April 18, Letter from Mr. Philip Line, P.E., of American Wood Council (AWC), dated January 3, 2018.

Transcription

1 April 18, 2018 TO: PARTIES INTERESTED IN QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE SEISMIC FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS USING FEMA P695 METHODOLOGY SUBJECT: Proposed Acceptance Criteria for Qualification Of Building Seismic Performance Of Alternative Seismic Force-Resisting Systems (ICC-ES Guidance Document To FEMA P695), Subject (DZ/WG) Dear Colleague: Hearing Information: Tuesday, June 5, :00 am Hilton Los Angeles Airport 5711 West Century Boulevard Los Angeles, CA (310) You are invited to comment on a proposed new Acceptance Criteria for Qualification Of Building Seismic Performance Of Alternative Seismic Force-Resisting Systems (AC494), which will be discussed at the Evaluation Committee hearing noted above. During December 2017, a proposed acceptance criteria that was based on a proposal from Mr. Jim Harris of J. R. Harris & Company, on behalf of an evaluation report applicant, with input from ICC-ES, was posted on our website for 30 days for public comments. We received comments from the following: 1. Letter from Mr. Philip Line, P.E., of American Wood Council (AWC), dated January 3, Letter from Mr. Jeffrey D. Linville, P.E., of Weyerhaeuser, dated January 3, We have reviewed the correspondence received. The accompanied draft criteria includes revisions since the December 2017 posting, with revisions indicated as underline and strikeout, to address the received comments. Since this is a new criteria, the entire criteria will be considered by the committee. We offer the following response to the received correspondence:

2 2 1. Our response, keyed to the items in the AWC letter, is as follows: a. Item a: Thank you for your feedback. b. Item b: The bounds of the systems sought for recognition are established through the following means: (1) The intended applications including boundaries of intended applications as required by FEMA P695 Sections 3.2 and 3.3 must be included in data in accordance with AC494 Sections and (2) The intended applications must be represented by the archetype models as required by FEMA P695 Chapter 4 (AC494 Section 3.3.2) based on test data and other supporting evidence (AC494 Section 3.2) and must satisfy the acceptable probability of collapse requirements specified in FEMA P695 Chapter 7 (AC494 Section 3.4). (3) Peer review by the Peer Review Panel and ICC-ES to ensure the archetype models represent the full extent of the intended applications including the boundaries. (4) One of the main differences between this proposed AC494 and other ICC-ES acceptance criteria for Seismic Force-resisting Systems (SFRSs), such as AC322, is that other criteria rely on full-scale testing only to establish the system seismic performance, while AC494 relies mainly on nonlinear analysis based on and correlating with test data to predict system performance. Thus, test requirements in other criteria are not fully applicable to this criteria. c. Item c: A new Section is added to address the required minimum number of replicate test specimens. d. Item d: The proposed provisions for determination of a period-based ductility is more appropriate than the FEMA P695 Figure 6-5 approach, since it captures the full extent of post-peak strength behavior as illustrated in Figure 5-4 of FEMA P695. e. Item e: (1) As indicated in the revised Section of the draft criteria, FEMA P695 guideline provisions are considered mandatory when referenced in AC494. (2) A new fourth bullet point is added in Section of the draft criteria that specifies additional requirements on viscous damping to ensure the amount and type of viscous damping are adequate. f. Item f: The main difference between this proposed AC494 and other ICC-ES acceptance criteria on SFRS is that this criteria is based on the ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section approach for a complete alternative SFRS, and does not need to show equivalency to a code-prescribed SFRS. Other ICC-ES acceptance criteria are based on the ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section approach for elements

3 3 of SFRSs, and are required to show equivalency to a code-prescribed SFRS. Thus, comparative testing is not necessary under this criteria. g. Item g: (1) FEMA P695 Section 4.2 (see AC494 Section 3.3.2), the third paragraph (on page 4-3 of P695) specifically requires that hidden overstrength be avoided. (2) Minimum number of index archetypes is described in FEMA P695 Section and Table 4-3 (referenced in AC494 Section 3.3.2). (3) Our response on height limitation is Item b above. 2. Our response, keyed to the items in the Weyerhaeuser letter, is as follows: a. Item 1: In accordance with the proposed AC494, the ICC-ES staff is required to participate in the peer review process. Additionally, data submitted for product evaluation must be reviewed by the ICC-ES staff to show compliance with the approved criteria. These reviews by the ICC-ES staff ensure consistency in reviews between different report applicants. b. Item 2: As required by Section of the draft criteria, full details of the qualifications and independence of the Peer Review Panel must be submitted to and approved by ICC-ES. The ICC-ES staff will review submitted information to ensure that peer review panel members comply with the requirements in FEMA P695 Section 8.3 and ASCE/SEI-7 Section c. Item 3: See our response to AWC Item e(1). d. Item 4: Guidelines for selection of the quality ratings are provided in FEMA P695, Sections 3.4, 3.6, and 5.7, as referenced in AC494 Section Reviews by the ICC-ES staff, including peer review and final review in accordance with the approved criteria, ensure the selection of the quality ratings are consistent between different report applicants. e. Item 5: (1) See our response to AWC Item c, above. (2) See accompanying draft AC494, Section 3.2.2, first bullet point, on the extent of required testing on designated energy-dissipating mechanisms (DEDMs). (3) See accompanying draft AC494, Annex A, Sections A4.2, A4.3 and A4.4 for additional requirements on testing. f. Item 6: See our response to AWC Item e(2). g. Item 7: As a part of ongoing efforts by ICC-ES staff for updating acceptance criteria to include newer code editions, ICC-ES will review current acceptance criteria to ensure compliance with the corresponding code editions.

4 4 Should the committee approve the proposed criteria, the ICC-ES staff will not recommend a mandatory compliance date since there is no evaluation report published under this criteria. Applicants for new evaluation reports will be required to show compliance with the approved criteria. You are invited to submit written comments on this or any other agenda item, or to attend the Evaluation Committee hearing and present your views in person. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please note the following: 1. Regarding written comments and presentations: a. You should submit these via to es@icc-es.org or by U.S. mail to the Western Regional (Brea) office to be received by the applicable due date. b. Comments are to be received by May 9, These written comments will be forwarded to the committee before the meeting, and will also be posted on the ICC-ES web site shortly after the deadline for submission. Written comments that are not submitted by this deadline will not be considered at the meeting. c. Rebuttal comments, from the proponent noted in this letter, are to be received by May 18, They will be forwarded to the committee before the meeting, and will also be posted on the ICC-ES web site shortly after the deadline for submission. Written rebuttal comments that are not submitted by the deadline will not be considered at the meeting. d. Visual presentations, in PowerPoint format only, are to be received by May 30, These will be forwarded to the committee before the meeting, and will also be posted on the ICC-ES web site shortly after the deadline for submission. Presentations that are not submitted by the deadline cannot be viewed at the meeting. Note: Videos will not be posted on the web site. Presentations will be retained with other records of the meeting. It is the presenter s responsibility, prior to the presentation, to verify with ICC-ES staff that the presentation files have been transferred satisfactorily to the presentation computer. e. ICC-ES will post to the web site, on June 1, 2018, memos by the ICC-ES staff, responding to the previously received public comments. f. If you miss the deadlines for submission of written comments and visual presentations, your verbal comments can be presented at the meeting. g. Proposed criteria, written public comments, visual presentations, and responses by ICC-ES staff will be available at the meeting on a limited number of CDs for uploading to computers. ICC-ES will not provide any printed copies. 2. Regarding verbal comments and presentations:

5 5 Please plan to speak for not more than ten minutes. As noted above, visuals must be in PowerPoint format. We have a computer, projector, and screen available to those making visual presentations. It is the presenter s responsibility, prior to their presentation, to verify with ICC-ES staff that presentation files have been satisfactorily transferred to the presentation computer. 3. Keep in mind that all materials submitted for committee consideration are part of the public record and will not be treated as confidential. It is the presenter s responsibility to certify to ICC-ES staff that no materials infringe copyright. 4. Please do not communicate with committee members before the meeting about any items on the agenda. We appreciate your interest in the work of the Evaluation Committee. If you have any questions, please contact me at (800) , extension 3722, or William Gould, P.E., Vice-President, of External Relations and Client Services, at extension You may also reach us by at es@icc-es.org. Yours very truly, DZ/WG/raf Encl. cc: Evaluation Committee David Zhao, P.E., S.E. Principal Structural Engineer

6

7

8

9 (800) (562) A Subsidiary of the International Code Council PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE SEISMIC FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS AC494 Proposed April 2018 PREFACE Evaluation reports issued by ICC Evaluation Service, LLC (ICC-ES), are based upon performance features of the International family of codes. (Some reports may also reference older code families such as the BOCA National Codes, the Standard Codes, and the Uniform Codes.) Section of the International Building Code reads as follows: The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any materials or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. ICC-ES may consider alternate criteria for report approval, provided the report applicant submits data demonstrating that the alternate criteria are at least equivalent to the criteria set forth in this document, and otherwise demonstrate compliance with the performance features of the codes. ICC-ES retains the right to refuse to issue or renew any evaluation report, if the applicable product, material, or method of construction is such that either unusual care with its installation or use must be exercised for satisfactory performance, or if malfunctioning is apt to cause injury or unreasonable damage. Acceptance criteria are developed for use solely by ICC-ES for purposes of issuing ICC-ES evaluation reports Copyright 2018 ICC Evaluation Service, LLC. All rights reserved.

10 Page 2 April 2018 PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE SEISMIC FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS (AC494) INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose: The purpose of this criteria is to establish requirements for seismic performance and non-seismic structural performance of alternative seismic force-resisting systems (SFRSs) for new construction to be recognized in an ICC Evaluation Service LLC (ICC-ES) Evaluation Report under the 2018 International Building Code (IBC). The bases of this criteria are IBC Section and ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section The reason for development of this criteria is the absence of code referenced standards to establish requirements for qualification of seismic performance of alternative SFRSs seismic forceresistance systems. 1.2 Scope: General: The main body of this criteria prescribes seismic performance requirements that are applicable to all alternative SFRSs under this criteria. Additional seismic performance requirements for specific systems, if applicable, and non-seismic structural performance requirements for specific systems, are identified in Section of this criteria General Seismic Performance Requirements: The main body of This this acceptance criteria prescribes requirements for qualification of alternative SFRSs seismic force-resisting systems that are not prescribed in Table of ASCE/SEI 7. The main body of This this criteria specifies prescribes requirements for testing, engineering analysis, and conditions of acceptance, such that a structural system qualified under this criteria can be designed in accordance with the design provisions qualified under this criteria, which include, at a minimum, seismic design coefficients and factors (or seismic

11 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page performance factors), structural system limitations, restrictions to certain Seismic Design Categories, limitations on structural height, required provisions for designing the system s components and connections, and detailing requirements. Structural systems qualified under this criteria are expected to have exhibit equivalent safety against collapse in an earthquake, comparable to the inherent safety against collapse intended by SFRSs seismic force-resisting systems prescribed in IBC as listed in ASCE/SEI 7 Table The main body of this criteria applies to all systems qualified under this criteria. System-specific requirements, if applicable, are identified in the corresponding Annex after the main body of this criteria This criteria addresses only structural performance of alternative seismic forceresisting systems subjected to load combinations including seismic loads (referred herein as seismic load combinations). System-specific Requirements: System-specific requirements, such as additional seismic performance requirements for specific systems, if applicable, and non-seismic structural performance requirements for specific systems, are identified in the corresponding Annex after the main body of this criteria or in other product-specific ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria. Annex A of this criteria addresses system-specific requirements for a dual system consisting of steel moment frame(s) and steel braced frame(s) manufactured from structural steel and cold-formed steel materials. 1.3 Codes and Referenced Standards International Building Code (IBC), International Code Council.

12 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page FEMA P695, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since FEMA P695 was published in June 2009, prior to the publication of the 2018 IBC, to be consistent with 2018 IBC and its referenced standard of ASCE/SEI 7-16, under this criteria, all references in FEMA P695 to ASCE/SEI 7-05 shall be regarded as references to ASCE/SEI Within the context of this criteria, guideline provisions in FEMA P695, when referenced in this criteria, are considered mandatory requirements under this criteria ACI , Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute AISC , Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction AISI S400-15/S1-16, North American Standard for Seismic Design of Coldformed Steel Structural Systems, American Iron and Steel Institute ANSI/AWC SDPWS-15, Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic, American Wood Council ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM E575-05(11), Standard Practice for Reporting Data from Structural Tests of Building Constructions, Elements, Connections, and Assemblies, ASTM International ASTM E , Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Vertical Elements of the Lateral Force Resisting Systems for Buildings, ASTM International.

13 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page TMS , Building Code for Masonry Structures, The Masonry Society TMS , Specification for Masonry Structures, The Masonry Society. 1.4 Definitions: Definitions described in the IBC and referenced standards, such as ACI 318, AISC 341, AISI S400, and ASCE/SEI 7, and definitions in FEMA P695, with modifications and clarifications in this criteria, are applicable to this criteria. Since FEMA P695 was published in June 2009, prior to the publication of the 2018 IBC, to be consistent with 2018 IBC and its referenced standard of ASCE/SEI 7, under this criteria, all references in FEMA P695 to the MCE ground motion shall be regarded as references to the MCE R ground motion Seismic Load Combinations: Code prescribed load combinations that include seismic loads Non-seismic Load combinations: Code prescribed load combinations that do not include seismic loads Seismic Performance: Structural performance of alternative SFRSs subjected to seismic load combinations Non-seismic Structural Performance: Structural performance of alternative SFRSs subjected to non-seismic load combinations Designated Energy-dissipating Mechanism (DEDM): Selected portion(s) of an alternative SFRS that are designed and detailed to dissipate energy related to ground motion in selected mode(s) of inelastic deformation. Within the context of this criteria, DEDMs refer to not only the portion(s) of a SFRS, which are described as designated yielding members in AISC 341 or designated energy-dissipating mechanisms in AISI S400, but also the mode(s) of inelastic deformation such as flexural yielding.

14 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page BASIC INFORMATION 2.1 General: The following information shall be submitted with the ICC-ES evaluation report applications System Description: Provide a comprehensive description of the proposed alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system, including intended applications, physical and behavioral characteristics, and manufacturing process. The provisions in Section 3.2 of FEMA P695 shall be satisfied. Each component of the system shall be described in detail, including material type, grade and specifications; dimensions and dimensional tolerances; and any other attributes/parameters that affect the system s structural performance Design Requirements and Installation Instructions: The ICC-ES evaluation report holder s published design provisions for the proposed alternative SFRS seismic forceresisting system shall provide information to quantify strength limit states, proportion and detail components, analyze predicted response, and confirm satisfactory behavior, and set the scope in the application of the proposed system. The provisions in Section 3.3 of FEMA P695 shall be satisfied. The design provisions shall identify those aspects, which are unique to or different from those in IBC and its referenced standards (such as ACI 318, AISC 341 and AISI S400, and AISC 341), and shall be based on and confirmed by test data and other supporting evidence prescribed in Section 3.2 of this criteria. The ICC-ES evaluation report holder s published installation instructions shall include provisions for installation and inspections of for the proposed alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system Packaging and Identification: Provide a description of the method of packaging and field identification of the products that are supplied by the ICC-ES evaluation report holder,

15 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page which shall include product name, type, grade, size, lot number or batch number for traceability, the name of the ICC-ES evaluation report holder, and the ICC-ES evaluation report number, and other pertinent information to confirm correct application of the product. 2.2 Testing Laboratories: Testing laboratories shall comply with Section 2.0 of the ICC- ES Acceptance Criteria for Test Reports (AC 85) and Section 4.2 of the ICC-ES Rules of Procedures for Evaluation Reports. 2.3 Test Reports: Test Reports shall comply with ICC-ES AC 85 and ASTM E Product sampling: Components of test assemblies shall be sampled in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.4 of ICC-ES AC85. The laboratory personnel shall witness or verify the proper construction of test assemblies in accordance with Section 3.3 of ICC-ES AC TEST AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 General: The fundamental steps for implementation of the FEMA P695 methodology, based on Chapter 2 of FEMA P695, are as follows: the required system information, including the design provisions noted in Section of this criteria, and test data and other supporting evidence described in Section 3.2 of this criteria, is used for prediction of the system response (as described in Section 3.3 of this criteria), and the predicted system response shall conform to the conditions of acceptance (as noted in Section 3.4 of this criteria). 3.2 Test data and Other Supporting Evidence: General: A comprehensive experimental program shall be carried out to validate material properties and behavior of components, connections, assemblies, and the system, and to calibrate nonlinear analysis models, and establish system performance acceptance criteria. To achieve the goal of the comprehensive experimental program, combined test data

16 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page (per Section 3.2.2) and other supporting evidence (per Section 3.2.3) shall satisfy provisions in Section 3.5 of FEMA P695, with the modifications and clarifications described in Sections and of this criteria Test Data: The requirements of Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this criteria shall be satisfied Test data shall comply with Section 3.5 of FEMA P695 and clarifications and modifications in Section 3.2 of this criteria. At a minimum, test data shall include the following: Data on the method of dissipation of ground motion energy, such as designated yielding members (DYMs) as described in AISC 341, or designated energydissipating mechanisms (DEDMs) described in AISI S400, which shall be corroborated confirmed by nonlinear analysis. Unless test data on DEDMs with all combinations of parameters affecting the DEDM performance is submitted to ICC-ES, test data on the DEDMs shall cover the full ranges of parameters that affect the strength and deformation performance of the DEDMs sought for recognition, such that performance of untested DEDMs can be reliably predicted by the analytical model that is based on and confirmed by the test data. Data on full-scale, one-story alternative SFRSs seismic force-resisting systems, which shall be corroborated by nonlinear analysis. Data on behavior of members and connections in multi-story construction, where such behavior is critical to the system performance, and cannot be reliably predicted by testing on designated yielding members DEDMs or testing on one-story alternative SFRSs seismic force-resisting systems. The test data shall be corroborated by nonlinear analysis.

17 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page For all tests required in Section 3.2.2, testing shall include a material testing program (as indicated in Section of FEMA P695) related to the test specimens of members, connections, assemblies and systems, which shall be used in nonlinear analysis to corroborate with the test data on members, connections, assemblies and systems. Data for special features of the product or alternative SFRSs seismic forceresisting systems, as applicable Number of Replicate Specimens: For each type of test required in Section of this criteria, the proponent of the alternative SFRS seismic force-resistance system shall identify the critical values that are to be determined from the tests in order to achieve the objective of the testing, such as strength and deformation values at yield, at peak strength (or at maximum strength), and at post-peak (or at ultimate displacement capacity). For each type of test that is required to establish parameters for the nonlinear analysis required by Section of this criteria, a minimum of three replicate specimens shall be tested for each specimen configuration. To be consistent with ASCE/SEI 7 Section , average values of a minimum of three replicate tests shall be used for test data analysis under this criteria, provided that the deviation of any critical value, as noted in this section, obtained from any single test does not vary from the average value for all replicate tests by more than 15 percent. If such derivation from the average value for any test exceeds 15 percent, additional replicate tests shall be conducted until the deviation of any test from the average value does not exceed 15 percent or a minimum of six replicate tests have been conducted. No test shall be excluded from being reported unless a rationale for its exclusion is given in the test report.

18 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page Other Supporting Evidence: Where analytical and experimental evidence is used as a basis for some portion(s) of the design provisions or the nonlinear modeling, and is not included in test data required per Section of this criteria, the evidence shall be in public domain and shall be published in nationally recognized, peer reviewed publications (such as the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering) and the use of such evidence shall be subjected to receive approval of by the Peer Review Panel and approval of ICC-ES. 3.3 Prediction of System Response: General: The quantitative acceptance criteria are based upon analysis of system response to seismic ground motion. This section prescribes requirements for the development of the analytical models and the execution of the response analysis System Archetype Development: Provide complete descriptions of the index archetype configurations, the archetype design space, the performance groups, and the index archetype designs developed to represent the scope of application of the system, and key features and behaviors related to the collapse performance of the alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system. The provisions of Chapter 4 of FEMA P695 shall be satisfied Nonlinear Model Development: Provide complete descriptions of the index archetype models used for nonlinear analysis of the alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system. The provisions of Chapter 5 of FEMA P695 shall be satisfied, except Section 5.7, which is included in Section 3.4 of this criteria Nonlinear Analysis:

19 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page Provide complete descriptions and summarized results of the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of the index archetype models. The provisions of Chapter 6 of FEMA P695 shall be satisfied Nonlinear analysis software shall comply in accordance to Section of FEMA P695. In addition, for nonlinear analysis generated by a computer software program, a user s guide to the program shall be submitted to ICC-ES, and the version of the software shall be reported to ICC-ES. Also In addition, a program description shall be provided and shall contain the necessary information to enable ICC-ES and the Peer Review Panel to determine the nature and extent of the analyses, verify the input data, interpret the results, and determine whether the analyses fit the design procedures and the nonlinear model. The description of the output computed by the program shall be clearly distinguished from the input data. A general program operation description is also needed, in the form of a flowchart arrangement of all of the steps taken and the design formulas used, in order to verify compliance with the design procedures For the dynamic analysis, compute the median Collapse Margin Ratio (CMR) for the far field set of ground motions specified in Appendix A of FEMA P If equivalent viscous damping covered in Section of FEMA P695 is used in the analytical models described in Section of this criteria, the Peer Review Panel defined in Section of this criteria and ICC-ES shall explicitly review and approve the amount and type of damping used in the nonlinear analysis, including a sensitivity study to confirm that the amount of assumed damping does not detrimentally affect the computed response. The sensitivity study shall include at least two index archetype models from different

20 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page performance groups, as defined Section 4.3 of FEMA P695, and shall show the difference in the computed median Collapse Margin Ratios for the far field set of ground motions for different values of equivalent viscous damping Analysis of response to the near field set of ground motions is optional under this criteria, and this approach is consistent with the acceptance of increased risk of collapse for buildings near large, active faults as permitted by ASCE/SEI For the purpose of evaluating period-based ductility in Equation 6-6 of FEMA P695, the ultimate roof displacement is permitted to be taken as 80 percent of the median collapse displacement determined by nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis in lieu of the ultimate displacement from the nonlinear static pushover analysis defined in Figure 6-5 of FEMA P695. For this purpose, the collapse displacement at the roof is defined for each ground motion as the roof displacement from the last stable point in the incremental dynamic analysis, and as further limited by appropriate non-simulated collapse criteria as defined in Section 5.5 of FEMA P695. Other provisions of Section 6.3 of FEMA P695 for Nonlinear Static (Pushover) Analyses must still be satisfied. 3.4 Data Analysis and Conditions of Acceptance: General: This section prescribes the quantitative criteria for acceptance of the alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio: The adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR) for each archetype model and for each performance group of archetype models shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of FEMA P695.

21 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page Total System Collapse Uncertainty: The total system collapse uncertainty in performance shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.3 of FEMA P695, including the following steps: Describe the selection of the Quality Rating for Design Requirements satisfying the provisions of Section 3.4 of FEMA P Describe the selection of the Quality Rating for Test Data satisfying the provisions of Section 3.6 of FEMA P Describe the selection of the Quality Rating for Index Archetype Models (nonlinear modeling) satisfying the provisions of Section 5.7 of FEMA P Compute the total system collapse uncertainty in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.3 of FEMA P Limitations on Total System Collapse Uncertainty: As a modification to FEMA P695, Sections 3.4, 3.6 and 5.7, for all systems to be qualified for use in Seismic Design Categories D, E and F, all of the three Quality Ratings, under Section of this criteria, shall be Fair, Good or better Superior Acceptable Values of the Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio (ACMR): The acceptable values of the ACMR are prescribed in Section 7.4 and Table 7-3 of FEMA P695. All systems shall satisfy the following two basic collapse prevention objectives, as prescribed in Section 7.5 of FEMA P695: The average value of ACMR for each performance group of index archetype models shall satisfy a probability of collapse that does not exceed 10 percent given the occurrence of the MCE R ground motion used for design of the archetypes.

22 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page The individual values of ACMR for each individual index archetype model within a performance group shall satisfy a probability of collapse that does not exceed 20 percent given the occurrence of the MCE R ground motion used for design of the archetype Derivation of Seismic Performance Factors: The selection of the values of the Seismic Response Modification Factor R, the Seismic Overstrength Factor Ω 0, and the Seismic Deflection Amplification Factor C d, shall satisfy the provisions of FEMA P695 Sections 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7, respectively. 4.0 TEST METHODS AND TEST PLAN 4.1 Test Plan: A test plan, accounting for requirements for test data and other supporting evidence described in Sections and of this criteria, shall be submitted to and approved by the Peer Review Panel (refer to Section of this criteria) and ICC-ES prior to commencement of testing. 4.2 Test Methods and Related Test Requirements: The test plan shall include detailed information on the test program, such as test standards, test specimens including number of replicate specimens, test setup (including aspects such as apparatus, specimen installation, and instrumentation), load sequence (or applied deformation sequence). It is expected that testing Testing shall be conducted in accordance with a nationally recognized test standard, such as AISC 341 Chapter K and or ASTM E2126. Explanations for deviation from a nationally recognized test standard shall be included in the test plan proposal. 5.0 QUALITY CONTROL 5.1 Quality Control for Development of the Alternative SFRS Seismic Forceresisting System:

23 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page General: Quality control for the development of the alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system, from the description of the system through the validation of the seismic performance parameters, shall meet the requirements prescribed in this section Development Team Qualifications: The qualifications of the team that develops the proposed alternative SFRS seismic force-resistant system for the ICC-ES evaluation report applicant shall satisfy the provisions of Section 8.1 of FEMA P Development Review: The entire set of documentation required per Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this criteria and summarized in Section 8.2 of FEMA P695 and ASCE/SEI-7 Section shall be made available to both the Peer Review Panel and the ICC-ES staff Peer Review Panel: A Peer Review Panel shall be assembled during the development phase of the alternative SFRS system by the ICC-ES evaluation report applicant and shall satisfy the provisions of Section 8.3 of FEMA P695 and ASCE/SEI-7 Section Full details of the qualifications and independence of the Peer Review Panel shall be submitted to and approved by the ICC-ES. ICC-ES shall appoint at least one ICC-ES staff member to the Peer Review Panel as a nonvoting member to the Peer Review Panel. The Peer Review Panel shall fulfill its responsibilities as described in Section of FEMA P695. Additionally, The the Quality Rating selections required by Sections through of this criteria shall have been specifically approved by the Peer Review Panel and by ICC-ES. 5.2 Quality Control for the Manufacturing Facilities: The products shall be manufactured under an approved quality control program with inspections by ICC-ES or by a properly accredited inspection agency that has a contractual relationship with ICC-ES.

24 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page Quality documentation complying with the ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Quality Documentation (AC10) shall be submitted to ICC-ES A qualifying inspection shall be conducted at each manufacturing facility in accordance with the ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Inspections and Inspection Agency (AC304). 5.3 Quality Control for Field Installations: Special inspections shall be in accordance with IBC Section , applicable provisions in IBC Chapter 17, and applicable inspection requirements described in Section of this criteria. Additional requirements for field inspections, and field testing, if required, shall be determined for each specific alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system. 6.0 EVALUATION REPORT RECOGNITION The evaluation report shall include the following information: 6.1 Product information as required in Section 2.1, including system description, design requirements and installation instructions, and product identification. As described in Section 1.2 of this criteria, at a minimum, the design provisions must include the following information: seismic design coefficients and factors (or seismic performance factors), structural system limitations, restrictions to certain Seismic Design Categories, limitations on structural height, required provisions for designing the system s components and connections, and detailing requirements. 6.2 Calculations and details for buildings constructed with the alternative SFRS seismic force-resisting system qualified under this criteria, justifying that the use of the products qualified under this criteria is in compliance with the applicable code and the ICC-ES

25 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page evaluation report, must be submitted to the code official for approval. The calculations and details must be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. 6.3 When the seismic coefficients and factors of the alternative SFRS seismic forceresisting system differ from those of other SFRSs seismic force-resisting systems installed in the same structure, structural design and construction must comply with IBC Section and ASCE/SEI 7 Sections through Quality control for field installations as described in Section 5.3 of this criteria. 333

26 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page Annex A Dual System Consisting of Steel Moment Frame(s) and Steel Braced Frame(s) A1 GENERAL A1.1 Purpose: The purpose of this annex is to prescribe seismic performance requirements in addition to the main body of this criteria and non-seismic structural performance requirements for the dual system addressed in Annex A. A1.2 Scope: This Annex applies to a dual system consisting of steel moment frame(s) and steel braced frame(s) described in Section A2.1 of this Annex. Both the main body of this criteria and this Annex shall be satisfied in order to qualify the dual system. A1.3 Codes and Referenced Standards: 344 A1.3.1 AISC , Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American 345 Institute of Steel Construction. 346 A1.3.2 AISI S100-16, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel 347 Structural Members, American Iron and Steel Institute. 348 A1.3.3 AISI S240-15, North American Standard for Cold-formed Steel Structural Framing, American Iron and Steel Institute. A1.4 Definitions: In addition to definitions defined in the main body of this criteria, definitions described in AISC 360, AISI S100, and AISI S240 are applicable to this Annex. A2 SYSTEM INFORMATION: A2.1 System Description: This Annex addresses a proprietary system that consists of, for a one-bay system, a factory-fabricated cold-formed steel (CFS) wall panel, two factory-

27 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page fabricated hollow structural section (HSS) columns with one column located at each end of the CFS wall panel, and field-bolted connections between the CFS wall panel and the HSS columns. A multi-bay system include a HSS column at each end of the system, a HSS column between two adjacent CFS wall panels, and field-bolted connections between the CFS wall panel and the HSS columns. Each CFS wall panel is structural assembly, which consists of an integral steel truss at the top of the assembly. The CFS wall panels include the following three different configurations: Configuration 1 (unbraced wall panel): Each wall panel includes only an integral steel truss consisted of CFS members and joints, without any other steel structural members. Configuration 2 (unbraced wall panel): Full-story height structural assembly that includes, in addition to the integral steel truss, vertical steel studs suspended from the ends and intermediate joints of the integral truss, optional jamb studs at a door or similar opening, a horizontal steel bridging member at an intermediate height of the wall panel, a horizontal steel member at the bottom of the wall panel, and joints between the steel members within the wall panel. Where the wall panel includes a door or similar opening, the jamb studs shall be connected to the floor below for resisting only out-of-plane loads. All other studs shall be terminated at the horizontal bottom member, which shall not be connected to the floor below, except connections for resisting only out-of-plane loads are permitted. Configuration 3 (braced wall panel): In addition to the members and connections described for Configuration 2, each wall panel includes steel diagonal braces located between the bottom chord of the integral truss and the bottom horizontal steel member, and joints that include steel diagonal braces.

28 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page CFS wall panels of Configurations 1 and 2 are used to product a steel moment frame (SMF). CFS wall panels of Configuration 3 are used to produce a combined moment frame and braced frame (a Dual Frame). Within a SMF, the top chord and the bottom of the integral truss shall be field connected to the corresponding HSS column by a bolted connection. The connections at these bolts are the primary DEDMs of the SMF. Within a Dual Frame, the top chord and the bottom of the integral truss, and the bottom horizontal steel members shall be field connected to the corresponding HSS column by a bolted connection. The connections at these bolts are the primary DEDMs of the Dual Frame. For both SMF and Dual Frame, the total vertical reactions from the integral truss and all inplane horizontal forces shall be transferred through the primary DEDMs, and between HSS columns above to the HSS columns below. For CFS wall panels of Configurations 2 and 3, a gap between the bottom horizontal member and the top of the floor sheathing below shall be detailed such that truss vertical reactions and in-plane horizontal loads are not transferred though the horizontal bottom member to the floor slab, deck, or sheathing below. For a SMF, the initial energy dissipation shall occur at the primary DEDMs. Subsequent energy dissipation shall occur in supplemental DEDMS, which include flexural yielding of the HSS columns and column splices. For a Dual Frame, in addition to the primary DEDMs and supplemental DEDMs described for a SMF, supplemental DEDMs include buckling of steel diagonal braces, and post-buckling

29 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page behavior of the CFS members and connections in the braced panels, that are verified in accordance with Sections A4.3 and A4.4 of this Annex. A2.2 Materials: Materials for members and connections of the dual system shall comply with the applicable material specifications specified in AISC 341, AISC 360, AISI S100, AISI S240 and AISI S400, except that the bolts used in HSS column splices shall comply with manufacturer s product specifications. A3 NON-SEISMIC STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS A3.1 General: The structural design of the dual system for resisting non-seismic load combinations shall comply with Section A3 of this Annex. A3.2 Members and Connections Within the Dual System: The members and connections within the dual system shall be designed in accordance with the applicable provisions of AISC 360, AISI S100, and AISI S240, except HSS column splices shall be designed per Section A3.3 of this Annex. A3.3 HSS Column Splices: HSS column splices shall be designed in accordance with the ICC-ES evaluation report applicant proposed design procedures that are established and confirmed by testing required by the main body of this criteria and Section A4 of this Annex. A3.4 Connections Between the Dual System and Supporting/Supported Framing: Connections between the dual system and the remainder of the structure shall be designed in accordance with the applicable code provisions, such as IBC, ACI 318, AISC 360, AISI S100 and AISI S240, unless the supporting/supported framing consists of materials that are not prescribed in the applicable code, or the connectors do not comply with one of the material

30 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page standards prescribed in the applicable code, in which case connections between the dual system and the remainder of the structure is not within the scope of this criteria or Annex, and shall be addressed by a project-specific design prepared by a registered design professional and subjected to approval of the code official. A4 ADDITIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS A4.1 General: In addition to the requirements of the main body of this criteria, the requirements of Annex A4 shall be satisfied. A4.2 Primary DEDMs: The connections between the CFS wall panels and the HSS columns are the primary DEDMs of the SFRS, and shall be tested in accordance with Section of the main body of the criteria to establish the post-yield behavior, including the peak resistance (or strength) and associated displacement, and the peak displacement and the associated resistance (or strength). The peak displacement of the test specimen corresponds to a displacement that causes failure of the connection or a displacement associated with the maximum structural deformation used in the nonlinear analysis required by Section 3.4 of the main body of the criteria. A4.3 Supplemental DEDMs: Supplemental DEDMs are identified in Section A2.1 of this Annex. The performance characteristics of HSS column splices shall be derived through testing in accordance with Section of the main body of the criteria. The performance characteristics of HSS column splices shall include all applicable strength and deformation values, including maximum flexural rotation at the splice under simultaneously applied both

31 QUALIFICATION OF BUILDING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF Page axial tension and axial compression loads, respectively, with the exception that the testing may terminated at a rotation associated with the maximum structural deformation used in the nonlinear analysis required by Section 3.4 of the main body of the criteria. The performance characteristics of other DEDMs shall be derived from testing per Section of the main body of the criteria or other supporting evidence in accordance with Section of the main body of the criteria, as applicable. A4.4 Assembly Tests: Testing on full-scale, one-story SFRSs as required by Section of the main body of the criteria shall include the SMFs and Dual Frames, as described in Section A2.1 of this Annex. The assembly tests shall provide information to confirm performance characteristics of the DEDMs, and to validate design procedures such that premature failure of members and connections that are not intended to fracture, yield, or buckle prior to substantial yield of the DEDMs do not occur. The main diagonal braces in braced panels are intended to buckle prior to reaching the maximum deformation capacity of the primary DEDMs. The diagonal brace buckling shall be considered acceptable performance if it occurs within the range of deformations predicted by the nonlinear analysis. The post-buckling behavior of the CFS members and connections in the braced panels, which is considered a supplemental DEDM, shall be corroborated by the assembly tests and non-linear analysis. A4.5 Specific Design Requirements Related to Diaphragm Behavior: Lateral forces shall be distributed to each line of the lateral force-resistance system in a story under consideration based on relative lateral stiffness of the lateral force-resistance system SFRS and the diaphragm. For dual systems supporting flexible diaphragms, each line of the lateral