
designed according to the base shear calculated by linear
elastic response spectra divided by R factors. While the R
factors are very influential to the design of structures,
these values were decided based on experience and
observation of seismic behavior of each structural system
rather than a rational estimating method. Therefore, a
rational estimating method of the R factor was required.
After the Northridge earthquake, researchers and
306 Moon-Sung LeeGand Douglas A. Foutch / International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(3), 305-316, 2010
engineers found that many steel moment frame buildings
performed poorly and realized that a new reliability-based
performance evaluation and design method was necessary.
From the SAC Phase 2 project, a rigorous performance
evaluation procedure for steel moment frame buildings
was developed and results were summarized in FEMA
355F. The theoretical basis and implementation of this
procedure can be found in Luco and Cornell (1998),
Jalayer and Cornell (1998), Hamburger et al. (2000),
Cornell et al. (2002), Lee and Foutch (2002), and Yun et
al. (2002). The FEMA 355F procedure allows the designer
to evaluate the confidence level of a building that will
satisfy the design objective. The target performance for
new buildings designed under current codes is to achieve
a 90% confidence level in satisfying the Collapse Prevention
(CP) performance level for a hazard level of 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (2/50). By adopting
the FEMA 355F procedure, validity of the R factor can be
examined.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the seismic
performance and the R factor of CFSBF buildings by
applying the FEMA 355F procedure. Another goal is the
suggestion of a new configuration scheme that enhances
the seismic performance of CFSBF buildings. Since FEMA
355F was developed for steel moment frame buildings,
the modified IDA procedure (Ding and Foutch, 2004)
was used to determine the global collapse drift capacity
and some parameters were exclusively decided for
CFSBF buildings.
2. Seismic Performance Evaluation Based on
FEMA 355F
2.1. Evaluation Process of the R factor Based on
FEMA 355F
Based on the FEMA 355F procedure, seismic performance
of CFSBF buildings were evaluated, and the validity of R
factor was examined using the following steps:
Step 1. Define typical floor plans and design structures
under current design provisions.
Step 2. Define appropriate ground motions for the
system being studied.
Step 3. Conduct a comprehensive literature review of
the component tests for selected structural systems and
develop analytical models representing large deformations
of the structure.
Step 4. Calculate the median drift demand, D̂ . D̂ is an
estimate of the median demand drift calculated using the
20 ground motions. The standard deviation of the log of
the maximum story drifts (βacc) is also determined.
Step 5. Calculate the global collapse drift capacity, Ĉ .
The Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) procedure was
used to calculate the median global collapse drift for the
20 ground motions. The median of these values is taken
as the drift capacity ( Ĉ ). The standard deviation of the
natural log of the drift capacities (βRC) is also found from
these results.
Step 6. Determine the resistance factor, φ. The
resistance factor (φ) accounts for the effect of randomness
and uncertainty in the estimation process of Ĉ .
φ=φRC ·φUC (1)
–kβ2RC
--------------
2b
φRC = e (2)
2
–kβUC
---------------
2b
φUC = e (3)
where φRC=contribution to φ from randomness of the
earthquake accelerograms; φUC=contribution to φ from
uncertainties in measured component capacity; βRC=
standard deviation of the natural logs of the drift
capacities from the IDA analysis. This is independent
from the demand uncertainty; βUC=standard deviation of
the natural logs of the drift capacities derived from
testing; k=slope of the hazard curve calculated from the
U.S. Geological Survey information; b=assumed to be 1.0
for this application based on SAC results, b is defined
from θ=Sab, where θ is story drift of the structure, Sa is
spectral acceleration at the period of the structure, and b
is slope of the curve for Sa vs. θ.
Step 7. Determine the demand factor, γ. The demand
factor (γ) is associated with the randomness of demand.
kβ2RD
-----------
2b
γ=e (4)
where βRD= Σβ2i ;
βi is the variance of the natural log of
the drifts for each element of randomness. βi=βacc for
Seattle Site.
Step 8. Determine the analysis demand factor, γa. The
demand factor (γa) is based on uncertainties related to the
determination of the median drift demand ( D̂ ).
2
kβUD
-----------
-
2b
γa = e (5)
where βUD= Σβ2a ;
βa is the variance of the natural log of
the drifts for each element of uncertainty
The β related to uncertainty is notated as βa, because it
is related to the analysis procedure. The βa term is equal
to the square root of the sum of the squares of the β
values determined from each of four sources as follows:
βNTH associated with uncertainties in the nonlinear time
history analysis procedure; βdamping associated with uncertainty
in estimating the damping value of the structure; βperiod
associated with uncertainty in the period of the structure;
βmaterial associated with uncertainty in material properties.
Step 9. Determine βUT. The βUT term is a function of the
total uncertainty. The β ’s associated with the uncertainty
only are the βUC from the capacity side and the βUD from
the demand side.
βUT = (β2UC + β2UD) (6)
Step 10. Calculate the confidence factor, λ and the
confidence level. The acceptance criterion is based on a
confidence factor (λ) that is used to determine the
 Performance Evaluation of Cold-Formed Steel Braced Frames Designed under Current U.S. Seismic Design Code 307

confidence level. This factor is the ratio of the factored

capacity over demand.

φĈ-
λ = ---------- (7)
γγaD̂

with the confidence factor (λ), the slope of the hazard

curve (k) and total uncertainty factor (βUT), the confidence
level can be estimated using Tables 5 and 6 of FEMA
355F.
Step 11. If the target confidence level of 90% is not
achieved, the buildings will be redesigned using a
different R factor, and repeat the procedure step 1 through Figure 1. Response Spectra for Seattle, 5% damping.
step 10.

2.2. Application of the FEMA355F Procedures to

CFSBF Buildings
2.2.1. Ground motions
A set of twenty SAC ground motions for the Seattle
site, having 2/50 hazard level developed by Somerville
(1997) was used for this study. These ground motions are
generated for a stiff soil profile that is defined as Site
Class D in FEMA450. Figure 1 shows the spectra of the
ground motions at the Seattle site. As shown in Fig. 1, the
unscaled mean values of the 20 accelerograms for the
Seattle site do not match the target periods. Therefore, the
accelerograms were scaled to best match the spectral
accelerations to the target values at four periods. The
target spectral accelerations and the scaling factors are
Figure 2. Energy-Equivalent Elasto-Plastic Analogy.
shown in Table 1. Even though the scaled spectral
acceleration curve doesn’t match at the 0.3 second target
period, the scaling factor was decided in an average sense the procedure is not directly applicable for CFSBF
so that the average response spectrum over the entire buildings. There are a few reasons why the IDA procedure
short period region was reasonable. The scaling factor is needed to be modified for the CFSBF buildings. First, the
0.77 for the target points, but the modified scaling factor CFSBF buildings are stiffer than steel moment frame
of 0.79 is used for the demand calculations since, the buildings. When the structural system is stiff, it usually
CFSBF buildings investigated were designed using an Ss results in steep elastic curve. This may result in very
value of 1.5 g rather than a target spectral acceleration at conservative drift capacity of CFSBF buildings, if the
0.3 second of 1.455 g. FEMA 355F procedure is directly applied to determining
global collapse of CFSBF buildings. Second, some IDA
2.2.2. Modified incremental dynamic analysis procedure curves for CFSBF buildings tend to yield very early and
Global collapse represents the state that the main recover their capacity.
structural system does no longer possess the capacity to Figure 3 shows the three IDA curves of a 6-story
resist loads. To calculate global collapse drift capacity of CFSBF building designed with an R factor of 4 according
the structural system the IDA procedure is used. In the to the U.S. design code (CFS61-R4). SE22, SE33, and
IDA procedure of FEMA 355F, global drift capacity of SE35 are three ground motions from the twenty SAC
the building is determined when a very large drift occurs ground motions for the Seattle site. The IDA curve for
such that the slope of the IDA curve is less than 20% of ground motion SE33 in Fig. 3 yields at an early stage, but
the slope from an elastic analysis. The IDA procedure it looks stable after the capacity drift determined from the
presented in FEMA 355F was developed based on the FEMA 355F procedure. The IDA curve of SE35 shows
results of analyses of steel moment frame buildings, so that it yields at an early stage and then it recovers and

Table 1. Target Spectral Acceleration and Scaling Factor at Seattle Site

Target Sa (g)
Hazard Level Scaling Factor
0.3 (sec) 1.0 (sec) 2.0 (sec) 4.0 (sec)
2/50 1.455 1.000 0.410 0.164 0.77
308 Moon-Sung LeeGand Douglas A. Foutch / International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(3), 305-316, 2010
Figure 3. IDA Curve Examples for 6-story CFSBF Buildings
(CFS61-R4).
follows the 20% slope line until 5.0 g. While it reaches
5.0 g, the slope of the curve goes below and above the
20% slope, so it is very difficult to decide if the building
collapses based on the method presented in FEMA 355F.
The IDA curve of SE22 yields at an early stage, and it
recovers drastically. If the FEMA355F method is applied
to estimate the global collapse drift capacity of CFSBF,
the drift capacity for SE22, SE33, and SE35 are around
0.0198, 0.0075, and 0.0170, respectively. These drift
capacities are too conservative.
Because of these phenomena, a new approach for
determining the drift capacity was taken in this study. By
adopting the energy-equivalent elasto-plastic analogy, the
drift capacity can be estimated (Ding and Foutch, 2004).
This analogy usually is used for deciding the yield point.
As shown in Fig. 2, the yield point (Δy) is located where
the area of the divided regions is identical. For a single
IDA curve, ‘Load’ replaced ‘Sa’ and ‘Displacement’
replaced ‘Maximum drift’, therefore, ‘Δy’ was the
‘Capacity drift’. This analogy can be easily applied for
SE33 in Fig. 3. However, for SE22 and SE35 in Fig. 3,
they don’t collapse even above 5.0 g, and this is not
reasonable for the real situation. To settle this problem,
4.5 g, which is three times the Sa of the maximum
considered earthquake for the Seattle site, was decided as
an upper bound on Sa. The drift capacity limit of 0.13 is
decided for the CFSBF buildings according to following
observations. The CFSBF exhibited very ductile behavior
during the cyclic test. The cyclic test was ended at the
drift of 0.11, but there were no fractures on the braces or
connections to the columns. Also, the average strain at
the ultimate strength from the coupon tests was 0.19.
Therefore, the drift capacity limit of 0.13 is assumed for
CFSBF. The modified IDA procedure determining the
drift capacity of CFSBF buildings are as follows:
Step 1. Check the maximum drift at 4.5 g, and then
proceed to Step 2a or Step 2b.
Step 2a. If the drift is smaller than the drift capacity
limit of 0.13 at 4.5 g, then 0.13 is the drift capacity.
Step 2b. If the drift is larger than 0.13 at 4.5 g, then by
applying the elasto-plastic analogy to the IDA curve the
drift capacity, which is the ‘Δy’ of Fig. 2, is determined.
Step 3. After the drift capacity is decided by the elasto-
plastic analogy, if the drift capacity is larger than drift
capacity limit of 0.13 then this drift capacity is also taken
as 0.13.
After Step 2a or Step 2b of the modified IDA procedure,
the global collapse drift capacities of 0.13, 0.3145, and
0.1419 were calculated for SE22, SE33, and SE35,
respectively. However, since the drift capacity limit is
0.13, the drift capacities of all three cases become 0.13.
3. Design and Modeling of Cold-Formed
Steel Braced Frame Buildings
3.1. Design of prototype cold-formed steel braced
frame buildings
Buildings used for this study are typical cold-formed
steel braced frame (CFSBF) buildings built in high seismic
regions. The floor plan of the buildings is borrowed from
one of the barrack-type buildings currently constructed at
Fort Lewis, Washington. CFSBF Buildings of three different
stories were chosen for this study, which are 2-, 4- and 6-
story buildings. In the SAC project 3-, 9-, and 20-story
steel moment frame buildings were studied, but the height
limit of CFSBF is 19.81 m in Seismic Design Category
D, E, and F, so 2-, 4-, and 6-story buildings were studied
here instead. The total heights of 2-, 4-, and 6-story
buildings are 5.36 m, 11.13 m, and 16.89 m, respectively.
The Seattle site was chosen for this study because
CFSBF structures are not the proper structural system for
a high seismic region near a potentially active fault such
as the LA site. The seismic load was estimated using
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450,
2003). The design variables for the Seattle site and
calculated seismic weight, design base shear, and
structural periods obtained from the U.S. code formula
(Ta) and Eigenvalue analysis (T) are given in Tables 2 and
3, respectively. An R factor of 4 and approximate
structural periods from the U.S. code were used for the
design of the prototype CFSBF buildings. For the design
base shear, 25% of live loads were added to the total
seismic weight.
The design of each cold-formed steel stud frame and
braces follows the 2002 Edition of the Cold-Formed Steel
Design Manual (AISI, 2002; TI 809-07, 2002). A50 cold-
formed steel is used for the design. The dimensions of the
braces and columns for the CFSBF buildings are given in
Table 4. The 2-, 4-, and 6-story CFSBF buildings
designed with an R factor of 4 are represented by CFS21-
R4, CFS41-R4, and CFS61-R4, respectively.
The plan view and elevation view of a 2-story CBSBF
building are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. As shown in Fig. 4,
the lateral load resisting system of interest is CFSBF in
the transverse direction of the building. A total of eighteen
CFSBF are used for the transverse direction. It should be
noted that CFSBF buildings are typically very redundant.
 Performance Evaluation of Cold-Formed Steel Braced Frames Designed under Current U.S. Seismic Design Code 309

Table 2. Seismic Design Variables for Seattle Site

Maximum Considered Earthquake Ss=1.50 g, S1=0.50 g
Site Class Class D, Stiff Soil: Fa=1.0, Fv=1.5
Design Earthquake SDS=1.0 g, SD1=0.5 g
Seismic Design Category D
Seismic Use Group Group I: I=1.0

Table 3. Base Shears and Periods for CFSBF Buildings Designed with R factor of 4
Type Seismic Weight (kN) Base Shear (kN) Ta (sec) T (sec)
CFS21-R4 4475 1121 0.172 0.241
CFS41-R4 11044 2762 0.297 0.416
CFS61-R4 17614 4404 0.406 0.562

Table 4. Dimensions of CFSBF Buildings Designed with R Factor of 4

Strap Column
Type Story
Width (mm) Thickness (mm) # of Stud Thickness (mm)
1 101.6 1.7 2 1.7
CFS21-R4
2 101.6 0.8 2 1.1
1 152.4 2.5 3 2.5
2 203.2 1.7 3 2.5
CFS41-R4
3 203.2 1.1 3 1.7
4 101.6 0.8 3 0.8
1 203.2 3.0 4 3.0
2 203.2 3.0 4 3.0
3 203.2 2.5 4 2.5
CFS61-R4
4 152.4 2.5 3 2.5
5 152.4 1.7 3 1.7
6 101.6 0.8 3 0.8

Figure 5. The Elevation View of 2-Story Prototype CFSBF

Building.
Figure 4. The Floor Plan of Prototype CFSBF Building.

from 51×152 mm channel shape cold-formed steel members

As shown in Fig. 5, two of the five bays are braced for
lateral forces. Another beneficial effect derived from this
configuration is low P-Delta forces, since there are only
two leaning columns per frame.
The structural system of CFSBF building consists of
CFS stud frames and diagonal steel braces attached to the
columns of the frames. One typical bay of cold-formed
steel frames with braces is shown in Fig. 6. In this
structural system, braces are made of thin sheet metal so
they carry only tension. There are four braces per bay of
braced frame and those braces are assigned as a pair for
each direction. As shown in Fig. 7, columns are built up
with an overall shape that is approximately square. The
channel shape steel is attached to the concrete slabs at the
top and bottom. The columns and steel studs are then
attached to the channel. Steel studs are installed using
406.4 mm spacing. Most of the gravity load is carried by
the columns and steel studs located between the columns.
3.2. Analytical modeling of cold-formed steel braced
frame buildings
The backbone curve for the analytical model of the
cold-formed steel was decided from the coupon tests
(Kim et al., 2006). Based on these coupon test results, a
310 Moon-Sung LeeGand Douglas A. Foutch / International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(3), 305-316, 2010
Figure 6. CFSBF on the Shaketable (CERL).
Figure 7. Column Sections.
tri-linear stress-strain relationship was assumed for the
brace modeling and a bi-linear relationship was used for
the column modeling. For modeling of the tri-linear stress-
strain relationship, two yield points that can characterize
the test results were chosen. The first yield point is
chosen at stress of 365.4 MPa and strain of 0.00293, and
the second yield point is chosen at stress of 489.5 MPa
and strain of 0.08632. For the bi-linear model, the yield
point is chosen at 303.4 MPa and 0.0015. The strain
hardening ratio for both the braces and columns were
assumed as 2%.
Based on the backbone curve decided above and the
static cyclic test and shaketable test of CFSBF conducted
at CERL, the hysteretic model for a CFSBF was
determined. The hysteretic result from the cyclic test for
a CFSBF is shown in Fig. 8. The CFSBF exhibited very
ductile behavior without fracturing the braces or their
connections to the columns during the cyclic test. The
hysteretic loops are completely pinched in any one cycle
unless the displacement exceeds its previous maximum
displacement, because the tension brace provides most of
the resistance, and only when it has completely straightened
out in the direction of increasing displacement. While the
hysteretic response is dominated by one of the braces,
there was a small contribution to the hysteretic response
from the columns. Based on the observation and
calculation from the shaketable test (Kim et al., 2006) the
Figure 8. Hysteretic Response for CFSBF from the Cyclic
Test (CERL).
column moment strength is assumed to be 35% of the
nominal strength for an analytical model. The conservative
column moment capacity was chosen because of the
following reasons. First, since the column sections were
not compact, local buckling of the columns resulted in the
decrease in moment capacity. Second, although the
columns were anchored to the concrete slab, deformation
of the anchors occurred during the test, which caused gap
between the columns and slabs. Due to this gap opening,
the complete transfer of the moment capacity from the
columns to slabs was not possible. So, the reduced moment
capacity of the columns was used for the analysis.
To maintain consistency with the series of works (Lee
and Foutch, 2002; Yun et al., 2002) and to simulate the
detailed behavior of each members of CFSBF buildings,
the DRAIN-2DX (Prakash et al., 1993) program was
used for nonlinear time history analyses. Also, Rayleigh
damping model was adopted and analysis time step of
0.005 second was used for analyses. Each modeling
elements of DRAIN-2DX and lumped mass location for
CFSBF are shown in Fig. 9. Inelastic behavior of the
analytical model comes from the truss elements with gap
properties for braces and the inelastic rotational spring
elements at their ends for columns. Half of one transverse
frame is modeled for the analysis since the frame is
symmetric. Based on the test results from above, the
analytical model for CFSBF was developed using the
DRAIN-2DX elements. Slabs are much stiffer than
columns, so they are modeled as rigid elements. A rigid
element was represented by the Plastic Hinge Beam-
Column Element (type 02) of DRAIN-2DX with very
large stiffness and moment capacity. This resulted in no
deformation in the slabs. Inelastic behavior of the columns
was represented by two plastic hinges formed at both
ends of the column. The moment capacity of the column
plastic hinges was expressed by using a rotational spring
element from the Simple Connection Element (Type 04)
of DRAIN-2DX. This rotational spring element represents
bilinear moment-curvature relationship of the columns.
The column between both springs is modeled as an elastic
beam element using the Plastic Hinge Beam-Column
 Performance Evaluation of Cold-Formed Steel Braced Frames Designed under Current U.S. Seismic Design Code 311

Figure 9. Analytical Model for 2-story CFSBF Building and Hysteresis Models.

Element (Type 02) of DRAIN-2DX. As mentioned above,

reduced value of the moment strength is used for the
columns. All inelastic behavior occurs in the rotational
spring while the beam element remains elastic. Braces are
modeled using the Inelastic Truss Bar Element (Type 01)
of DRAIN-2DX. However, in the original DRAIN-2DX,
a severely pinched model was not included in the truss
element so the truss element with gap property was added
to the Inelastic Truss Bar Element (Type 01) of DRAIN-
2DX (Kim et al., 2006). The hysteretic rule for the truss
element with the gap property is shown in Fig. 9. Although
braces only have tension capacity, this truss element with
gap property has compression capacity, as well as, tension
capacity as shown in Fig. 9. So, half of the properties of
Figure 10. 2nd Story Time History Response of the
each brace are used for modeling of a brace in DRAIN- Shaketable Test.
2DX so that the brace models have half of the stiffness
and strength of the real brace. Since braces are installed
in both directions as a pair, the above brace model should drift of the shaketable test. As shown in Fig. 11, the
provide reasonable results for analysis. analytical model represents the hysteresis result of the test
Figure 10 shows the time history responses of calculated fairly well.
and measured 2nd story displacement of the shaketable
test performed at CERL (Kim et al., 2006). The shaketable 3.3. Modeling of gypsum walls
tests were executed using the filtered SE32 record. The A gypsum wall is a nonstructural member, so naturally
calculated result is obtained using all the element models it cannot sustain large deformation like the structural
shown in Fig. 9 except the gypsum wall element. Although member does. However, at small drifts a considerable
the calculated and measured results are not perfectly amount of lateral resistance from the gypsum wall was
matched, the analysis model exhibits reasonably good found. The two most important parameters that describe
results. Difference between the calculated and measured the behavior of the gypsum wall are the initial stiffness
results occurred due to following reasons. First, the straps and strength of the wall. The initial stiffness and strength
were loosely attached to the columns in the test, while the of the wall were calculated using the ‘Shear Racking
straps of the analysis model were assumed to be tightly Method’ proposed by Deierlein and Kanvinde (2003).
attached. Second, the base of the shaketable was flexible These parameters are highly dependent on wall geometry,
due to the oil columns and vertical actuators, while the boundary condition, connector type, and connector density.
base was assumed to be fixed in the analysis model. Fig. All the details of the gypsum wall for determining the
11 shows the hysteresis curves of base shear vs. 2nd story capacity were adopted from above research.
312 Moon-Sung LeeGand Douglas A. Foutch / International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(3), 305-316, 2010
Figure 11. Hysteresis Behavior of the Braces and Columns of the Shaketable Test.
Figure 12. Hysteretic Response of Gypsum Wall from
Cyclic Test (Oliva, 1990).
As shown in Fig. 12, the hysteretic response of the
gypsum wall shows pinching behavior with stiffness and
strength degradation (Oliva, 1990). The behavior of the
gypsum wall is modeled using horizontal spring element
from the Connection Element (Type 10, Elasticity Code
4) of DRAIN2DX (Foutch and Shi, 1998; Kim et al.,
2006). The hysteretic rule for the spring element is shown
in Fig. 9. This hysteretic rule includes strength degradation
and slip in the deflection. Since test results at large drifts
were not available, the rate of strength degradation of the
wall is conservatively chosen for the modeling of the
gypsum wall. The gypsum walls dissipate a small amount
of energy which increases the effective damping of the
system, but the gypsum walls do not significantly affect
the response at large drift.
4. Confidence Level for Cold-Formed Steel
Braced Frame Buildings
4.1. Confidence level for CFSBF buildings designed
based on current U.S. seismic design code
Most procedures from FEMA 355F is directly applicable
for CFSBF except determining global collapse of the
structural system. Table 5 shows the β values decided for
the CFSBF buildings. The β values for φ and γ were
estimated from the modified IDA analysis and demand
analysis, respectively. There are four sources that contribute
to βa that should be considered for this study, which are
βNTH, βdamping, βperiod, and βmaterial. Calculating the four
sources of βa require vast amount of test data. However,
the βa’s of CFSBF buildings were conservatively decided
based on FEMA355F due to the lack of test data. Table
6 shows the confidence level and all the calculated
parameters needed for the FEMA 355F procedure of
CFS21-R4, CFS41-R4, and CFS61-R4. Drift capacity
( Ĉ ) of all buildings were close to the chosen drift limit
of 0.13. Consequently, careful decision of the drift limit is
required, since global drift capacity is highly related to
the drift limit of the CFSBF system. The confidence level
of CFS21-R4 is 95% and this is the only structure that
satisfies the target confidence level of 90%. The confidence
levels of CFS41-R4 and CFS61-R4 are 85% and 55%
respectively. Figure 13 show median, 84th percentile and
95th percentile of the story drift demands for CFS21-R4,
CFS41-R4 and CFS61-R4. For CFS21-R4, the median
maximum drift demand at the first story was the largest,
as expected. However, for taller buildings, CFS41-R4 and
CFS61-R4, the median maximum drift demands at the
top story were large compared to the other stories. The
weak story behavior, small overstrength of the CFSBF
buildings, and higher mode effect led to this phenomenon.
The large maximum drifts at the roof story led to large
median drift demands ( D̂ ) for the structures, and this
caused poor confidence levels of CFS41-R4 and CFS61-
R4. The results show that the confidence level of the
CFSBF buildings are highly dependent upon the median
drift demand, since all the other variables in Table 6 are
similar for all buildings.
4.2. Confidence level for CFSBF buildings designed
using R-factors of 3 and 2
The confidence levels of CFS41-R4 and CFS61-R4
failed to reach the target performance objective of 90.
Therefore, the new 2-, 4-, and 6-story CFSBF buildings
were designed using R factors of 3 and 2, which were
 Performance Evaluation of Cold-Formed Steel Braced Frames Designed under Current U.S. Seismic Design Code 313

Table 5. β Values for CFSBF Buildings

For φ For γ For γa
Type
βRC βUC βacc βNTH βperiod βdamping βmaterial
CFS21-R4 0.07 0.26 0.71 0.15 0.50 0.10 0.10
CFS41-R4 0.04 0.35 0.51 0.20 0.44 0.10 0.10
CFS61-R4 0.01 0.43 0.67 0.25 0.38 0.10 0.10
CFS21-R3 0.08 0.26 0.94 0.15 0.50 0.10 0.10
CFS41-R3 0.00 0.35 0.67 0.20 0.44 0.10 0.10
CFS61-R3 0.11 0.43 0.63 0.25 0.38 0.10 0.10
CFS21-R2 0.17 0.26 0.97 0.15 0.50 0.10 0.10
CFS41-R2 0.08 0.35 1.20 0.20 0.44 0.10 0.10
CFS61-R2 0.02 0.43 1.15 0.25 0.38 0.10 0.10
CFS43-R4 0.06 0.35 0.60 0.20 0.44 0.10 0.10
CFS63-R4 0.02 0.43 0.60 0.25 0.38 0.10 0.10

Table 6. Confidence Levels for CFSBF Buildings

Type φ Ĉ γ γa D̂ βUT k λ C.L. (%)
CFS21-R4 0.93 0.127 1.63 1.33 0.028 0.60 1.95 1.98 95
CFS41-R4 0.89 0.128 1.29 1.28 0.051 0.61 1.95 1.34 85
CFS61-R4 0.83 0.130 1.54 1.25 0.077 0.64 1.95 0.73 55
CFS21-R3 0.93 0.125 2.36 1.33 0.017 0.60 1.95 2.20 97
CFS41-R3 0.89 0.130 1.54 1.28 0.042 0.61 1.95 1.39 86
CFS61-R3 0.82 0.127 1.47 1.25 0.061 0.64 1.95 0.93 69
CFS21-R2 0.91 0.119 2.50 1.33 0.008 0.60 1.95 4.07 99
CFS41-R2 0.88 0.127 4.09 1.28 0.020 0.61 1.95 1.07 75
CFS61-R2 0.83 0.129 3.65 1.25 0.028 0.64 1.95 0.84 64
CFS43-R4 0.89 0.127 1.42 1.28 0.035 0.61 1.95 1.77 93
CFS63-R4 0.83 0.129 1.42 1.25 0.033 0.64 1.95 1.84 94

represented by CFS21-R3, CFS21-R2, CFS41-R3, CFS41-
R2, CFS61-R3, and CFS61-R2, respectively. The dimensions
of the braces and columns of the CFSBF buildings
designed using R factors of 3 and 2 are shown in Table 7.
The confidence level and the parameters for the performance
evaluation for the CFSBF buildings designed with R
factors of 3 and 2 are shown in Tables 5 and 6. The
confidence levels of CFS21-R3, CFS21-R2 satisfied the
target performance level of 90%, and showed little
improvement of performance compared to that of CFS21-
R4. However, the confidence levels of CFS41-R3,
CFS41-R2, CFS61-R3, and CFS61-R2 were still below
90% and failed to reach the target performance objective.
The change of the R factors had little effect on the
performance enhancement of the 4- and 6-story buildings.
Figures 14(a) and 14(b) show the median, 84th percentile
and 95th percentile of story drift demands for CFS61-R3
and CFS61-R2. Although the median drift demands were
a little decreased, these values were still large enough to
cause poor confidence level. The maximum drift demands
at the top story hurt the performance of these buildings.
The confidence level of buildings with an R factor of 2
was lower than that of the buildings with an R factor of
3, since standard deviation of the log of the maximum
story drifts (βacc) was increased.
5. Confidence Level for CFSBF Buildings
with Stiff and Strong Top Story
So far, the CFSBF buildings designed according to the
current design code failed to reach the target performance
and the conservative use of the R factors in design did not
improve the performance of CFSBF buildings. According
to the observation of the results, it is clear that stiffness
and strength of the top story needed to be improved, so
the performance of CFSBF buildings with stiff and strong
top story was examined. The new buildings were basically
the same as CFS41-R4 and CFS61-R4 except for the top
story. The size of the top story brace was decided as the
same size used for the story below. The size of the
column at the roof story was also changed as a result of
brace member change. The 4- and 6-story CFSBF
buildings with stiff and strong top story were represented
by CFS43-R4 and CFS63-R4, respectively.
Figure 14(c) shows the median, 84th percentile and 95th
percentile of story drift demands for CFS63-R4. The
median drift demands of CFS63-R4 were decreased and
the top story drifts for CFS63-R4 were significantly
reduced compared to those of CFS61-R4. The confidence
levels and parameters for CFS43-R4 and CFS63-R4 are
shown in Tables 5 and 6. The confidence levels of CFS43-
314 Moon-Sung LeeGand Douglas A. Foutch / International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(3), 305-316, 2010

Figure 13. Story Drift Demand for CFSBF Buildings Design Using R Factor of 4.

Figure 14. Story Drift Demand for 6-Story CFSBF Buildings.

R4 and CFS63-R4 were 93% and 94% respectively and
satisfy the target performance level of 90%. It should be
noted that the performances of CFS43-R4 and CFS63-R4
were significantly improved from that of CFS41-R4 and
CFS61-R4 with only a small change of brace sizes in the
top story. CFS43-R4 and CFS63-R4 also showed better
performance than CFS1-R3 and CFS61-R3. Based on
theses results, R factor of 4 seems proper for CFSBF
buildings, as long as, the top story braces are designed as
above.
6. Conclusions
Based on the FEMA 355F procedure, the performance
evaluation of the 2-, 4-, and 6-story CFSBF buildings
designed using R factors of 4, 3, and 2 was executed.
Also, the performance evaluation of the 4- and 6-story
CFSBF buildings with stiff and strong top story was
performed. The goal of the procedure is to have a uniform
confidence of 90% of satisfying the Collapse Prevention
performance level of 2% in the 50 year hazard level. The
following are the observations from the performance
evaluation results:
(1) The drift capacities of all the CFSBF buildings
investigated were close to the capacity drift limit of
0.13, so the accurate determination of the drift limit
is important. The drift limit of 0.13 was
conservatively determined based on the cyclic tests
conducted at ERDC-CERL.
(2) Except the median drift demands, all the other
parameters were close to uniform for the buildings
with the same height. Consequently, the confidence
levels of the CFSBF buildings were highly
dependent upon the median drift demand.
(3) All the 2-story CFSBF buildings satisfied the target
confidence level of 90%. However, the 4- and 6-
 Performance Evaluation of Cold-Formed Steel Braced Frames Designed under Current U.S. Seismic Design Code 315

Table 7. Dimensions of CFSBF Buildings Designed with R Factors of 3 and 2

Strap Column
Type Story
Width (mm) Thickness (mm) # of Stud Thickness (mm)
1 152.4 1.4 3 1.4
CFS21-R3
2 101.6 0.8 3 0.8
1 203.2 2.5 3 3.0
2 254.0 1.7 3 2.5
CFS41-R3
3 203.2 1.7 3 2.5
4 101.6 1.1 3 0.8
1 254.0 3.0 4 3.2
2 254.0 3.0 4 3.1
3 254.0 2.5 4 3.0
CFS61-R3
4 203.2 2.5 4 2.5
5 203.2 1.7 4 1.7
6 101.6 1.1 3 0.8
1 203.2 1.7 4 1.7
CFS21-R2
2 152.4 0.8 3 0.8
1 254.0 3.0 4 3.0
2 254.0 2.5 4 2.5
CFS41-R2
3 254.0 1.7 3 2.5
4 152.4 1.1 3 1.1
1 254.0 4.4 4 4.1
2 254.0 4.2 4 3.9
3 254.0 3.7 4 3.4
CFS61-R2
4 254.0 3.0 4 3.0
5 203.2 2.5 4 2.5
6 152.4 1.1 3 1.1

story CFSBF buildings designed with R factors of
4, 3, and 2 failed to satisfy the performance
objective. The large maximum drift demand at the
top story of those buildings led to the low
confidence levels of those buildings. Large top
story drifts occurred due to weak story behavior,
low overstrength, and higher mode effects.
(4) The 4- and 6-story CFSBF buildings with the stiff
and strong top story satisfied the performance
objective. The stiff and strong top story of both
buildings helped to reduce the median drift
demand, and it led to high confidence levels for both
buildings. Also, the confidence levels of these
buildings were much better than those of the
CFSBF buildings designed with conservative R
factors of 3 and 2.
(5) R factor of 4 seems adequate for CFSBF structural
system. However, to insure good performance of
CFSBF buildings, the top story brace must be
stiffer and stronger than the one calculated from the
current design code.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory in Champaign Illinois. This funding
is gratefully acknowledged. Any results, findings, and
conclusions are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of the sponsors.
References
Adham, S. A., Avanessian, V., Hart G. C., Anderson, R. W.,
Elmlinger, J., and Gregory, J. (1990). “Shear wall resistance
of lightgage steel stud wall system.” Earthquake Spectra,
6(1), pp. 1-14.
AISI (2002). Specification for the design of cold-formed
steel structure members. American Iron and Steel
Institute, Washington, DC.
Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., and Foutch, D.
A. (2002). “Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal
Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame
guidelines.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
128(4), pp. 526-533.
Deierlein, G. G. and Kanvinde, A. M. (2003). “Seismic
performance of gypsum walls-analytical investigation.”
CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project, Task 1.4.6.
Ding, X. and Foutch, D. A. (2004). A note on the application of
Incremental Dynamic Analysis for determining collapse
drift of structures. Internal Working, Department of Civil
316 Moon-Sung LeeGand Douglas A. Foutch / International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(3), 305-316, 2010
and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
FEMA 355F (2000). State of the art report on performance
prediction and evaluation of steel moment-frame
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC.
FEMA 450 (2003). 2003 Edition: NEHRP recommended
provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and
other structures, Part 1- Provisions. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Fulop, L. A. and Dubina, D. (2002). “Seismic performance
of wall-stud shear walls.” Proc. 6th International
Specialty Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures,
pp. 483-500.
Foutch, D. A. and Shi, S. (1998). “Effects of hysteresis types
on the seismic effects of buildings.” Proc. 6th National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
Hamburger, R. O., Foutch, D. A., and Cornell, C. A. (2000).
“Performance basis of guidelines for evaluation, upgrade
and design of moment-resisting steel frames.” Proc. 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland.
Jalayer, F. and Cornell, C. A. (1998). Development of a
probability-based demand and capacity factor design
seismic format. SAC background document, SAC Joint
Venture, Richmond, CA.
Kim, T. W., Wilcoski, J., Foutch, D. A., and Lee, M. S.
(2006). “Shaketable tests of cold-formed steel shear
panel.” Engineering Structures, 28(10), pp. 1462-1470.
Lee, K. and Foutch, D. A. (2002). “Performance evaluation
of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads.”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3),
pp. 653-670.
Luco, N. and Cornell, C. A. (1998). “Effects of random
connection fractures on the demands and reliability for a
3-story pre-Northridge SMRF structure.” Proc. 6th US
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle.
Oliva, M. G. (1990). Racking behavior of wood-framed
gypsum panels under dynamic load. Report No. UCB/
EERC-85/06, University of CA at Berkeley.
Prakash, V., Powell, G., and Campbell, S. (1993). DRAIN-
2DX base program description and user guide-version
1.10. Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/17 and 93/18, Structural
Engineering Mechanics and Materials, Dept. of Civil
Eng., Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Somerville, P., Smith, N., Puntamurthula, S., and Sun, J.
(1997). Development of ground motion time histories for
phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. SAC background
document SAC/BD-97/04, SAC Joint Venture,
Richmond, CA.
TI 809-07 (2002). Design of cold-formed load bearing steel
systems and masonry veneer/steel stud walls. Headquarters,
US Army Corps of Engineers.
Yun, S. Y., Hamburger, R. O., Cornell, C. A., and Foutch, D.
A. (2002). “Seismic performance evaluation for steel
moment frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
128(4), pp. 534-545.