Seismic Design of Diaphragms for Steel Buildings

Considering Diaphragm Inelasticity

Gengrui Wei 1; Hamid Foroughi 2; Shahabeddin Torabian, [Link] 3;
Matthew R. Eatherton, [Link] 4; and Benjamin W. Schafer, [Link] 5
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Recent research has shown that seismic design forces for horizontal floor and roof diaphragms that have been in the US building
codes for decades are not sufficiently large to protect the diaphragm from inelastic actions. These findings led, in part, to the development
of alternative diaphragm design provisions in US standards, which use increased diaphragm force demands, but allow for a reduction of the
demands by a unique diaphragm design force reduction factor, Rs . In this study, the effect of different diaphragm design philosophies on
the behavior of steel buildings is investigated using three-dimensional computational building models that consider nonlinear behavior in
both the vertical and horizontal elements of the lateral force–resisting system (LFRS). Objectives include examining the effect of dia-
phragm inelasticity on building dynamic behavior, understanding seismic diaphragm force demands, investigating collapse probabilities
for different diaphragm design approaches, and evaluating proposed Rs values for bare steel deck and concrete-filled steel deck dia-
phragms. Building parameters were varied such as diaphragm design approach (traditional and alternative design with different Rs values),
building height (1-, 4-, 8-, and 12-story archetype buildings), and type of LFRS (buckling restrained braced frames or special concentri-
cally braced frames). Nonlinear response-history analyses were performed, and resulting performance in terms of drift and collapse were
evaluated. It was found that traditionally designed building diaphragms can experience substantial inelasticity during earthquake response.
Computed adjusted collapse margin ratios for buildings utilizing the alternative diaphragm design procedure with Rs ¼ 2.0 for concrete-
filled steel deck floor diaphragms and Rs ¼ 2.5 for bare steel deck roof diaphragms satisfy US design criteria for acceptance and are
recommended for use in design of these types of structures. DOI: 10.1061/[Link]-11832. © 2023 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Steel buildings with braced frames; Steel deck diaphragms; Seismic diaphragm design procedures; Nonlinear
response-history analysis; Collapse behavior and performance.

Introduction the structure. However, it has been shown that diaphragms designed
using traditional design procedures [e.g., ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010)
Steel building systems with braced frames, bare steel deck roof and earlier] may be subject to inelasticity during design-level earth-
diaphragms, and concrete-filled steel deck floor diaphragms are quakes (Rodriguez et al. 2007), and in the extreme may cause col-
one of the most common structural systems in North America. lapse such as happened for nine concrete parking garages with
During an earthquake, lateral inertial forces are transferred through precast concrete diaphragms during the 1994 Northridge earth-
the diaphragms to the vertical portions of the lateral force–resisting quake (Iverson and Hawkins 1994).
system (LFRS). Traditional seismic design of these steel buildings Substantial research was conducted after the Northridge earth-
assumes that the vertical elements of the LFRS control the dynam- quake on the seismic behavior and design of precast concrete
ics of the building and that they are also the primary source of diaphragms (e.g., Fleischman et al. 2005). Results of previous
ductile deformation capacity and hysteretic energy dissipation in shake-table tests combined with dynamic analyses revealed that
peak horizontal inertial forces in diaphragms can be two to three
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi- times larger than diaphragm force demands in ASCE 7-05 (ASCE
neering, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA 24060. Email: gwei1@[Link] 2005; Rodriguez et al. 2002, 2007). Three-dimensional computa-
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Systems Engineering, tional models were used to determine that inelastic diaphragm de-
Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD 21218. Email: hforoug1@[Link]
3
Associate Research Scientist, Dept. of Civil and Systems Engineering,
formations amplified story drift demands, which were subsequently
Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD 21218; Senior Consulting Engineer, shown to result in failure of the gravity system (Fleischman and
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., 1625 Eye St. NW, Suite 900, Washington, Farrow 2001). Solutions were proposed such as new design and
DC 20006. ORCID: [Link] Email: detailing for the precast connectors (e.g., Ren and Naito 2013)
torabian@[Link]; storabian@[Link] and an entirely new method for predicting diaphragm demands
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia (e.g., Fleischman et al. 2005). The research culminated with shake-
Tech., Blacksburg, VA 24060 (corresponding author). ORCID: [Link] table testing that validated the proposed design approach with
.org/0000-0002-2207-0099. Email: meather@[Link] minor modifications (e.g., Zhang et al. 2019). Based on this re-
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins
search and the need for a more robust diaphragm design approach,
Univ., Baltimore, MD 21218. Email: schafer@[Link]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 4, 2022; approved on
ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2016) added an alternative diaphragm design
January 27, 2023; published online on April 22, 2023. Discussion period procedure wherein diaphragm design forces associated with elastic
open until September 22, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted diaphragm behavior are estimated and then divided by a diaphragm
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural design force reduction factor, Rs , unique to the ductility and over-
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445. strength in each type of diaphragm assembly.

© ASCE 04023077-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 However, the alternative diaphragm design method of ASCE acceptability of diaphragm design approaches in the context of
7-16, given in its Section 12.10.3, did not apply to most steel FEMA P695.
framed buildings because Rs values were not provided for concrete-
filled steel deck floor diaphragms nor bare steel deck roof dia-
phragms. For concrete-filled steel deck floor diaphragms, based Approach and Archetype Buildings
on an evaluation of past cantilever test data (O’Brien et al. 2017),
additional cantilever testing (Avellaneda-Ramirez et al. 2021), The objectives of this study are to (1) examine the effect of
and using a simplified ductility-based approach (Eatherton et al. diaphragm inelasticity on the dynamic behavior of buildings,
2020), a value for Rs of 2.0 has been proposed as summarized by (2) understand the force demands in diaphragms when subjected
FEMA (2020). For bare steel deck roof diaphragms, based on an to earthquake ground motions, (3) investigate the probability of
evaluation of past cantilever test data (Eatherton et al. 2020; Schafer collapse for buildings designed using different diaphragm design
2019), additional cyclic tests on commonly used fastening methods approaches, and (4) evaluate whether the use of proposed values of
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Torabian and Schafer 2021), and limited nonlinear time-history Rs for bare steel deck and concrete-filled steel deck diaphragms
analyses on single-story warehouse structures (Schafer 2019; leads to acceptable seismic building performance. Whereas pre-
FEMA 2021), Rs of 2.5 has been proposed for roofs meeting vious investigations studying the dynamic interaction between
special seismic detailing (ASCE 2022). For bare steel deck dia- diaphragms and vertical building frames often utilized ideal-
phragms to be eligible to use Rs ¼ 2.5 the use of mechanical fas- ized models consisting of an assembly of springs and masses
tening is a key aspect in meeting the special seismic detailing, (e.g., Fischer and Schafer 2021; Koliou et al. 2016), the current
as adopted in American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) standard study involves nonlinear response-history analyses on more com-
AISI S400 (AISI 2020a). Welded bare steel deck roof diaphragms plete 3D building models. As described in the following sections,
are required to use near elastic design, and Rs ¼ 1.0 in the alter- material nonlinearity in all members is considered, and geometric
native method. Evaluation of these proposed Rs values in the con- nonlinearity with an accurate distribution of gravity loads is in-
text of multistory steel framed buildings is a key objective of the cluded to capture second-order effects and inelastic behavior up to
work presented here. collapse. The diaphragms are discretized to capture the distribution
Seismic response modification coefficients (R, Cd , and Ωo ) may and progression of diaphragm inelasticity up to failure. The build-
be assessed via nonlinear response-history analyses using the pro- ing models are subjected to sets of scaled ground motions to satisfy
cedures of FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009). Assessment of related seis- the stated objectives and develop a new understanding of 3D seis-
mic response modification coefficients for the diaphragm (e.g., Rs ) mic behavior of typical steel-framed buildings.
has not been formally established, although variations on classical The first step in the study was to define and design a series of
ductility-based approaches and FEMA P695 are discussed in the archetype buildings. The buildings were 1-, 4-, 8-, and 12-stories
most recent model seismic provisions (FEMA 2020). FEMA P695 tall with BRBFs or SCBFs for the vertical LFRS and were designed
analyses of the two steel braced frame building typologies of in- in accordance with ASCE 7-16 [Torabian et al. (2019) has given
terest in this paper have generally utilized two-dimensional build- complete details]. Three different diaphragm demand scenarios
ing models. were considered: (1) traditional diaphragm demands established
Buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFs) typically pass from Section 12.10.1 of ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2016), (2) alternative
FEMA P695 acceptance criteria (Kircher et al. 2010; Zaruma and diaphragm demands from Section 12.10.3 of ASCE 7-16, with the
Fahnestock 2018; Veismoradi et al. 2016; Atlayan and Charney proposed values of Rs ¼ 2.0 for concrete-filled steel deck floor
2014; Chen 2010), with limited examples to the contrary (Zaruma diaphragms and Rs ¼ 2.5 for bare steel deck roof diaphragms,
and Fahnestock 2018). Special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) and (3) alternative diaphragm demands again from ASCE 7’s
buildings often do not consistently pass FEMA P695 acceptance Section 12.10.3, but now with Rs ¼ 1.0, consistent with near-
criteria, such as the results by Kircher et al. (2010) wherein 2-story elastic performance during the design earthquake and therefore a
SCBF buildings did not pass FEMA P695, whereas taller 6-, useful case for comparison.
12-, and 16-story SCBF buildings passed. Hsiao et al. (2013) found The archetype buildings all have the same 91.44 m ð300 ftÞ ×
that neither 3-story nor 6-story SCBF archetype buildings pass 30.48 m (100 ft) plan dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1. The build-
FEMA P695. The literature does not reveal a consistent relation- ings have a first-story height of 4.27 m (14 ft) and 3.81 mm (12.5 ft)
ship between number of stories and acceptable collapse proba- for the upper stories. Four bays of braced frames (BRBF or SCBF)
bility, with some studies (e.g., Kircher et al. 2010; Zaruma and are located on the perimeter of the building in each orthogonal
Fahnestock 2018) finding that shorter braced frame buildings have direction, and elevations of the braced frames are provided in Fig. 2.
the largest collapse probability across a suite of building heights, The gravity loads are 2.01 kN=m2 (42 psf) dead and 0.96 kN=m2
whereas others (Veismoradi et al. 2016) suggested the opposite, with (20 psf) live for the bare steel deck roof and 4.07 kN=m2 (85 psf)
shorter buildings having the smallest collapse probability. dead and 2.39 kN=m2 (50 psf) live for the concrete-filled steel
The current study explores the impact of different diaphragm deck floors. The archetype buildings are located at an arbitrary
design procedures on the seismic performance of building systems site in Irvine, California, with Risk category II, Site class D, and
using three-dimensional (3D) building models that capture nonlin- design spectral accelerations at short period and 1-s period of
ear diaphragm behavior and its interaction with a vertical LFRS 1.030g and 0.569g, respectively, where g is the acceleration due
that also experiences nonlinear response. A series of 1-, 4-, 8-, to gravity.
and 12-story archetype buildings are defined with BRBFs or The resulting in-plane diaphragm shear forces, vu , and typical
SCBFs for the vertical system and three designs for the diaphragms. details for the concrete-filled steel deck floor and bare steel deck
The modeling scheme uses computationally efficient calibrated roof diaphragms are given in Table 1. For the BRBF buildings, the
frame and truss elements to capture the nonlinear behavior of both larger ductility (as represented by response modification factor,
the braces and the diaphragms. Nonlinear response-history analy- R ¼ 8.0) in the vertical building frames resulted in smaller dia-
ses using 44 far-field ground-motion records scaled to three hazard phragm shear force demands that were often controlled by the
levels were performed to investigate the behavior and seismic per- lower limit given by ASCE 7-16; the lower limit for traditional
formance of the buildings, and the results are used to evaluate the diaphragm design and the alternative diaphragm design procedures

© ASCE 04023077-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. Typical floor and roof framing plan: (a) typical floor; and (b) typical roof.

are an acceleration equal to 0.2 and 0.4 times the short-period spec- Details of Computational Models
tral acceleration, respectively. Conversely, the diaphragm shear
force demands for the SCBF buildings (with response modification Nonlinear 3D computational models of the archetype buildings
factor, R ¼ 6.0) are larger and vary more because they are not were created using OpenSees version 3.0.3 (McKenna et al. 2010)
always controlled by the lower limit and thus there are a larger consisting of nonlinear phenomenological elements for the dia-
number of diaphragm designs. The trend is that the two different phragm, SCBF braces, and BRBF braces as detailed in subsequent
diaphragm design approaches (traditional diaprhagm design and sections. Fig. 3 shows a schematic view of each building size used
alternative diaphragm design with proposed Rs values) result in in this study. All columns were pinned (all three degrees of rota-
similar if not identical diaphragm demands when the vertical sys- tion unrestrained) at their base and continuous through the height
tem has a large R factor (e.g., R ¼ 8.0), and different diaphragm of the building. All beam-to-column and beam-to-beam joints
demands when the vertical system has a smaller R factor were pinned with the exception of the braced bays, which used
(e.g., R ≤ 6.0). Additional details for the design of the archetype rigid connections at the beam-to-column joint to simulate the in-
buildings have been given by Torabian et al. (2019), Wei (2021), fluence of the gusset plates. For simplicity, the rigid beam-to-
and Foroughi (2021). column connections in the braced frames did not incorporate

© ASCE 04023077-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i) (j)

Fig. 2. Typical elevations of BRBF and SCBF: (a) 1-story BRBF (bare steel deck roof); (b) 1-story SCBF (bare steel deck roof); (c) 1-story BRBF
(concrete-filled steel deck roof); (d) 1-story SCBF (concrete-filled steel deck roof); (e) 4-story BRBF; (f) 4-story SCBF; (g) 8-story BRBF; (h) 8-story
SCBF; (i) 12-story BRBF; and (j) 12-story SCBF.

© ASCE 04023077-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 Table 1. Diaphragm design for archetype buildings
BRBF SCBF
Traditional Rs ¼ 2 or 2.5 Rs ¼ 1 Traditional Rs ¼ 2 or 2.5 Rs ¼ 1
Archetype
c d
building Level vu Design vu Design vu Design vu Design vu Design vu Design
a a
1-story Roof 19 1 19 1 31 2 19 5 19 5 31 6
4-story Roof 19 1 19 1 31 2 27 6 24 6 60 7
8-story Roof 19 1 19 1 31 2 20 5 29 6 72 8
12-story Roof 19 1 19 1 31 2 19 5 30 6 75 8
1-storyb Roofb 39 3 39 3 62 4 39 3 39 3 63 9
4-story Typ. floor 38 3 38 3 71 4 46 9 39 9 79 10
8-story Typ. floor 38 3 38 3 74 4 38 3 38 9 93 10
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12-story Typ. floor 38 3 38 3 75 4 38 3 57 9 114 4

Note: Typ. = typical.
a
Bare steel deck roof.
b
Concrete-filled steel deck roof (for comparison purposes against taller buildings).
c
Required diaphragm shear strength (demand) calculated per ASCE 7-16 (units of kN=m). For floors in multistory buildings, the reported value of vu is the
largest for any story.
d
Diaphragm designs are as follows (1–4 for BRBF building and 5–10 for SCBF building):
• 1 = 38-mm Type B 18-gauge steel deck; to supports: #12 screws in 36=7 pattern; sidelaps: #10 screws @ 152 mm, Type SP1, 0.91 scale factor.
• 2 = 38-mm Type B 16-gauge steel deck; to supports: #12 screws in 36=7 pattern; sidelaps: #10 screws @ 102 mm, Type SP1, 1.45 scale factor.
• 3 = 76-mm composite steel floor deck; 83-mm lightweight concrete, 159-mm total thickness, fc0 ¼ 21 MPa; welded wire reinforcing area 85 mm2 =m;
19-mm studs at 457-mm spacing maximum, Type SP3, 1.19 scale factor.
• 4 = 76-mm composite steel floor deck; 83-mm lightweight concrete, 159-mm total thickness, fc0 ¼ 21 MPa; welded wire reinforcing area ¼ 233 mm2 =m;
19-mm studs at 305-mm spacing maximum, Type SP3, 1.76 scale factor.
• 5 = 38-mm Type B 20-gauge steel deck; to supports: PAF in 36=9 pattern; sidelaps: #12 screws @272 mm, Type SP1, 0.84 scale factor.
• 6 = 38-mm Type B 18-gauge steel deck; to supports: PAF in 36=9 pattern; sidelaps: #12 screws @211 mm, Type SP1, 1.35 scale factor.
• 7 = 38-mm Type B 18-gauge steel deck; to supports: 19-mm weld in 36=7 pattern; sidelaps: top seam weld 12 per span, Type SP2, 16.4 scale factor.
• 8 = 38-mm Type B 16-gauge steel deck; to supports: 19-mm weld in 36=7 pattern; sidelaps: top seam weld 12 per span, Type SP2, 21.3 scale factor.
• 9 = 76-mm composite steel floor deck; 83-mm lightweight concrete, 159-mm total thickness, fc0 ¼ 21 MPa; welded wire reinforcing area ¼ 206 mm2 =m;
19-mm studs at 762-mm spacing maximum, Type SP2, 1.35 scale factor.
• 10 = 76-mm composite steel floor deck; 83-mm lightweight concrete, 159-mm total thickness, fc0 ¼ 21 MPa; welded wire reinforcing area ¼
206 mm2 =m; 19-mm studs at 406-mm spacing maximum, Type SP2, 1.79 scale factor.

strength degradation associated with local buckling or low-cycle loads and the P-delta transformation algorithm in OpenSees for
fatigue fracture. This simplification can lead to extra postpeak the columns.
residual lateral strength at large drifts and thus may slightly reduce Data from previous cantilever diaphragm tests, with configura-
the number of simulated collapses. tion as shown schematically in Fig. 4(a), were used to calibrate
The gravity loads included a combination of dead and live loads nonlinear hysteretic models for the in-plane diaphragm shear re-
(1.05D þ 0.25L) as recommended by FEMA P695, and mass was sponse. For bare steel deck roof diaphragms, two specimens were
determined from the dead loads and lumped at the column nodes at selected, SP1 utilizing mechanical fastening and SP2 utilizing
each story. Rayleigh damping was used with a damping ratio equal welds. SP1 is based on Specimen 33 of Martin (2002) and employs
to 2% at the periods associated with the first and fourth vibration 38-mm-deep Type B 20 gauge steel roof deck and power actuated
modes. Although Rayleigh damping has been shown to create fasteners (PAFs) for the structural connectors and screws for the
artificial damping when the structure yields (Charney 2008), it was deck sidelap connections. SP2 is based on Specimen 12 from Essa
chosen for this study to be consistent with the majority of other et al. (2003) and employs 38-mm-deep Type B 22 gauge roof deck
FEMA P695 studies (e.g., Kircher et al. 2010). with welded sidelap and support connections. For concrete-filled
Both material and geometric nonlinearity are considered in the steel deck, Specimen 3/6.25-4-L-NF-DT from Avellaneda-Ramirez
analysis. The columns and beams were represented by nonlinear et al. (2021) was selected and consisted of 76-mm composite steel
force-based beam-column elements with fiber-section formulation deck, with lightweight concrete fill, and 159 mm total thickness;
and linear kinematic hardening material with a yield stress equal this specimen is referred to as SP3. The load-deformation re-
to 414 MPa, elastic modulus equal to 200 GPa, shear modulus sponses for all three selected diaphragm specimens are shown in
equal to 79 GPa, and hardening modulus equal to 3.1 GPa. Beam Figs. 4(c–e).
sections were modeled as the bare steel section neglecting com- Diagonally oriented nonlinear truss elements were used to sim-
posite beam action because beam flexure did not play a signifi- ulate the cantilever diaphragm specimen in-plane shear behavior as
cant role in lateral-load resistance of these braced frames, and the depicted in Fig. 4(b), with a hysteretic model that captures pinched
composite slab was assumed cracked in the negative-moment re- load-deformation behavior and cyclic strength and stiffness degra-
gions. The fiber section was formulated with eight Gauss-Lobatto dation, known as Pinching4 in OpenSees. The final calibrated
integration points along the element, and the number of fibers Pinching4 material parameters, including backbone stresses and
along the web depth, web thickness, flange width, and flange strains and cyclic strength and stiffness degradation, for the three
thickness of the cross section was 16, 2, 16, and 4, respectively. selected diaphragm specimens are given in Appendix I. A compari-
Geometric nonlinearity was considered by including the gravity son of the hysteretic response from the calibrated diaphragm

© ASCE 04023077-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Three-dimensional OpenSees models of archetype buildings: (a) 1-story building; (b) 4-story building; (c) 8-story building; and (d) 12-story
building.

simulation and that from the experiment is shown in Figs. 4(c–e). tested by Newell et al. (2006). Results for Specimen BRB 3G
The calibrated diaphragm truss elements were then applied to the are shown as an example in Fig. 5(b), and associated material
archetype buildings with discretization shown in Fig. 4(f), result- parameters are given in Appendix I.
ing in diaphragm units that are of similar size as the test speci- The OpenSees Fatigue material model was included to ap-
mens with continuous beams and girders representative of floor proximate BRB fracture with an assumed strain associated with
construction that participate in diaphragm action through both ax- failure in one cycle, ε0 , of 0.2 based on the elongation of ASTM
ial and minor-axis flexural strength. A36 material. Based on the BRB 3G specimen that fractured in
To scale the calibrated hysteretic behavior to match specific the study by Newell et al. (2006) testing [Fig. 5(b)], the slope of
diaphragm designs of Table 1, the backbone forces were scaled the Coffin-Manson (Coffin 1954) curve in log-log space, m, was
so that the peak strength was equal to the nominal diaphragm taken as −0.5976. The resulting calibrated BRB core material was
shear strength calculated using AISI S310 (AISI 2020b). For used in the archetype building models with the same brace mod-
the concrete-filled steel deck, the contribution of reinforcing eling approach shown in Fig. 5(a) and BRB core areas given
steel was included in the nominal diaphragm shear strength per in Fig. 2.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) standard ACI 318 (ACI For the SCBF braces, the modeling approach of Uriz et al.
2019), an assumption shown to be reasonable by Avellaneda- (2008) was adopted. An explicit half-sine wave imperfection along
Ramirez et al. (2021). The diaphragm type (SP1, SP2, or SP3) the brace length, L, of amplitude L=1,000 was included as shown
and scale factor for each diaphragm design are provided in the in Fig. 5(c). Six displacement-based nonlinear beam column ele-
notes of Table 1. ments with four integration points along the element length were
A similar process was followed to calibrate hysteretic brace employed. The elements used fiber discretization as shown in
behavior. For the BRBF braces [Fig. 5(a)], the core (restrained Fig. 5(d) and the Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto constitutive model, im-
yielding segment) was represented by a nonlinear truss element plemented as Steel02 in OpenSees. Rotational springs modeled
with the Steel4 material model in OpenSees. The nonyielding seg- using zero-length elements were placed at each end of the brace to
ments at the brace ends were modeled with elastic beam-column simulate the rotational stiffness of the gusset plate connections.
elements. An additional elastic beam-column element with negli- Geometric nonlinearity associated with brace buckling is captured
gible cross-sectional area, but large bending stiffness, was placed using the corotational transformation in OpenSees. To approximate
in line with the yielding core to constrain the relative rotation the effects of fracture in the SCBF brace, a strain limit was imposed
between brace ends and prevent instability of the truss element. using the MINMAX material in OpenSees with an assumed frac-
The material model for the BRB core was calibrated to match force ture strain of 0.05. This model of the brace does not explicitly
versus displacement results associated with the set of specimens capture local buckling effects.

© ASCE 04023077-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 4. Diaphragm modeling details: (a) schematic view of cantilever diaphragm test setup; (b) computational model of diaphragm test; (c) hysteretic
response of Diaphragm SP1; (d) hysteretic response of Diaphragm SP2; (e) hysteretic response of Diaphragm SP3; and (f) diaphragm discretization in
archetype buildings.

The SCBF brace model was calibrated utilizing Specimen HSS capable of capturing the critical behavioral characteristics, except-
1-1 from Fell et al. (2009) and Specimen strut 17 from Popov and ing local buckling.
Black (1981). For Specimen strut 17, no rotational springs were The computational model is expected to capture failure modes
used at the ends of the brace because there was a mechanical such as shear failure in the field of the diaphragm, failure of the
pin in the experiments. As shown in Fig. 5(e), the cyclic loading force transfer from diaphragm to collector, nonlinear axial behavior
behavior of a SCBF brace is complex and characterized by flex- of BRBs, yielding and buckling of tube braces, yielding of beams
ural buckling in compression, yielding in tension, local buckling/ and columns, and global instabilities. Some failure modes are not
creasing of the tube wall at large deformations, and finally fracture. captured and were assumed not to occur, such as failure of chord
The calibrated computational model is shown in Fig. 5(e) to be and collector connections, constrained axis buckling of chords and

© ASCE 04023077-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Fig. 5. Brace modeling details: (a) configuration of a typical BRB and computational model; (b) hysteretic response of Specimen BRB 3G;
(c) configuration of a typical SCBF brace; (d) fiber discretization of SCBF brace; and (e) hysteretic response for Specimen HSS 1-1.

collectors, local buckling and fracture at the braced frame beam-to- ground motions from FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009) scaled to three
column connections, lateral torsional buckling of beams, and some different hazard levels. The 22 pairs of far-field ground motions
buckling modes of the columns. were used with the orthogonal ground-motion pairs applied concur-
rently, and then switched in orientation, resulting in 44 response-
history analyses for each building and hazard level combination.
Details of Response-History Analyses
With 44 variations in ground motions, three hazard levels, 10
Nonlinear response-history analyses were performed with the set unique buildings, and three diaphragm designs for each, this rep-
of building models subjected to the suite of far-field earthquake resents a total of 3,960 response-history analyses, although some of

© ASCE 04023077-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 Table 2. Ground-motion scale factors for all buildings with Rs ¼ 2.0 for the concrete-filled steel deck floors and Rs ¼
BRBF SCBF 2.5 for the bare steel deck roof. Even though the diaphragms were
not explicitly designed to stay elastic for this building, they exhib-
Building DE MCE ACMR10% DE MCE ACMR10%
ited essentially elastic behavior, as evidenced by the negligible dif-
1-story (bare steel 1.29 1.94 2.43 1.29 1.94 2.61 ference between BRBF and total story drift. Indeed, the deformed
deck roof) shape in Fig. 6(b) shows negligible diaphragm deformation at the
1-story (concrete- 1.29 1.94 2.39 1.29 1.94 2.50 end of the ground motion, which is due to the fact that the larger
filled deck roof)
ground accelerations and deformations occurred in the longer (X)
4-story 1.67 2.50 2.90 1.42 2.12 2.78
8-story 1.67 2.50 2.86 1.66 2.49 3.33
direction of the building.
12-story 1.99 2.98 3.58 1.66 2.49 3.10 Conversely, Figs. 6(c and d) show a case where the diaphragm
dominates the dynamic response of the building and the collapse
mode. The Capitola ground motion from the 1989 Loma Prieta
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

earthquake was applied with the larger component (LOMAP/

the buildings with traditional diaphragm design were identical with CAP000) oriented in the shorter (Y) direction of the building.
buildings with diaphragms designed for Rs ¼ 2.0 (concrete-filled Diaphragm demands are larger in the Y-direction because the
steel deck) and Rs ¼ 2.5 (bare steel roof deck). diaphragm aspect ratio (span/depth) is much larger than the
The selected hazard levels were (1) design earthquake (DE) X-direction. Diaphragm damage was concentrated at the ends
determined using the scaling approach and seismic design cate- of the diaphragm span, and inelastic diaphragm deformations,
gory Dmax from FEMA P695; (2) maximum considered earth- particularly at the roof, led to excessive story drifts that would
quake (MCE). which was taken as 3=2 times the DE scale factor; be associated with collapse.
and (3) a scale level based on adjusted collapse margin ratio The lateral behavior of the braced frames and the diaphragm are
(ACMR10% ) which can be used to directly assess collapse accept- tied together through second-order effects where lateral displace-
ability (i.e., less than 50% of ground motions causing collapse rep- ment of either component will increase the destabilizing P-Δ lat-
resents acceptable performance). Ground-motion scaling for the eral forces, which will affect the other component. It was also
DE and MCE levels was performed in accordance with FEMA observed that inelastic diaphragm deflections can substantially ex-
P695, wherein all ground motions in the set are amplified by the acerbate second-order effects and cause collapse in ways that are
same scale factor such that the median spectral acceleration for the not captured in most building analyses that assume rigid or elastic
set equals the design spectral acceleration at the fundamental period diaphragm behavior. An example of both of these phenomena is
of the building. shown in Fig. 6(e) using the Rio Dell Overpass ground motion from
The scale factor for ACMR10% hazard level was determined the 1992 Cape Mendocino earthquake. Inelastic deformations in
as described in Appendix F.3 of FEMA P695 starting with an as- the braced frame during the first 8 s of the motion led to increased
sumed total collapse uncertainty β TOT ¼ 0.525 based on assumed second-order effects on the diaphragm, which in turn caused a
good quality ratings for design requirements, test data, and mod- ratcheting of the diaphragm deflection (observed as increasing total
eling, and record-to-record uncertainty of 0.4. Then, the period- story drift past the BRBF story drift).
based ductility was obtained from pushover analysis of a specific To examine the effect of diaphragm design on the behavior of
building, and the spectral shape factor and collapse margin ratio buildings, Fig. 6(f) shows the response of the building with dia-
were obtained. Finally, the ACMR10% scale factor is obtained by phragms designed using the alternative diaphragm design pro-
multiplying the collapse margin ratio by the scale factor for MCE. cedure with Rs ¼ 1.0 subject to the same ground motion and
Table 2 provides the resulting scale factors for every combina- scaling as the building in Fig. 6(e). As shown by the small differ-
tion of hazard level and archetype building. Additional details ence between total story drift and BRBF story drift in Fig. 6(f), the
of the building models have been provided by Wei (2021) and diaphragm remained essentially elastic, as might be expected when
Foroughi (2021). using a diaphragm design force reduction factor near Rs ¼ 1.0.
Perhaps less intuitive is the increase in peak BRBF story drift from
approximately 2.5% with inelastic diaphragm behavior to approx-
Typical Building Behavior imately 3.1% when the diaphragm is elastic. In general, buildings
with stronger diaphragms, and thus smaller diaphragm displace-
To demonstrate the typical range of behavior observed from ments, result in increased braced frame displacement demands.
response-history analyses, the 4-story BRBF building as subjected Although individual examples of response are useful in under-
to MCE-level ground motions was selected, and resulting story drift standing phenomena, evaluating median response for groups of
histories and deformed shapes at the end of the ground motion are buildings is useful for understanding overall trends. The distribu-
given in Fig. 6. Figs. 6(a–f) show the BRBF story drift and the total tion of median peak resultant story drift along the building height
story drift (nodal displacement in either the X- or Y-direction as for all the archetype buildings subjected to the MCE level of
specified) at the location in the building experiencing the maximum ground motions is provided in Fig. 7. Resultant story drift is
story drift; the difference between BRBF and total story drift rep- defined as the largest story drift (i.e., largest relative horizon-
resents the story drift due to in-plane diaphragm deformations. The tal displacement measured between the two end nodes of any
first-mode natural period of this building was found to be 1.17 s column) in any direction and results in considerably larger values
in both directions, and this value was relatively insensitive to dia- than nonlinear two-dimensional (2D) frame analyses (e.g., Chen
phragm design [more details have been given by Wei (2021) and 2010; Özkılıç et al. 2018) which typically exhibit peak story drift
Torabian et al. (2019)]. ratios varying from 2% to 5% when subjected to MCE-level
Figs. 6(a and b) demonstrate the case of the Nishi-Akashi ground motions.
ground motion from the 1995 Kobe earthquake which caused The trends in story drift distribution along the height of the
the BRBF to suffer excessive drift. For this building, the diaphragm building were similar across all buildings studied: large story drift
demands resulted in the same final design whether traditional dia- at the first story, more uniform and smaller story drift at the inter-
phragm design or using alternative diaphragm design procedure mediate stories, and again larger story drift near the roof. Due to the

© ASCE 04023077-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 12

10
MCE Motion 13
Story Drift (x direction) (%)

Total Story Drift

8 BRBF Story Drift

2
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
(a) (b)
5
MCE Motion 26
Total Story Drift
0 BRBF Story Drift
Story Drift (y direction) (%)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
(c) (d)

6 4
MCE Motion 35
5 MCE Motion 35
3 Total Story Drift
Story Drift (y direction) (%)

Total Story Drift

Story Drift (y direction) (%)

BRBF Story Drift

4 BRBF Story Drift
2
3

2 1

1
0
0
-1
-1

-2 -2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(e) (f)

Fig. 6. Example response-history analysis results: (a) example with braced frame failure; (b) deformed shape for example with braced frame failure;
(c) example where diaphragm dominates; (d) deformed shape for example where diaphragm dominates; (e) example of combined failure; and
(f) example using Rs ¼ 1.0.

contribution of diaphragm deformation, the median peak resultant The impact of the different diaphragm design procedures on the
story drifts are generally larger for buildings with larger Rs values median peak story drifts was small for the BRBF archetype build-
(Rs > 1.0) and for buildings with the traditional diaphragm design ings because inelastic displacement is provided by the braces. Con-
procedure (where the demands are assumed to be reduced as a versely, diaphragm design can have a profound effect on peak story
function of the vertical system’s R). drifts in the SCBF, particularly at the top story. Fig. 7(b) shows

© ASCE 04023077-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Distribution of median peak resultant story drift along building height subjected to MCE-level earthquakes: (a) BRBF buildings; and (b) SCBF
buildings.

excessive story drift at the top story associated with the median When subjected to MCE-level ground motions, the buildings
MCE response for several of the SCBF buildings with traditional designed with Rs ¼ 1.0 experienced some inelasticity in the dia-
diaphragm design, whereas the SCBF buildings with Rs ¼ 2.0 for phragms, particularly at the ends of the diaphragm spans in the bays
concrete-filled steel deck floor diaphragms and Rs ¼ 2.5 for bare adjacent to braced frames. The roof diaphragms were shown to be
steel deck roof diaphragms had significantly reduced story drifts. the most susceptible to inelastic demands in these structures.
Similar results at all hazard levels have been reported by Wei
(2021) and Foroughi (2021). Collapse Evaluation
In this section, the probability of collapse is evaluated for different
Diaphragm Force Demands diaphragm design approaches. First, collapse is defined, and then
the raw unadjusted number of collapses at the DE, MCE, and
To evaluate the adequacy of the predicted (near) elastic diaphragm
ACMR10% earthquake hazard levels are presented. Finally, median
forces from the alternative diaphragm design procedure of ASCE
predicted collapse margin ratios (CMRs) from a lognormal fit to
7-16’s Section 12.10.3, the peak diaphragm shear was extracted
the analyses results are used to calculate an adjusted CMR which
from the response-history analyses on buildings designed with a is in turn compared with acceptable CMR’s considering uncertainty
diaphragm design force reduction factor Rs ¼ 1.0. The total shear according to FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009).
demand at the diaphragm edges, Fpeak , was calculated as the Two criteria were considered for the definition of building col-
median (across all DE-scaled ground motions) of the maximum lapse: (1) maximum story drift ratio exceeds 10%, based on the
value (across time) of the sum of diaphragm shear along the two evaluation of two-dimensional BRBF collapse performance by
edges (X- or Y-direction). Results from the analysis showed that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Kircher
diaphragms of the archetype buildings with Rs ¼ 1.0 diaphragm et al. 2010); and (2) maximum diaphragm shear angle exceeds
design remained almost entirely elastic under the DE-level ground 4%, based on evaluation of past cantilever diaphragm tests, almost
motions, and therefore the diaphragm shear demands can be com- none of which provide data past 4% (O’Brien et al. 2017). In cases
parable to the elastic design shear for diaphragms Fpx calculated when the time-stepping algorithm failed to converge during the
using the alternative diaphragm design procedures. analysis, but Criteria 1 or 2 were already violated or clearly would
Ratios of Fpeak =Fpx are provided in Fig. 8 and are reasonably have been in the next step if converged, then the model was con-
close to 1.0, with an average value of 0.84, indicating that the sidered to have collapsed for that run. In the limited cases when
alternative diaphragm design procedure in ASCE 7-16 produces convergence failed but no indication of collapse was observed,
elastic diaphragm design forces that are somewhat conservative the run was excluded from the analysis results [Wei (2021) has
on average, but reasonable for steel-framed buildings. However, given more details].
even though the alternative diaphragm design method explicitly Observed collapse probabilities (Pc ) for the archetype buildings
accounts for higher-mode effects and has a nonlinear increase at three given hazard levels are provided in Table 3 along with the
near the building roof, roof diaphragm demands are not as well- number of ground-motion runs included in the calculation. As ex-
predicted (e.g., 1.06 and 1.03 for the force ratio in the 4-story and pected, collapse probabilities increased with the scale of the exci-
12-story building with BRBF, respectively). tation. Collapse probabilities were generally higher in the SCBF

© ASCE 04023077-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Diaphragm shear demand at the DE level for archetype buildings with Rs ¼ 1.0 normalized by diaphragm design shear: (a) BRBF buildings;
and (b) SCBF buildings.

building than the BRBF, higher for taller buildings, and lowest for version R2022a that minimizes the sum of the square of the errors
the (near) elastic diaphragm design (Rs ¼ 1.0). in the predicted collapse probabilities from the fitted CDF. An ex-
A complete assessment of the collapse probability requires ad- ample of the fitted lognormal CDF plots for the 4-story archetypes
justment for uncertainty, period-dependent spectral shape factor, with traditional diaphragm design is given in Fig. 9. Statistics for
and other factors as detailed in FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009). Due to the fitted distributions of all archetypes are provided in Appendix II
relatively long analysis times in the 3D models, rather than per- and graphically depicted for every case in Wei (2021) and
forming a complete incremental dynamic analysis, the results at the Foroughi (2021).
DE, MCE, and ACMR10% level were used to estimate the median The values of the CMR given by the ratio of the estimated ŜCT
collapse margin ratio, i.e., the ratio of the median spectral acceler- to SMT was multiplied by the spectral shape factor (SSF) to obtain
ation of the collapse-level ground motions, ŜCT , to the spectral the adjusted CMR or ACMR, which was then compared with the
acceleration of the MCE ground motions, SMT , at the fundamental acceptable values of CMR at 20% for each archetype and 10% for
period of the structure, T. The median spectral acceleration of the an archetype group, i.e., ACMR20% and ACMR10% . The same as-
collapse-level ground motions, ŜCT , was estimated as the spectral sumed uncertainties used previously for calculating the ACMR10%
acceleration corresponding to a collapse probability equal to 50% hazard level were also applied here. The final CMR comparisons
using the lognormal cumulative distribution function (CDF), which are provided in Table 4. All BRBF designs are acceptable, both
was fit to the values of collapse probabilities of the archetypes individually and as a group. Most of the SCBF designs are accept-
at the three hazard levels using the fminunc function in MATLAB able, except for traditional diaphragm design (12-story and group

Table 3. Collapse ratios for buildings subjected to three hazard levels

Traditional Rs ¼ 2.0 or 2.5 Rs ¼ 1.0
DE MCE ACMR10% DE MCE ACMR10% DE MCE ACMR10%
Archetype
c d c d c d c d c d c d c d c d c
building N Pc N Pc N Pc N Pc N Pc N Pc N Pc N Pc N Pc d
BRBF buildings
1-storya 44 0.0 44 4.5 44 29.5 44 0.0 44 4.5 44 29.5 44 0.0 44 2.3 44 20.5
1-storyb 44 0.0 44 6.8 44 13.6 44 0.0 44 6.8 44 13.6 44 0.0 44 2.3 44 18.2
4-story 44 6.8 44 20.5 44 31.8 44 6.8 44 20.5 44 31.8 44 2.3 44 13.6 44 27.3
8-story 42 4.8 44 25.0 44 36.4 42 4.8 44 25.0 44 36.4 44 4.5 44 22.7 44 36.4
12-story 43 9.3 44 31.8 43 58.1 43 9.3 44 31.8 43 58.1 43 7.0 44 34.1 44 54.5
SCBF buildings
1-storya 44 6.8 44 43.2 44 81.8 44 6.8 44 43.2 44 81.8 44 2.2 44 11.4 44 47.7
1-storyb 44 0.0 44 15.9 44 79.2 44 0.0 44 15.9 44 79.5 44 0.0 44 13.6 44 72.7
4-story 44 25.0 44 31.8 42 59.1 44 25.0 44 31.8 42 59.1 43 4.5 43 13.6 44 59.1
8-story 42 40.9 42 43.2 43 50.0 44 18.2 43 38.6 41 52.3 44 4.5 44 22.7 44 40.9
12-story 44 40.9 43 65.9 43 79.5 44 15.9 43 27.3 42 45.5 44 0.0 43 11.4 41 20.5
a
Bare steel deck roof.
b
Concrete-filled steel deck roof.
c
Number of runs considered for collapse ratio calculation.
d
Unadjusted collapse percentage.

© ASCE 04023077-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 S CT = 1.59
Collapse Probability

S MT = 1.06
CMR = 1.50
SSF = 1.41
ACMR = 2.54
ACMR 10% = 1.96
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ACMR 20% = 1.56

(a) Spectral Accelation, S T (g) (b)

Fig. 9. Example lognormal cumulative distribution plots for 4-story archetypes with traditional diaphragm design: (a) BRBF; and (b) SCBF.

Table 4. Summary of collapse performance evaluation of archetype buildings using FEMA P695 procedure
Traditional Rs ¼ 2.0 or 2.5 Rs ¼ 1.0
Archetype
building ACMR ACMR20% ACMR10% Pass/fail ACMR ACMR20% ACMR10% Pass/fail ACMR ACMR20% ACMR10% Pass/fail
BRBF buildings
1-storya 2.18 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.18 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.26 1.56 1.96 Pass
1-storyb 3.27 1.56 1.96 Pass 3.27 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.33 1.56 1.96 Pass
4-story 2.54 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.54 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.39 1.56 1.96 Pass
8-story 2.40 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.40 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.24 1.56 1.96 Pass
12-story 1.86 1.56 1.96 Pass 1.86 1.56 1.96 Pass 1.89 1.56 1.96 Pass
Average 2.45 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.45 1.56 1.96 Pass 2.22 1.56 1.96 Pass
SCBF buildings
1-storya 1.53 1.50 1.86 Pass 1.53 1.50 1.86 Pass 2.45 1.53 1.91 Pass
1-storyb 1.75 1.56 1.97 Pass 1.75 1.56 1.97 Pass 1.93 1.56 1.97 Pass
4-story 1.84 1.56 1.97 Pass 1.84 1.56 1.97 Pass 2.06 1.56 1.97 Pass
8-story 2.11 1.56 1.97 Pass 1.70 1.56 1.97 Pass 2.10 1.56 1.97 Pass
12-story 1.20 1.54 1.93 Fail 2.20 1.54 1.93 Pass 3.34 1.51 1.88 Pass
Average 1.69 1.56 1.97 Fail 1.80 1.56 1.97 Fail 2.38 1.56 1.97 Pass
Note: Bold numbers are the limiting value for acceptable ACMR.
a
Bare steel deck roof.
b
Concrete-filled steel deck roof.

tests failed) and the alternative diaphragm design with Rs ¼ 2.0 or the reductions afforded BRBF building diaphragms in the alterna-
2.5 where all individual archetypes passed, but the group failed. tive diaphragm design method that essentially leave minimum ac-
celerations controlling in both designs. When the BRBF building
diaphragm is designed with the alternative method and Rs ¼ 1.0,
Discussion the design is changed, requiring a heavier roof deck and more
reinforcing steel in the floors. However, this expense and increase
Utilizing the adjusted collapse margin ratios (Table 4) as well as in diaphragm strength does not equate to consistently lower col-
the unadjusted probabilities of collapse at the DE and MCE levels lapse probability, or story drift, because the collapse mode is related
(Table 3), one can examine the impact of the diaphragm design to excessive deformations/fracture of the BRBs, and stronger dia-
method, building height, and the use of 2D or 3D building models phragms only force more deformation demand into the BRBF.
in evaluating probability of collapse. In considering the impact of For the SCBF buildings, all three considered diaphragm designs
the diaphragm design method on seismic performance, it is impor- (traditional, Rs ¼ 2.0 or 2.5, and Rs ¼ 1.0) resulted in different
tant to note the impact of the design procedure on the actual dia- floor and roof details. Notably, the roof demands and resulting de-
phragm details, as summarized in Table 1. Most importantly, for the signs were the most sensitive to the selected diaphragm design
BRBF buildings, traditional diaphragm design and the alternative method (Table 1). For the SCBFs, collapse probabilities for the
method with Rs ¼ 2.0 for bare and 2.5 for concrete-filled steel alternative diaphragm design method were either the same or an
decks result in the same diaphragm designs. This is a function of improvement upon the traditional diaphragm designs. This is most

© ASCE 04023077-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 notable in the taller buildings, where the SCBF building with the Conclusions
alternative diaphragm design passed FEMA P695 acceptance cri-
teria at 12 stories, but failed when traditional diaphragm design A series of 1-, 4-, 8-, and 12-story archetype buildings, both SCBF
methods were employed. or BRBF, were created with three different approaches to calculat-
In general, the diaphragms contribute more substantially to ing diaphragm design force demands: (1) traditional diaphragm
the observed failures in the SCBF buildings than in the BRBF demands established from Section 12.10.1 of ASCE 7-16 (ASCE
buildings because ductile frame deformations can reduce dia- 2016), (2) alternative diaphragm demands from Section 12.10.3
phragm demands (Fischer and Schafer 2021). For the SCBF build- of ASCE 7-16, with the proposed Rs ¼ 2.0 for concrete-filled
ings, decreasing Rs to 1.0 is safe but uneconomical, and explicitly steel deck floor diaphragms and Rs ¼ 2.5 for bare steel deck
ignores the evidence given by Eatherton et al. (2020) and related roof diaphragms, and (3) alternative diaphragm demands from
work that inelastic diaphragm deformation capacity exists. Despite Section 12.10.3 of ASCE 7-16 with Rs ¼ 1.0. Using computational
modestly failing the group test in FEMA P695, it is still recom- modeling approaches calibrated against test data for the diaphragms
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mended that the alternative diaphragm design procedure with pro- and braces, 3D computational models with material and geometric
posed Rs values, i.e., Rs ¼ 2.0 for a concrete-filled steel deck nonlinearity were created and subjected to a suite of earthquake
diaphragm and Rs ¼ 2.5 for bare steel deck diaphragms that meet ground motions scaled to three hazard levels. Typical types of seis-
special seismic detailing are reasonable for use in the design of steel mic behavior for the archetype buildings were discussed, median
BRBF and SCBF buildings. The literature shows similar mixed story drifts for one hazard level were examined, and collapse prob-
results for FEMA P695 type studies on 2D SCBF frames, as dis- abilities were evaluated against FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009) accep-
cussed in the “Introduction.” These proposed values for Rs have tance criteria. Significant observations and conclusions from this
been adopted in ASCE 7-22 (ASCE 2022). study include the following:
The studies afford examinations beyond the diaphragm impact. • For the design of buildings with high-ductility vertical frames
(e.g., BRBF with R ¼ 8.0), using the proposed values of Rs ¼
In considering the impact of building height (i.e., number of stories)
2.0 (floors) and Rs ¼ 2.5 (roof) resulted in the same diaphragm
for the BRBF buildings, the collapse probability increased with
designs as using the traditional design procedure. That is be-
building height, regardless of the diaphragm design method. For
cause high-ductility frames reduce diaphragm demands such
the SCBF buildings, when traditional diaphragm design methods
that minimum accelerations control in both design approaches.
were employed, the collapse probability again increased directly
Conversely, in the design of buildings with lower-ductility
with building height. However, for SCBF buildings employing the
vertical frames (e.g., SCBF with R ¼ 6.0), the alternative
alternative diaphragm design method, clear trends do not exist,
diaphragm design procedures, even with the proposed values
and the method provided a relatively consistent collapse proba-
of Rs , will result in a thicker deck, more reinforcing steel, or
bility across building height. In addition, as Fig. 7 indicates, the
more connectors in the diaphragm.
median story drift demands did not change appreciably with build-
• Different classes of 3D building behavior were observed from
ing height. As discussed in the “Introduction,” the literature pro- the nonlinear response-history analyses: some MCE-scaled
vides a mixed result as to the effect of the number of stories on ground motions caused failure and excessive story drifts in the
collapse probabilities of steel buildings. braced frames whereas the diaphragms remained essentially
Considering unadjusted collapse probabilities (Table 3), the elastic; other ground motions excited the longer diaphragm span
number of collapses for the archetype buildings associated with direction and caused failure of the diaphragm; and still a smaller
DE and MCE hazard levels was larger than target collapse prob- number of ground motions engaged considerable inelasticity in
abilities equal to 2% at DE and 20% at MCE. For traditional both the diaphragm and braced frames.
seismic diaphragm design, mean collapse probabilities across the • It was observed that story drifts due to braced frame deforma-
studied buildings for BRBF were 4% at DE and 18% at MCE, and tions and diaphragm deformations acted to compound each
for SCBF were 23% at DE and 40% at MCE. If the diaphragm is other in the context of second-order effects and can act together
designed to remain near elastic (Rs ¼ 1.0), mean collapse proba- to develop sufficient P-Δ effect to cause building collapse.
bilities across the studied buildings for BRBF dropped to 3% at DE • It was shown that median story drifts from BRBF buildings
and 15% at MCE, and for SCBF were 2% at DE and 15% at MCE. subjected to MCE-scaled ground motions were not substan-
A traditional 2D building model, or a 3D model with a rigid tially affected by diaphragm design because the BRBF are the
diaphragm, would be expected to give predictions closer to the primary source of inelastic displacement capacity. Conversely,
lower (Rs ¼ 1.0) results. Thus, one can observe that including the story drifts for the top floors of the SCBF buildings were
diaphragm inelasticity is important for evaluating collapse in this substantially reduced as diaphragms were designed stronger
case, particularly for the SCBF buildings. The peak 3D (resultant) (i.e., smaller Rs ).
story drift was commonly 50% to 100% larger than the component • Using the alternative diaphragm design procedures with Rs ¼
X- or Y-direction drifts, exacerbating P-Δ effects and giving further 1.0 resulted in essentially elastic diaphragm behavior at DE
credence to the benefits and differing predictions resulting from a level with some diaphragm inelasticity at MCE level, especially
3D model (Wei 2021). at the roof. Peak diaphragm shear forces obtained from build-
These results may warrant a reassessment of the way FEMA ings designed using Rs ¼ 1.0 and subjected to DE-level ground
P695 adjusts collapse acceptance using 2D versus 3D models. motions were roughly in agreement with or slightly smaller than
Currently, FEMA P695 implicitly considers 2D models as the the elastic design forces predicted by ASCE 7-22 alternative
baseline and allows a factor of 1.2 to be applied to the collapse diaphragm design procedures, indicating a reasonable approxi-
margin ratio when 3D analyses are performed. Instead, it is more mation of DE-level seismic demands (mean ratio of observed
reasonable to consider 3D models including nonlinear diaphragm shear force to calculated demand was 84%).
behavior as the baseline because they are more accurate, and then • Even in buildings with diaphragms designed to remain essen-
reduction factors for the collapse margin ratio should be provided tially elastic, Rs ¼ 1.0, the number of ground motions causing
for 2D models, 3D models with a rigid diaphragm, and 3D models collapse was larger than might be expected from 2D frame
with elastic diaphragms. models. The difference is attributed to 3D effects such as peak

© ASCE 04023077-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 story drift being substantially larger than the component X- or the average ACMR for each performance group falling below
Y-direction drifts, and the contribution of diaphragm deflection, the ACMR10% limit except for the 12-story SCBF building
both of which exacerbate P-Δ effects, making buildings more with an average slightly (difference is around 8%) less than
prone to collapse. These 3D effects are not captured in models ACMR10% . Therefore, it is concluded that the alternative dia-
assuming rigid diaphragm behavior or 2D frame models. phragm design procedure with proposed Rs ¼ 2 for concrete-
• The ACMR for archetype buildings using the proposed Rs filled steel deck diaphragms and Rs ¼ 2.5 for bare steel deck
values was found to satisfy the FEMA P695 criteria with all diaphragms with special seismic detailing is reasonable for use
individual archetypes falling below the ACMR20% limit and in the design of these types of structures.

Appendix I. Material Parameters Used in the Models

Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Member modeled OpenSees material Parameters

Roof diaphragm SP1 Pinching4 ε1 ¼ 0.0008, σ1 ¼ 153 MPa, ε2 ¼ 0.0017, σ2 ¼ 199 MPa, ε3 ¼ 0.0033, σ3 ¼ 212 MPa, ε4 ¼ 0.0053,
σ4 ¼ 165 MPa, rΔþ ¼ 0.20, rΔ− ¼ 0.35, rFþ ¼ 0.20, rF− ¼ 0.35, uFþ ¼ 0.10, uF− ¼ 0.12, gF1 ¼ 0,
gF2 ¼ 0.35, gF3 ¼ 0, gF4 ¼ 0.70, gFlim ¼ 0.90, gK 1 ¼ 0, gD1 ¼ 0, gK 2 ¼ 0, gD2 ¼ 0.50, gK 3 ¼ 0,
gD3 ¼ 0, gK 4 ¼ 0, gD4 ¼ 0.75, gK lim ¼ 0, gDlim ¼ 0.90, gE ¼ 4.31
Roof diaphragm SP2 Pinching4 ε1 ¼ 0.0009, σ1 ¼ 40 MPa, ε2 ¼ 0.0015, σ2 ¼ 54 MPa, ε3 ¼ 0.0041, σ3 ¼ 64 MPa, ε4 ¼ 0.0073,
σ4 ¼ 30 MPa, rΔþ ¼ 0.05, rΔ− ¼ 0.35, rFþ ¼ 0.28, rF− ¼ 0.35, uFþ ¼ 0.12, uF− ¼ 0.12, gF1 ¼ 0,
gF2 ¼ 0.45, gF3 ¼ 0, gF4 ¼ 0.5, gFlim ¼ 0.87, gK 1 ¼ 0.32, gD1 ¼ 0, gK 2 ¼ 0.60, gD2 ¼ 0.38,
gK 3 ¼ 0.52, gD3 ¼ 0, gK 4 ¼ 1.52, gD4 ¼ 0, gK lim ¼ 1.07, gDlim ¼ 1.08, gE ¼ 2.02
Floor diaphragm SP3 Pinching4 ε1 ¼ 0.0005, σ1 ¼ 438 MPa, ε2 ¼ 0.0006, σ2 ¼ 527 MPa, ε3 ¼ 0.0014, σ3 ¼ 740 MPa, ε4 ¼ 0.0143,
σ4 ¼ 333 MPa, rΔþ ¼ −0.06, rΔ− ¼ −0.06, rFþ ¼ 0.12, rF− ¼ 0.12, uFþ ¼ 0.11, uF− ¼ 0.11, gF1 ¼ 0,
gF2 ¼ 0.83, gF3 ¼ 0, gF4 ¼ 0.46, gFlim ¼ 0.33, gK 1 ¼ 1.09, gD1 ¼ 0.14, gK 2 ¼ 0.76, gD2 ¼ 0.47,
gK 3 ¼ 0.32, gD3 ¼ 0.12, gK 4 ¼ 0.75, gD4 ¼ 0.10, gK lim ¼ 1.04, gDlim ¼ 0.61, gE ¼ 4.29
BRB Steel4 fy ¼ 259 MPa, E0 ¼ 200 GPa, bk ¼ 0, R0 ¼ 20.98, r1 ¼ 0.912, r2 ¼ 0.121, bi ¼ 0.031, bl ¼ 0,
ρi ¼ 0.726, Ri ¼ 1.313, lyp ¼ 18.20, fu ¼ 485 MPa, Ru ¼ 620.6, bkc ¼ 0.012, R0c ¼ 18.91, r1c ¼ 0.913,
r2c ¼ 0.123, bic ¼ 0.002, blc ¼ 0, ρic ¼ 0.906, Ric ¼ 2.973, lypc ¼ 37.35, f uc ¼ 748 MPa, Ruc ¼ 583.5
SCB brace Steel02 fy ¼ 484 MPa, E0 ¼ 200 GPa, b ¼ 0.005, R0 ¼ 20.1, CR1 ¼ 0.90, CR2 ¼ 0.15, a1 ¼ 0, a2 ¼ 1, a3 ¼ 0,
a4 ¼ 1
SCB spring Steel02 My ¼ 46.8 kN-m, kspring ¼ 0.0002 kN-m=rad, b ¼ 0.005, R0 ¼ 20, CR1 ¼ 0.90, CR2 ¼ 0.15, a1 ¼ 0,
a2 ¼ 1, a3 ¼ 0, a4 ¼ 1

Appendix II. Mean of Fitted Lognormally Distributed Fragility Curves (Units of g)

ŜCT
BRBF SCBF
Archetype
building Traditional Rs ¼ 2 or 2.5 Rs ¼ 1 Traditional Rs ¼ 2 or 2.5 Rs ¼ 1
a
1-story 2.15 2.15 2.19 1.72 1.72 2.72
1-storyb 3.17 3.17 2.25 1.78 1.77 1.74
4-story 1.59 1.59 1.49 2.03 2.03 2.23
8-story 1.07 1.07 0.82 1.38 1.12 1.39
12-story 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.55 1.00 1.52
a
Bare deck roof.
b
Concrete-filled steel deck roof.

Data Availability Statement Innovation Initiative, which was funded by the American Institute
of Steel Construction, American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Deck
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this Institute, Steel Joist Institute, and the Metal Building Manufac-
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable turers Association. The Advanced Research Computing at Virginia
request. Tech and the Maryland Advanced Research Computing Cluster at
Johns Hopkins provided high-performance computing resources,
Acknowledgments which facilitated the computational study. Any opinions expressed
in this paper are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or any of the
under Grant Nos. 1562669 and 1562821, and the Steel Diaphragm other sponsors.

© ASCE 04023077-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 References Hsiao, P. C., D. E. Lehman, and C. W. Roeder. 2013. “Evaluation of
the response modification coefficient and collapse potential of special
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. Building code requirements concentrically braced frames.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (10):
for structural concrete (ACI 318-19) and commentary. ACI 318R-19. 1547–1564. [Link]
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. Iverson, J. K., and N. M. Hawkins. 1994. “Performance of precast/
AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). 2020a. North American stan- prestressed concrete building structures during Northridge earthquake.”
dard for seismic design of cold-formed steel structural systems. AISI PCI J. 39 (2): 38–55. [Link]
S400-20. Washington, DC: AISI. Kircher, C., G. Deierlein, J. Hooper, H. Krawinkler, S. Mahin, B. Shing,
AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). 2020b. North American stan- and J. Wallace. 2010. Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 methodology for
dard for the design of profiled steel diaphragm panels. AISI S310-16. quantification of building seismic performance factors. Rep. No. NIST
Washington, DC: AISI. GCR 10-917-8. New York: NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture.
ASCE. 2005. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures Koliou, M., A. Filiatrault, D. J. Kelly, and J. Lawson. 2016. “Distributed
(ASCE standard). ASCE/SEI 7-05. Reston, VA: ASCE. yielding concept for improved seismic collapse performance of rigid
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ASCE. 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures wall-flexible diaphragm buildings.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (2): 04015137.
(ASCE standard). ASCE/SEI 7-10. Reston, VA: ASCE. [Link]
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures Martin, É. 2002. “Inelastic response of steel roof deck diaphragms under
(ASCE standard). ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE. simulated dynamically applied seismic loading.” Master’s thesis, Dept.
ASCE. 2022. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique de
(ASCE standard). Reston, VA: ASCE. Montreal.
Atlayan, O., and F. A. Charney. 2014. “Hybrid buckling-restrained braced McKenna, F., M. H. Scott, and G. L. Fenves. 2010. “Nonlinear finite-
frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 96 (Jan): 95–105. [Link] element analysis software architecture using object composition.”
/[Link].2014.01.001. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (1): 95–107. [Link]
Avellaneda-Ramirez, R. E., M. R. Eatherton, W. S. Easterling, J. F. Hajjar, CP.1943-5487.0000002.
and B. W. Schafer. 2021. “Experimental investigation of concrete on Newell, J., C. M. Uang, and G. Benzoni. 2006. Subassemblage testing of
steel deck diaphragms using cantilever diaphragm tests.” In Cold- core brace buckling restrained braces (G Series). La Jolla, CA: Univ. of
formed steel research consortium report series. Rep. No. CFSRC California, San Diego.
R-2021-02. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Library. O’Brien, P., M. R. Eatherton, and W. S. Easterling. 2017. Characterizing
Charney, F. A. 2008. “Unintended consequences of modeling damping in the load-deformation behavior of steel deck diaphragms using past
structures.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (4): 581–592. [Link] test data. Cold-Formed Steel Research Consortium Report Series.
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(581). Rep. No. CFSRC R-2017-02. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.
Chen, C. H. 2010. “Performance-based seismic demand assessment of con- Libraries.
centrically braced steel frame buildings.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Özkılıç, Y. O., M. B. Bozkurt, and C. Topkaya. 2018. “Evaluation of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California. seismic response factors for BRBFs using FEMA P695 methodology.”
Coffin, L. F. 1954. “A study of the effects of the cyclic thermal stresses on a J. Constr. Steel Res. 151 (9): 41–57. [Link]
ductile metal.” In Translation, 931–950. New York: ASME. .09.015.
Eatherton, M. R., P. E. O’Brien, and W. S. Easterling. 2020. “Examina- Popov, E. P., and R. G. Black. 1981. “Steel struts under severe cyclic
tion of ductility and seismic diaphragm design force-reduction loadings.” J. Struct. Div. 107 (9): 1857–1884. [Link]
factors for steel deck and composite diaphragms.” J. Struct. Eng. /JSDEAG.0005786.
146 (11): 04020231. [Link] Ren, R., and C. J. Naito. 2013. “Precast concrete diaphragm connector per-
.0002797. formance database.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (1): 15–27. [Link]
Essa, H., C. Rogers, and R. Tremblay. 2003. “Behavior of roof deck dia- .1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000598.
phragms under quasistatic cyclic loading.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (12): Rodriguez, M. E., J. I. Restrepo, and J. J. Blandón. 2007. “Seismic design
1658–1666. [Link] forces for rigid floor diaphragms in precast concrete building struc-
(1658). tures.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (11): 1604–1615. [Link]
Fell, B. V., A. M. Kanvinde, G. G. Deierlein, and A. T. Myers. 2009. /(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1604).
“Experimental investigation of inelastic cyclic buckling and fracture of Rodriguez, M. E., J. I. Restrepo, and A. J. Carr. 2002. “Earthquake-induced
steel braces.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (1): 19–32. [Link] floor horizontal accelerations in buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:1(19). Dyn. 31 (9): 693–718. [Link]
FEMA. 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Schafer, B. W. 2019. Research on the seismic performance of rigid wall
FEMA P695. Washington, DC: FEMA. flexible diaphragm buildings with bare steel deck diaphragms. CFSRC
FEMA. 2020. NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings R-2019-02. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.
and other structures. FEMA P-2082-2. Washington, DC: FEMA. Torabian, S., M. R. Eatherton, W. S. Easterling, J. F. Hajjar, and B. W.
FEMA. 2021. Seismic design of rigid wall-flexible diaphragm build- Schafer. 2019. SDII building archetype design v2.0. Cold-Formed Steel
ings: An alternative procedure. FEMA P-1026. Washington, DC: Research Consortium Report Series. Rep. No. CFSRC R-2019-04.
FEMA. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Libraries.
Fischer, A. W., and B. W. Schafer. 2021. “Wall-diaphragm interactions in Torabian, S., and B. W. Schafer. 2021. “Cyclic experiments on sidelap
seismic response of single-story building systems.” Eng. Struct. and structural connectors in steel deck diaphragms.” J. Struct. Eng.
247: 113150. [Link] 147 (4): 04021028. [Link]
Fleischman, R. B., and K. T. Farrow. 2001. “Dynamic behavior of .0002981.
perimeter lateral-system structures with flexible diaphragms.” Uriz, P., F. C. Filippou, and S. A. Mahin. 2008. “Model for cyclic inelastic
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30 (5): 745–763. [Link] buckling of steel braces.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (4): 619–628. [Link]
.1002/eqe.36. .org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(619).
Fleischman, R. B., C. J. Naito, J. Restrepo, R. Sause, and S. K. Ghosh. Veismoradi, S., G. G. Amiri, and E. Darvishan. 2016. “Probabilistic seismic
2005. “Seismic design methodology for precast concrete diaphragms assessment of buckling restrained braces and yielding brace systems.”
Part 1: Design framework.” PCI J. 2005 (Sep): 68–83. Int. J. Steel Struct. 16 (3): 831–843. [Link]
Foroughi, H. 2021. “Enhancing seismic resiliency of steel buildings -0073-5.
through three-dimensional modeling of diaphragm system interaction Wei, G. 2021. “Computational and experimental study on the behavior of
with braced frame.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Systems diaphragms in steel buildings.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and
Engineering, Johns Hopkins Univ. Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech.

© ASCE 04023077-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077

 Zaruma, S., and L. A. Fahnestock. 2018. “Assessment of design parameters Zhang, D., R. B. Fleischman, M. J. Schoettler, J. I. Restrepo, and
influencing seismic collapse performance of buckling-restrained braced M. Mielke. 2019. “Precast diaphragm response in half-scale shake
frames.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 113 (5): 35–46. [Link] table test.” J. Struct. Eng. 145 (5): 04019024. [Link]
.1016/[Link].2018.05.021. /(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002304.
Downloaded from [Link] by University of Washington Libraries on 05/12/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE 04023077-17 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2023, 149(7): 04023077